Беседа 3

2Cor.1:12. For this praise of ours is a testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and God-pleasing sincerity, not by carnal wisdom, but by the grace of God, we lived in peace. The comfort that comes from a clear conscience. - The immutability of God's promises. – Faith and virtue of Abraham. - His hardness. 1. Here (the apostle) reveals to us another, not only important, but on the contrary, a very important means of consolation, which can encourage a soul drowned by disasters. Since he said: “God... delivered us” (“he delivered us”), and attributed the whole matter to the generosity of God and the prayers of the Corinthians, so as not to make his listeners careless through this, if they place their trust only in the mercy of God and the prayers of others, he further shows that they themselves (the apostles) did a lot on their part. (The apostle) indicated such participation above when he said: “For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, our consolation also abounds through Christ” (“as the sufferings of Christ abound..., our consolation also abounds”) (2 Cor. 1:5). But here he expresses another virtue of his. Which one? The one that: “We,” he says, “no matter where we lived, acted everywhere according to a clear and sincere conscience. And this serves a great deal to our peace and consolation, and not only to consolation, but also to something else, which is much more consoling—to praise.” This is what the apostle said to the believers, both in order to teach them not to lose heart in sorrows, but to rejoice if they only have a clear conscience, and, in part, also in order to expose the false apostles before them. And as in the first letter he said: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void” (“Christ sent me... to preach the gospel not in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ be made void”) (1 Cor. 1:17), and: “so that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (“let your faith not depend on human wisdom, but it will be in the power of God”) (1 Cor. 2:5), so here he says: “not in wisdom, but by the grace of God.” In addition, with the word “not in wisdom” he also hints at something else, that is, not by deception and deception; and thus puts worldly teaching to shame. “Our praise,” he says, “is evidence of our conscience,” that is, when our conscience has no reason to condemn us as criminals persecuted for bad deeds. “Even though,” he says, “we suffered countless calamities, even if we were threatened from everywhere by attacks and dangers, for our consolation, and not only for consolation, but also for receiving a crown, one testimony of a clear conscience is enough - that we endure these calamities not for any crime, but for what is pleasing to God, for virtue, for true wisdom and for the salvation of many.” So, the first consolation (about which the apostle spoke above) came from God; and this (which he now speaks of) is from themselves, and was the fruit of their pure life. That is why he calls this consolation praise, because it was the fruit of their virtue. What is this praise and what does our conscience testify to us? “In simplicity and godly sincerity” (“As in simplicity and purity”) - i.e. that is, they did not do anything insidiously, or hypocritically, or feignedly, or out of flattery, or maliciously, or for deception and seduction, or for other similar motives; but they always acted with all freedom, simplicity, truth, in purity and kindness of heart, with an ingenuous soul, they had nothing that needed to be hidden, nothing shameful. “Not according to carnal wisdom” (“not in the wisdom of the flesh”), that is, without deceit and guile, without refined words and intricate reasoning - this is precisely what he calls carnal wisdom. So, what (the false apostles) were proud of, it is precisely he who rejects and despises, clearly showing by this that carnal wisdom is unworthy of praise, and that he himself not only does not seek it, but is also ashamed and disgusted. “But by the grace of God we lived in the world” (“but by the grace of God we lived in the world”). What does it mean: “by the grace of God”? This means - by the wisdom and power given to us from God, manifested in miracles and victory over sages, rhetoricians, philosophers, kings and nations, despite the fact that we are rude people and have not borrowed anything from worldly wisdom. And this was no less important consolation and praise - in the consciousness that they did not act by human strength, but accomplished everything by the grace of God. "In the world". This was the case not only in Corinth, but throughout the entire universe. “Especially with you” (“You are abundant”). What is “special about you”? - “We lived by the grace of God.” “With you,” he says, “we performed more miracles and signs, we observed greater caution and took care of an impeccable lifestyle.” (The Apostle) also calls this the grace of God, attributing his own exploits to it. There (in Corinth) he accomplished an extremely worthy feat when, sparing the weakness of the Corinthians, he preached the Gospel to them without any retribution from them. “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). Since (the apostle) expressed great praise to himself, and, apparently, testified only about himself, which could seem inconvenient, he again brings the Corinthians themselves as witnesses to what he said. “Let no one,” he says, “think that my words are self-praise, unjustified by deeds: I convey to you only what you yourself know, and that I do not lie, you must be witnesses to me before others. Reading our messages, you see that they say the same thing that you actually know about us, and that your testimony does not contradict our messages, on the contrary, what you previously knew about us is completely consistent with what you read about us in the messages.” “Just as you have already understood in part” (“Just as you also understand us in part”) (2 Cor. 1:14), i.e., “You do not know our deeds by hearing, but by experience itself.” The word “in part” (the apostle) used out of modesty. This is already his custom: as soon as he says something great about himself, as required by necessity (otherwise he does not do it), he immediately tries to soften the sublimity of his words. “I hope that you will understand completely” (“I hope that you will understand completely”) (2 Cor. 1:13). 2. You see how he bases hope for the future on the past - and not only on the past, but also on the power of God; not only expressed confidence, but placed everything on God and hope in Him. “We will be your praise, as you will be ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (“For we are your praise, just as you are ours in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”) (2 Cor. 1:14). Here (the apostle), presenting the Corinthians as participants and accomplices in the glory of his deeds, warns the envy that could be born in them from his previous words. “My praise,” he says, “does not belong to me alone, but goes from me to you, and reciprocally from you to me.” Since he exalted himself, pointing out his past deeds and promising the same in the future, so that his listeners do not think of reproaching him as an arrogant person and are not carried away, as I said, by feelings of envy, he shares his glory with them, appropriating for them this crown of praise. “If,” he says, “we really are like that, then our praise will be your glory, just as, on the contrary, when you have good fame, we rejoice, triumph and are crowned.” And here again the words (of the apostle) show his great humility - he speaks not as a teacher with his students, but as a student with equal students. So he moderates his speech! And see how he raises the Corinthians to the highest and accustoms them to wisdom, when he directs his thoughts to the great day of the Lord. “Don’t tell me,” he says, “about the present, that is, about the reproaches, insults, ridicule that we endure from many; earthly nothing is important - neither joy, nor sorrow, nor reproach, nor human praise; but remember that terrible and terrible day in which everything will be revealed. Then we will be glorified in you, and you in us, if it is revealed that you had such teachers who did not teach anything human, and, leading an immaculate life, did not give any reason for temptation; and we had students who did not act like ordinary people - they did not hesitate, but readily accepted everything and did not oppose anything. And now this is revealed to those who have the mind of Christ, and then it will be revealed to everyone. So, even if we are grieving now, we have no small consolation, both from a good conscience and from the revelation expected then. Now our conscience alone knows that we act in everything by the grace of God, just as you know this and will also know; and then all people will know both our and your deeds, and will see how we are glorified for each other.” Thus, so that (the Corinthians) do not think that all the glory from praise belongs to him alone, he presents them with an opportunity for praise, and thereby distracts (their attention) from real sorrows. And just as he did regarding consolation, saying: “we are comforted for your consolation” (“we are comforted by your consolation”), he does the same here, saying: “we boast in you, just as you boast in us,” thus making them participants in everything - in consolation, in suffering and in their very salvation, since this salvation also attributes to their prayers, when he says: “with the assistance of your prayer for us, ... God delivered us” ( “To those who also helped you through prayer... God delivered us.” In the same way he makes his praise common (with the Corinthians). As he said there: “knowing that you share both in our sufferings and in our consolation” (“knowing that as we are partakers of our passions, so also are our consolations”) (2 Cor. 1:7), so here he says: “we will be your praise, just as you will be ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. And in this confidence I intended to come to you earlier" ("we are your praise, as you are to us... And with this hope I wanted to come to you first") (2 Cor. 1:14-15). What kind of “confidence” is this? “This,” he says, “is that I hope for you, that you will be my praise, and I yours, that I love you from the heart, that I do not recognize anything bad in myself and am sure that everything is spiritual with you, and that you will be witnesses of this for us.” “I intended to come to you... and pass through you to Macedonia” (“I wanted to come to you... and pass through you to Macedonia”). But in the first letter (the apostle) made the opposite of this promise: “I will come to you,” he says, “when I pass through Macedonia; for I am going through Macedonia" ("I will come to you when I have passed through Macedonia: for I am passing through Macedonia") (1 Cor. 16:5). So why is he saying the opposite here? No, it's not disgusting. True, this contradicts what he wrote before, but does not contradict his desire. That is why he did not say here: “I wrote that you should go to Macedonia,” but: “I intended.” “Even if,” he says, “I wrote it wrong, I still tried and wanted to come to you; “to such an extent,” he says, “I didn’t want to come to you later than as promised, that I even wanted to come earlier.” “So that you may receive grace a second time” (“Yes, a second grace imathe”). What is “second grace”? That is, purely - one from the message, the other from presence. Here he calls joy “grace.” “And through you I will go to Macedonia, and from Macedonia I will come to you again; and you would take me to Judea. Having such an intention, did I act frivolously?” ("And you will go to Macedonia, and again from Macedonia will come to you, and you will be carried into Judea. But what about food for the ease of deeds?") (2 Cor. 1:16-17). 