Беседа 23

2 Corinthians 11:1. Oh, if only you would be somewhat lenient towards my folly! But you also condescend to me. Why does Paul talk about himself in different ways? – Why is covetousness called the root of all evil? 1. Intending to speak in praise of himself, (the apostle) uses many reservations. And he misspoke more than once or twice, although he was sufficiently justified by both the very necessity of the matter and what he had said many times before. In fact, both the fact that he remembered his sins, which God did not remember, and the fact that for them he called himself unworthy even of the title of apostle, made it obvious to the most insensitive that he would not say what he now intended to say to glorify himself. Praising himself, although it is strange to say, would most of all damage his glory, moreover, it is offensive to many. And yet, he did not look at anything, but had only one thing in mind - the salvation of his listeners. So, so that, while praising himself, he would not tempt the unreasonable, he often used many such reservations, and here he says: “Oh, if only you were somewhat lenient towards my foolishness! But you also condescend to me” (“Oh, yes, you didn’t tolerate me much, but you will also be patient”). Do you see his prudence? To say: “oh, if only you were a few” (“oh yes quickly”) means leaving the matter to their will; and to say affirmatively “condescend” (“be patient”) is characteristic of someone who firmly hopes for their love, and already shows that he loves them, and is mutually loved by them. And not just out of any ordinary love, but out of the most ardent and uncontrollable love: he says that they must tolerate even his recklessness. That’s why he added: “For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God” (“I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God”) (2 Cor. 11:2). He didn’t say “I love you,” but he used a much stronger (expression). Jealous are those souls that burn intensely for those they love; and jealousy can only be born from strong love. Moreover, so that they would not think that he was seeking their love for power, or honor, or money, or anything like that, he added: “With God’s zeal.” And jealousy is attributed to God not so that you imagine some kind of passion in God (the Divinity is impassive); but so that everyone knows that God does everything not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of those for whom He is jealous, and not in order to receive any profit for himself, but in order to save them. This is not human jealousy; it aims at its own reassurance, not so that the loved ones will not be offended, but so that those who love do not suffer anything, and do not lose respect, or do not humiliate themselves in the eyes of their loved ones. It's different here. “I am not concerned about this,” says (the apostle), “so that I will not be humbled in your opinion, but so that I will not see you corrupted (by false teachers). Such is the zeal of God, such is my zeal - it is strong, and at the same time pure.” Then follows the necessary reason for this: “because I have betrothed you to one husband in order to present you to Christ as a pure virgin” (“I have betrothed you to one husband a pure virgin”) - “Therefore I am jealous not for myself, but for the One to whom I have betrothed you.” The present time is the time of betrothal, and the time of the bridal chamber is different, that is, when they say: “The bridegroom has risen.” What news! In the world, virgins usually exist only before marriage, and after marriage they are no longer virgins. But this is not the case here. Even though they were not virgins before marriage, they become virgins after marriage. Thus, the whole Church is a virgin, because (the apostle) says this to everyone - both married and married. Let's see what he brought when he betrothed us, what gifts? Not gold or silver, but the kingdom of heaven. That’s why he said: “So we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ” (“we are ambassadors in Christ”) (2 Cor. 5:20). And he prays when he wants to take a bride. The image of this was what happened to Abraham. And he also sent a faithful slave to betroth a pagan maiden. And here God sent His servants to betroth the church to His Son, and first sent prophets who said: “Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget your people and your father’s house. And the King will desire your beauty” (“hear, daughter, and see... and your people and your father’s house will forget, and the king will desire your kindness”) (Ps. 45:11-12). Do you see the betrothal prophet? Do you see the apostle repeating the same thing with great boldness and saying: “because I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you to Christ as a pure virgin” (“I have betrothed you to one husband to present a pure virgin to Christ”)? Do you notice again the prudence (of the apostle)? Having said: “you must come down to me,” he did not add: “because I am your teacher,” or: “I