3. Here (the apostle) already directly removes the reproach from himself for slowing down and failing to fulfill his promise to come (to the Corinthians). The meaning of his words is: “I wanted to come to you. Why didn't you come? Is it not because of frivolity and inconstancy? (And this is the meaning of the words “Have I acted frivolously?” (“I eat what I have done lightly”). No. Why? Because “whatever I undertake, I do not do according to the flesh” (“Even though I deliberate, I do not deliberate according to the flesh”). What does it mean: “not according to the flesh”? Not as a carnal person. to her, and neither?”). But even this is not clear. “A carnal man,” he says, “that is, one who is chained only to the present, always living in the present and not under the influence of the Spirit of God, can go wherever he pleases; on the contrary, a servant of the Spirit of God, led and controlled by him, cannot always be the master of his will, depending on the power of the Spirit. The same thing happens to him as to a faithful servant who only carries out the orders of his master, and has no power over himself, and does not know rest even for a short time; he sometimes promises something to his comrades, but then does not fulfill his promise when it turns out to be contrary to the will of his master.” This is what the words (of the apostle) mean: “I undertake not according to the flesh” (“I do not take counsel according to the flesh”), that is: “I am under the control of the Spirit of God, and have no power to go where I want: I am subject to the authority and commands of the Comforter, and His voice guides and governs me. That is why I could not come to you; this did not please the Spirit of God. Similar things often happened, judging by the Acts of the Apostles ( Acts 16:6-9): when the apostles intended to go together, the Spirit commanded them to go to another place. “So that I did not come to you, despite my promise, this did not depend on my frivolity or fickleness, but on the Spirit, to whom I am subject and must obey.” that is, that he did not fulfill his promise - from this very thing he shows that he disposes himself entirely according to the Spirit, completely contrary to what he undertakes according to the flesh. “Well,” someone will say, “didn’t (the apostle) promise (to come) by the inspiration of the Spirit of God?” No (not by the inspiration of the Spirit). I said before that Paul did not foresee everything that would happen in the future and that it would happen successfully. That is why in the first letter he says: “so that you accompany me wherever I go” (“yes, you must accompany me, or even if I go”) (1 Cor. 16:6), - of course, out of fear that, having said “to Judea,” he would not be forced to go to another place; here, after this did not happen, he already says: “but you would accompany me to Judea” (“and be conducted by you to Judea” Since the promise to come to them (to Corinth) was a matter of his love for them, he said this clearly, and his desire to go from them to Judea did not concern them at all; And this was done for the benefit, so that none of them would think more appropriately about him. In fact, if (the apostles) had not shown in themselves any signs of human weakness, then to what wickedness could people have reached when, despite these signs, they wanted to sacrifice oxen to them? And why are you surprised that Paul did not always know the future, if sometimes he did not even know what it was better to pray for? “For we do not know,” he says, “what to pray for as we ought” (“For what let us pray as we ought, we do not know”) (Rom. 8:26). And not only does he say this to show his modesty, but he also points out the very case when he did not know what he should have prayed for better. When did he not know this? Then, as he prayed for temptations to be removed from him. “It was given to me,” he says, “a thorn in the flesh, the angel of Satan, to depress me, so that I would not become arrogant. Three times I prayed to the Lord to remove him from me. But the Lord said to me: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.”” (“The dirty trick of the flesh, the angel of Satan, has been given to me, and he will play dirty tricks on me. About this three times the Lord Molich. And I said: My grace is sufficient for you; for My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:7-9). Do you see how (the apostle) did not know what he should have asked better? That’s why I didn’t receive it, although I repeatedly prayed for it. “God is faithful, that our word to you was neither yes nor no.” Here (the apostle) perfectly resolves the objection that has arisen. “If you,” they could tell him, “having promised to come to us, postponed your intention, and you have no “yes, yes” and “no, no,” on the contrary, you subsequently change what you said before, as you did regarding your journey to us, then - woe to us! “Didn’t the same thing happen in the sermon itself?” So, so that they do not think this and are not embarrassed, he says: “God is faithful, that our word to you was not either “yes” or “no.” “This didn’t happen in the sermon,” he says, “but it only happened on the road and travelling. In preaching, our words are always true and unchanging,” - here he refers to preaching as a “word.” He further presents indisputable proof of this, attributing the entire work of preaching to God. His words have the following meaning: “the promise to come was mine, that is, I promised it on my own; preaching is not my work and not human, but God’s; and what is from God is inaccessible to lies and deception. That’s why he said: “God is faithful,” that is, true. So, do not suspect what comes from God, and in which there is nothing human.” Having mentioned the “word,” (the apostle) further adds an explanation of what word he is talking about. 4. So, what is this “word”? “For the Son of God,” he says, “Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not “yes” and “no”” (“For the Son of God, who was preached among you by me and Silouan and Timothy, was neither this nor that” (2 Cor. 1:19). Here he brings other teachers onto the stage so that by this indication not only to the listeners, but also to the teachers, he can further confirm the authenticity of his testimony. True, (those to whom the apostle points) were disciples; but he, in his humility, ranks them also among the rank of teachers. What does it mean: “there was no “yes” and “no””? “I did not distort,” he says, “the meaning of my first sermon; I did not preach to you this way today, and differently tomorrow, because this is characteristic only of a lost mind, and not of faith. “But in Him there was “yes”” (“But in Him itself it was”), that is, the word of the sermon remains unshakable and firm.” “For all the promises of God are in Him yea, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:20). What does it mean: “all the promises of God” (“the great promise of God”)? The Gospel sermon contains many promises, and many promises were preached and proclaimed (by the apostles). They talked about the resurrection, and about the rapture into heaven, and about immortality, and about great rewards in the future life and unspeakable blessings there. These are the promises (the apostle) calls immutable and says that there was no “she and neither” in them. The meaning of his words is this: “What I told you about these promises was not sometimes true and sometimes false, like my promise to come to you, but always true.” And, first of all, he defends the dogmas of faith and the word about Christ, saying: “Both my word and my preaching were either “yes” or “no” (“there was neither”); then the promises themselves: “for all the promises of God are yea in Him” (“for the great promises of God are in him”). If the promises of God are true, and there is no doubt that God will fulfill them, then all the more true is He Himself, and the word about Him is firm, and it cannot be said that sometimes He exists, sometimes He does not, but always exists, and is the same.” What does it mean: “in Him “yes” and in Him “amen”” (“in this is her, and in that is amen”)? With these words, he shows that the promises of God will certainly come true, since both their existence and their fulfillment depend on God, and not on man. So, there is nothing to fear: it is not a person who can be suspected of infidelity who promises, but God, who speaks and creates. "To the glory of God, through us" ("To God for glory by us"). What does it mean: “to glory through us”? He will fulfill His promises through us, that is, by pouring out His benefits on us, to His glory. This means: “To the glory of God.” And if the fulfillment of promises serves for the glory of God, then they will certainly be fulfilled, because God cannot despise His glory, even if He despised our salvation, as well as because of His boundless love for mankind. Moreover, our salvation is closely connected with His glory, which is revealed in the fulfillment of His promises. So, if the fulfillment of promises serves to the glory of God, then, of course, our salvation will also be accomplished. The same thing is constantly suggested by (the apostle) in the Epistle to the Ephesians, when he says: “to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:14); and uses such expressions everywhere, wanting to show the necessity of fulfilling the promises of God. The same thing is said here, that is, that the promises of God are immutable, since their fulfillment serves not only for our salvation, but also for the glory of God. “So, do not worry,” he says, “about the fact that these promises were proclaimed through us, and do not doubt the faithfulness of their fulfillment, because their fulfillment depends not on us, but on God, to Whom they belong, since we have not proclaimed to you our promises, but His.” “Now He that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God: and hath sealed and given the pledge of the Spirit into our hearts.” Again, from the past, he affirms the truth of the future. “If,” he says, “God himself confirms us in Christ, i.e. That is, he does not allow us to waver in our faith in Christ, and he himself anointed us and gave the Spirit into our hearts, then how does he not grant us the blessings promised in the future life? If He has already given the beginning and foundation, the root and source of benefits, that is, true knowledge of Him and the communion of the Holy Spirit, then how can He not give those benefits that flow from here? Truly, if the real blessings that we enjoy were given for the sake of those that we still expect, then much more will the one who bestowed these blessings also grant the expected ones. And if He gave us the first blessings when we were still His enemies, then even more so He gives us the second when we have already become dear