am speaking for my own sake”; but he used an expression that did them special honor, introducing himself as a bridegroom, and them as a bride. And then he says: “But I fear that, just as the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning, so your minds may be corrupted by straying from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Although destruction threatens you personally, sorrow is common.” Look - what prudence here! He did not say this openly, although they were already truly corrupt, as can be seen from the words: “when your obedience is fulfilled” (“when your obedience is fulfilled”), also: “so that I will not mourn for many who have sinned” (“I will mourn many who have sinned before”) (2 Cor. 10:6, 12:21); Meanwhile, he does not allow them to remain bitter. That’s why he says: “so as not” (“yes not how”). And he does not condemn, and does not remain silent, since both of them - to say it clearly and to hide it completely - are equally unsafe. That is why he observes the middle, saying: “so that not” (“yes not how”). This is exactly what it is like to say to someone who neither judges too much nor trusts too much, but keeps a middle ground between both. With these words he thus reassured them; the historical reminder (of Eve) brought them into unspeakable fear and took away from them any reason to apologize. After all, although the serpent was evil, and Eve was foolish, nothing saved the wife (from accusation). 2. “So, take care,” says (the apostle), “do not be subjected to the same thing: then nothing will protect you. And the serpent deceived him because he promised a lot.” From this it is clear that the false teachers, boasting and puffed up, deceived (the Corinthians). This can be concluded not only from here, but also from further words: “For if someone came and began to preach another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not accept, then you would be very forgiving” (“if the one who comes preaches another Jesus, whom he did not preach, or you receive another spirit, whom you did not preach.” received, or received another gospel, it was better to endure” (2 Cor. 11:4) He does not say: “lest you be deceived, like Adam”; but he shows that they, like women, were subject to deception, because it is common for women to be deceived. And he did not say: “so are you also deceived”; have been damaged by straying from simplicity in Christ” (“let not your minds be corrupted by the simplicity that is in Christ”). “From simplicity,” I say, “and not from guile; not from malice, not from your unbelief, but from simplicity.” However, even in this case, those who are deceived do not deserve an apology, as the example of Eve showed. If this (seduction) does not deserve an apology, then much less who falls into seduction out of vanity. “For if someone had come, he began to preach another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (“For if he who came preaches another Christ, whom he did not preach.”) From this it is clear that the Corinthians were not themselves the cause of their corruption, but that strangers deceived them. That is why he says: “he who is coming” (“he who is coming”). “Or if you had received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not accept, then you would have been very lenient with it” (then your leniency would be appropriate) (“If you receive another spirit, or another gospel you did not accept, you would sooner suffer.”) What are you saying? Galatians said: “Whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you received, let him be accursed.” ("If anyone preaches more good news to you, let him be accursed") (Gal. 1:9); That is precisely why you yourself should not endure, but run away. If they said the same thing (as you), you would have to be patient. How do you say: “when they say the same thing, one should not tolerate it”? And if they said otherwise, would you have to endure it? Let us delve into (the words of the apostle). Before us is a great danger and a deep abyss: if we leave it without investigation, then what has been said above will open the entrance to all heresies. So, what is the idea behind these words? False teachers boasted that the apostles taught imperfectly, but they, on the contrary, brought something more. Probably, they, talking idle about many things, made meaningless additions to the dogmas (of faith). That is why (the apostle) mentioned both the serpent and Eve, who was deceived by the desire for more. He hinted at this in his first letter, saying: “you have already become rich, you have begun to reign without us” (“behold, you have become rich, and without us you have reigned”) (1 Cor. 4:8), and again: “We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ” (“we are for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ”) (1 Cor. 4:10). And since they, using external wisdom, probably talked a lot of idle talk, then (the apostle) says: “If they had said something unnecessary, and preached another Christ, whom should not be preached, and we kept silent, “you would have been very lenient” (“you would have suffered more quickly”). With this intention, he added: “which we did not preach” (“whom we did not preach”). And if they have the same grounds of faith, what is the advantage? “No matter how much they talk, they will not say more than what we have already said.” And look with what precision he speaks about this. He did not say: “If he who came would say something more than we,” because (the false teachers) spoke something more, with more power and with more beauty in words. That’s why he didn’t say that, but what (is he saying)? “If someone came and began to preach another Jesus” (“he who is coming is preaching another Jesus”) - for which there was no need for a beautiful set of words, - “or if you received another Spirit” ( “or you receive another spirit”) - that is, enriches you with great gifts of grace, for which there was also no need for beautiful words - “or another gospel that you did not receive” ( “or gospel otherwise, if you didn’t accept it”) - which also didn’t require grace of words - “you would be very lenient towards that” (“you would have tolerated it better”). Look, what a strict distinction is observed everywhere, from which it is clearly seen that they did not say anything superfluous or more (before the apostles). Having said: “For if someone came and began to preach another Jesus” (“if the one who comes preaches another Jesus”), he added: “whom we did not preach” (“whom we did not preach”); and to the words: “or if you received another Spirit” (“or receive another spirit”), he added: “whom you did not receive” (“whom you did not receive”); also having said: “or another gospel” (“or another gospel”), he added: “which they did not receive” (“they did not receive”) And to all this he shows that: “We must look not just at whether they said something more, but at whether they said something more that should have been said, but we omitted it. and do you listen to them? 3. But you say: “If they say the same thing, why do you forbid them to say it?” Because, hiding behind hypocrisy, they introduce another teaching. However, he does not yet say this, but expresses it later when he says that they will be transformed into apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:13). Now he uses the easiest methods to weaken the students’ respect for them, and does this not out of envy of them, but for the safety of the students. Otherwise, why does he not forbid Apollos, an eloquent and knowledgeable man in the Scriptures, but, on the contrary, even asks and promises to send him? Of course, because (Apollos) with his knowledge also preserved the correctness of his dogmas; and those (Corinthian teachers) are the opposite. Therefore (the apostle) arms himself against them, and reproaches the disciples for listening to them with surprise, saying: “If we omitted something that should have been said, and they added it, then we do not prevent you from listening to them; if everything has been done by us and nothing has been omitted, then what attracts you to them?” Therefore, he further says: “But I think that I have nothing lacking against the highest Apostles” (“for the apostles who were before them shall not lose anything”) (2 Cor. 11:5), comparing himself not with them (the Corinthian teachers), but with Peter and the others (the apostles). “Thus, if,” he says, “they know more than me, then they (the highest apostles) know more.” Look at the modesty here too. He didn’t say, “the apostles said no more than I,” but how? “Neptuya”, i.e., “I think that I am in no way behind the highest apostles.” Since, probably, it was a humiliation for (Paul) that those who preceded him in time (the apostles) had a louder name and greater glory before him, and (the Corinthian false teachers) decided to equate themselves with them, then he compares himself (with the apostles) in a manner befitting him; That’s why he speaks of them with praise, not just calling them apostles, but “higher” (“foremost”), meaning Peter, James and John. “Although I am ignorant in speech, yet not in knowledge” (“Even though I am ignorant in speech, yet not in understanding”) (2 Cor. 11:6). Since the corrupters of the Corinthians were proud that they were not unlearned people, he mentions this too, showing that he is not only not ashamed of his ignorance, but also boasts of it. However, he did not say: “If I am ignorant in words, then so are the others (the apostles),” because this would have seemed like a reproach to the apostles and praise to the false teachers. On the contrary, it destroys the very advantage - that is, external wisdom. In the same way, in the first letter he will strongly attack it, saying that it not only does not contribute to the (evangelical) preaching, but also darkens the glory of the cross. "I came... brethren,” he says, “not in the excellence of speech or wisdom” (“I did not come because of excellent speech or wisdom”), to you, “lest the cross of Christ be made void” (“let not the cross of Christ be made void”), and much more like that (1 Cor. 2:1, 1:17), which shows that (the false teachers) were ignorant of knowledge, and that this is the extreme degree ignorance. So, when it was necessary to compare in important things, he compares himself with the apostles; and when (it was necessary) to show that the deficiency is only imaginary, he does not make a comparison, but pays attention to the matter itself and shows its superiority. And when there was no need to praise himself, he calls himself the least of the apostles, and even unworthy of the name (apostolic) (1 Cor. 5:9); and here, when circumstances demanded it, he says that he is no less than the highest apostles, because he knew that this would be especially useful for the disciples. That is why he further says: “we are completely known to you in everything” (“but in everything we are manifest to you in all”). And here again he denounces the false apostles that they act deceitfully. But he also said about himself before that he was not a hypocrite, preached the word (of God) without deception and disinterestedly. The false apostles were different in reality, and they showed themselves to be different; but he is not like that. That is why he boasts everywhere that he does nothing for human glory and does not hide his deeds. So before he said: “by revealing the truth, we present ourselves to the conscience of every man” (“we present ourselves with the manifestation of the truth in every conscience of mankind”) (2 Cor. 4:2), and now he says: “we are completely known to you in everything” (“we are revealed to you in everything”). What does this mean? “We are ignorant,” he says, “and we don’t hide it; we take from some, and we don’t keep silent about it. So we also benefit from you, and do not pretend that we do not benefit from anything, as those who benefit from you do; on the contrary, we do everything openly before you.” And only one who completely relied on them (the Corinthians) and kept the truth in all his words could speak like this. That is why he refers to them as witnesses - both now, when he says: “in everything to you”, and before, when he said: “We write to you nothing other than what you read or understand” (“We write to you nothing other than what you read and understand”) (2 Cor. 1:13). Having defended himself in this way, (the apostle) then begins to speak much more forcefully: “Have I sinned by humiliating myself in order to exalt you?” ("or I will commit sin to humble myself, so that you may be exalted") (2 Cor. 11:7). And explaining this, he continues: “I caused costs to other churches, receiving from them support for serving you” (“from other churches I accepted a rent for your service”) (2 Cor. 11:8). The meaning of these words is: “I lived with you in extreme poverty”; this exactly means “humble oneself.” “So, is this what you blame me for? And is this why you are proud of me because I humbled myself among you, begged for alms, endured poverty and hunger, in order to exalt you?” How did they rise when he was in extremes? So that they received more edification, rather than a reason for temptation. Meanwhile, what could especially serve to accuse them and expose their weakness is that (the apostle) could not lead them (to perfection) otherwise than by first humbling himself. “So, do you blame me for this, that I humbled myself? But through this you have risen." Since he had previously said that they had slandered him, as if he was humble when meeting in person, but bold in his absence, now, defending himself, he again amazes them, saying: “I did this for you”: “I caused costs to other churches” (“from other churches uyah”). This is where the reproaches begin; however, what has been said before makes them bearable. He said: “if only you were somewhat lenient with my foolishness” (“have little patience with my madness”). And before his other merits, firstly, he boasts of this (contempt for earthly goods). Worldly people seek this most; The opponents (the Pavlovs) also boasted about this. Therefore, he begins his speech not with dangers, nor with miracles, but with contempt for earthly goods, since the (false teachers) were especially proud of this; and at the same time, he imperceptibly accuses them of covetousness. 4. But it is worthy of surprise that (the apostle), although he could say that he earned his own food with his own hands, did not say this, but says what especially shamed them (the Corinthians), and even he did not serve to praise, namely, what he received from others. And he didn’t say: I received, but “caused expenses” (“uyah”), i.e., “I took the last and made them poor.” And more importantly, he took it not for excess, but to satisfy necessary needs. The word “content” (“rent”) means precisely: “necessary for food.” And the most important thing is “to serve you” (“to your service”), i.e., “we preached to you, and when I should have received food from you, I received it from others.” The accusation is double, or even triple, since, while being with them, and serving them, and having the need for the necessary maintenance, he received it, however, from others. These others thus had a great advantage over them. They remained carefree, and they showed zealous care, sending him from afar, while they could not saturate him when he was with them. But having thus strictly reproached them, (the apostle) again imperceptibly softens the reproach, and says: “while I was with you, although I suffered from lack, I did not bother anyone” (“I came to you, and was in poverty, not a single one”). He didn’t say, “You didn’t give it to me,” but, “I didn’t take it.” He still spares them. However, even when he softens his speech, he again imperceptibly strikes them. The words “being with you” (“coming”) and “suffering lack” (“being in poverty”) are very expressive. So that they would not say: “What should we have done when you had it with us?”, he added: “although I suffered a shortage, I did not bother anyone” (“and I was in poverty, but you were not cold”). Here again he slightly reproaches them for the fact that they slowly, and as if reluctantly, made such benefits. Following this, he shows the very reason, which is very reproachful for them, and at the same time encourages them to compete. That is why he presented this reason not directly, but as if explaining where and from whom he received food, so that, without arousing any suspicion in them, he would again encourage them to give alms. “For my lack,” he says, “was filled by the brethren who came from Macedonia” (“For the brethren who came from Macedonia filled my poverty”) (2 Cor. 11:9). Do you see what a sensitive blow he deals to them again by presenting those who served him? First, he aroused (in the Corinthians) a desire to find out who they were, saying: “I caused costs to other churches” (“from other churches uyah”), then he names them. And this encouraged them to give alms. He urges those who have humiliated themselves by not feeding the apostle to at least not humiliate themselves in providing assistance to the poor. He wrote about this to the Macedonians themselves, saying: “for my needs they sent me once and twice at the beginning of the gospel” (Phil. 4:15-16), which served them as the greatest praise, because at the very beginning they distinguished themselves in such a way. But notice that (the apostle) everywhere exposes his need, and nowhere does he speak of abundance. With the words “being with you” (“coming”) and “suffering lack” (“being in poverty”), he showed that he should have received food from the Corinthians; and with the words “my deficiency was filled” (“my poverty fulfilled”) he shows that he did not demand this, explaining at the same time the reason for this, although not the real one. Which one? The one I received from others. “My lack,” he says, “was filled by those who came” (“For my poverty was fulfilled by those who came”). “Because,” he says, “I didn’t bother anyone,” and not because I didn’t rely on you.” But in fact, he did so for the last reason, as he shows further, although he does not speak about it directly, but covertly, leaving it to the conscience of the listeners to guess, and imperceptibly pointing out this with the following words: “and in everything I tried and will try not to be a burden to you” (“and in everything I have observed and will observe without hesitation”). "Don't think I said this with the intention of getting anything from you." The word “I will try” (“I will observe”) indicates even more strongly that he not only now does not rely on them, but has once and for all refused to take anything from them. At the same time, it also shows that they considered it burdensome for themselves to help him, which is why they said: “I tried in everything and will try not to be a burden to you” (“I have observed and will observe without hesitation”). He says the same thing in his first letter: “I didn’t write this so that it would be like this for me. For it is better for me to die than for someone to destroy my praise” (“I have not written that this will be done about me: for it is better for me to die than for someone to destroy my praise”) (1 Cor. 9:15). And here again: “I tried and will try not to be a burden to you” (“I have and will observe it without bothering you”). Then, so that they do not think that he is saying this to gain greater favor from them, he adds: “according to the truth of Christ in me” (“there is the truth of Christ in me”) (2 Cor. 11:10). “Do not think that I said this with the intention of gaining or attracting you to me. “According to the truth,” he says, “of Christ in me, I will say that this praise will not be taken away from me in the countries of Achaia.” (“There is the truth of Christ in me, for this praise will not be withheld in the countries of Achaia.”) So that again someone does not think that he is sad about this, or says so in anger, he calls his act praise. Similarly, in the first epistle - and there he says not as an insult to them: “What is my reward for? For the fact that, preaching the Gospel, I preach the gospel of Christ freely" ("What reward is there for me? Let me preach the gospel without reward") (1 Cor. 9:18). And just as in the first letter he calls it a reward, so here he calls it praise, so as not to shame them too much with his words, as if they did not provide (him with food), although he asked. “Well,” he says, “you would be ready to give; but I don’t take it.” The words “will not be taken away” (“will not be blocked”) are used in a figurative sense: they are taken from a (blocked) river, and mean that the glory of him, that he does not take, flows everywhere (like a river): “You will not block my freedom with your alms.” However, he did not say: “You will not take it away” (barrage), which would have been more difficult for them, but: “It will not be taken away from me in the countries of Achaia” (“It will not be barred in the countries of Achaia”). And this again could have struck them terribly, and was quite enough to plunge them into despondency and sadness - that is, that he was the only one rejecting them. Indeed, if he boasts of this, then he should boast everywhere; and if you alone boast, it may be because of your weakness. So, so that they do not fall into despondency from such a thought, see how he softens what he said. “Why am I doing this? Is it because I don’t love you? God knows!” (“Why? Do I not love you? God knows”) (2 Cor. 11:11). He quickly and easily gave a solution. However, this did not free them from guilt. He didn’t say: “you are not weak, you are strong”; but - “I love you”; and this increased their guilt most of all. Because of his great love for them, he did not take anything from them, because they were very offended by this. 5. So, out of one and the same love, he performed opposite deeds - that is, he both accepted and did not accept, and this opposition depended on the different disposition of the givers. And he didn’t say: “I don’t take it because I love you very much,” because that would have accused them of weakness and cast doubt on them, but he presented another reason. Which one? “In order not to give a reason to those who are looking for a reason, so that in what they boast, they will turn out to be the same as we are” (“Let me cut off the guilt of those who want guilt, so that they may boast about it, just as we do.”) (2 Cor. 11:12). Since (the false apostles) were only concerned about finding some excuse, then it was necessary to take it away. And they only boasted about this. (unselfishness). So, so that they had nothing to boast about, the apostle also had to prove in practice (his unselfishness), since in everything else they were inferior. And, as I have already said, nothing serves better than not taking anything from them. Therefore, the evil devil threw them this very bait, wanting to harm them in another way. However, it seems to me that this too (in the false apostles) was a matter of hypocrisy. Therefore (the apostle) did not say: “how they differed”; but what does he say? “what they boast about” (“about whom they boast”). With these words he ridiculed their vanity, because they only boasted, but in reality they were not like that. A noble-minded person should not boast not only about what he does not have, but also about what he does have. This is what this blessed one (apostle) did; so is the patriarch Abraham, who says: “I am dust and ashes” (“I am earth and ashes”) (Gen. 18:27). Since he had no sins that he could talk about, but shone with virtues, then, having examined everything and not finding any important pretext for exposing himself, he turned to his nature. And since the word “dust” (“earth”) is still respectable in some respects, I added the word “ashes”. That’s why someone else said: “Why are the earth and ashes proud?” ("Why are the earth and ashes proud?") (Sir.10:9). Don’t tell me about the complexion, or the elongated neck, or the clothes, or the horse, or the retinue, but think about it and tell me: how does it all end? If you point to external appearances, then I will show you the same in pictures, and in a much more brilliant form. But just as we are not surprised by what is depicted (in the paintings), knowing that all this is essentially dirt, there is no reason to be surprised at this. Verily, this too is dirt, even before it collapses and turns to dust. Show me this elongated (neck) when a person suffers from a fever and is at his last breath; Then I will talk with you and ask: what happened to this great beauty, where did the many flatterers and obliging slaves, the abundance of wealth and acquisitions go? What wind found and scattered all this? But you will say that he, even lying on his bed, has with him the signs of wealth and nobility, is clothed in magnificent clothes, surrounded by the poor and the rich, and is glorified by the people. But this is just laughter; in addition, all this will immediately, like a flower, fall off and dissipate. As soon as we leave the gates of the city, and, having given up our bodies to worms, return, where, I ask you again, is this large crowd going? Where is the old scream and noise? Where are the lamps? Where are the women's faces? Isn't this all a dream? What did these screams mean? Where are those countless voices that shouted and convinced (the deceased) not to be afraid, because there is no death? It was not now that he should have been told about this, not now that he no longer hears, but at the time when he was kidnapping and indulging in covetousness - then he should have been told, slightly changing the words: do not hope too much, no one is immortal on earth, refrain from your madness, quench lust, do not rely on unrighteousness (acquisitiveness). Now telling him about this is characteristic not of a well-wisher, but of a scoffer, because this will make him not hope, but fear and tremble. But if this is useless for someone who has already left the field, then at least let those of the rich who are sick with the same disease and accompany the coffin hear it. They, being intoxicated with wealth, had not imagined anything like this before, but now, when the very sight of what lies before them assures them of the truth of our words, let them come to their senses and learn that after some time they too will be brought to a terrible account in order to accept punishment for everything that they stole and unjustly acquired.” “But what,” you say, “does this have to do with the poor?” For many, it is also very pleasant when they see the oppressor punished. “But for us,” you say, “this is unpleasant, but (it’s nice) not to suffer evil.” I highly praise and approve of you for not rejoicing in the misfortunes of others, but for taking care of your own safety. Okay – I promise you safety too. When we suffer insult from people, we thereby reduce not a small part of our debt, if only we endure it generously. So, in this case, we do not tolerate any offense. God credits us with the patience of sorrows as payment of a debt, not because it is necessary, but out of His mercy. Therefore, even in ancient times He himself did not (always) take revenge for those who suffered evil. You say: “How do you know this?” The Jews once suffered from the Babylonians, and God did not prevent this; on the contrary, both children and women were taken captive. But later this captivity, as they suffered for their sins, served as a consolation for the Jews. Therefore God spoke to Isaiah: “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God; speak to the heart of Jerusalem... for he has received from the hand of the Lord double for all his sins” (“Comfort, comfort, my people..., priests, say in the heart of Jerusalem... that he has received from the hand of the Lord the abundance of his sins”) (Is. 40:1-2); and again: “You give us peace; for You also arrange all our affairs for us” (“Give us peace, for You have rewarded us with everything”) (Is. 26:12). And David says: “Look at my enemies, how many they are, and forgive all my sins” (“see my enemies how they have multiplied, and forgive all my sins”) (Ps. 24:18–19). And when Shimei cursed him, he endured it, saying: Leave him, so that the Lord will see my humility and reward me for this day (2 Samuel 16:12). When (the Lord) does not take revenge for the insults inflicted on us, then we especially benefit, because He credits it to us if we endure it with gratitude. 6. Therefore, when you see a rich man robbing a poor man, leave the one who is offended, and weep for the robber. The first is cleansed of filth, and the second is even more defiled. This is what happened to the boy Elisha for Naaman. Although he did not steal, he took it by deception - there was the same offense. What happened? Along with untruth, he also received leprosy. The one who was offended received the benefit, and the one who offended suffered the greatest harm. The same thing happens today with the soul. And the patience of insults has such power that often it alone appeased God. Even if the one who suffers injustice is unworthy of (God’s) help, if he suffers excessively, then this alone inclines God to forgive him and punish the offender. That is why God once said to the pagans: “I betrayed them for a little, they strengthened evil” (“they are heaps of evil”) (Zech. 1:15), and for this they will suffer the greatest disasters.” Nothing, nothing angers God more than robbery, violence and extortion. Why? Because it is very easy to refrain from this sin. It does not come from natural, compelling lust, but from carelessness. How does the apostle call this sin the root of evil? And I say the same. But this root comes from us, and not from the properties of things. If you like, let's make a comparison and see which lust is more violent - the lust of the love of money, or the lust of the flesh? Whichever of them turns out to be so strong that it can defeat great people, that one will be heavier. So, let's see which of the great people was overcome by the lust of the love of money? No one, but only insignificant and outcast people - Gehazi, Ahab, Judah and the priests of the Jews. Meanwhile, carnal lust also defeated the great prophet David. I say this not to excuse those captured by carnal lust; on the contrary, to further encourage them to be vigilant. When I prove how strong this passion is, I at the same time show that they especially will not have any excuse. Indeed, if you did not know this beast, then you could resort (to the excuse of this ignorance). Now that you know and fall for him, you can no longer have any excuse. After David, his son was even more possessed (by the same passion). And although there was no man wiser than him, although he had all the other virtues, he was so cruelly captivated by this passion that he even received a mortal wound. His father rebelled, again won the victory, and again received the crown; but this one showed nothing of the kind. That’s why Paul says: “it is better to get married than to get hot” (“it is better to get married than to get hot”) (1 Cor. 7:9). And Christ said: “Whoever is able to contain, let him contain” (“he who is able to contain, let him contain”) (Matthew 19:12). He didn’t say that about wealth, but: “whoever leaves houses... or lands for My name’s sake will receive a hundredfold” (“whoever leaves his possessions will receive a hundredfold”) (Matthew 19:29). “How,” you ask, “is it said about the rich that they will hardly reach the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23)?” With these words, Christ again points to their cowardice, not to the tyranny of the love of money, but to their excessive servility. This can be seen from Paul's advice. He distracts from the passion for wealth by saying: “But those who want to get rich fall into temptation” (“but those who want to get rich fall into adversity”) (1 Tim. 6:9); in relation to carnal lust he does not do this, but, having separated only for a while, and then by agreement, he advises to come together again. He feared that the waves of lust would cause a terrible shipwreck (1 Cor. 7:5). This passion is stronger than even anger. It is impossible to be angry when no one is annoying. And carnal lust is boring, even if there is no face to excite it. That is why (Christ) did not completely forbid anger, but only anger “in vain” (Matthew 5:22); Likewise, he did not reject carnal lust itself (the apostle), but only illegal lust. “Because of lust,” he says, “let each one have his own wife” (1 Cor. 7:2). On the contrary, it is not permissible to collect treasures either in vain or not in vain. Those passions are instilled in us out of necessity. Carnal lust is for procreation, and anger is for helping those who are offended. But the passion of love of money is good for nothing, therefore it is not innate. Therefore, if you are captivated by her, the more inglorious it will be for you. That is why Paul, allowing a second marriage, demands strict precision in moving away from the love of money, saying: “Why would it be better for you not to remain offended? Why would you rather not endure hardship?” ("Why are you no more offended? Why are you no more deprived") (1 Cor. 6:7). Speaking about virginity, he says: “I have not the commandment of the Lord” (“I am not an imam of the Lord’s commandment”), and: “I say this for your own benefit, not to put bonds on you” (“I say for your benefit, not that I will force you”) (1 Cor. 7:25, 35), and when he talks about wealth, he says: “Having food and clothing, we will be content with that” ( “having food and clothing, we will be content with these” (1 Tim. 6:8). “Why,” you ask, “are many more caught up in this passion?” Because they are not so much wary of it as of debauchery and fornication. If covetousness seemed equally terrible to them, they would not be so easily caught by it. Likewise, the holy fools were expelled from the bridal chamber for the reason that, having overthrown the strongest enemy, the weakest and most insignificant were overthrown. Moreover, it must be said that if someone, overcoming carnal lust, is overcome by the passion of love of money, then he often does not restrain himself from carnal lust, unless he already has such a property by nature that he is not greatly indignant at this passion. After all, not everyone is inclined to it. So, knowing this and constantly having before our eyes the example of holy fools, let us flee this fierce beast. If virginity did not bring any benefit, on the contrary, after countless labors and exploits (foolish virgins) died from the love of money, then who will deliver us when we fall into this passion? Therefore, I beg you to make every effort not to be captivated by this passion, and, once captured, not to remain in it, but rather to break these heavy shackles. By doing this, we will be able to reach heaven and receive countless benefits, which we all will be worthy of through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: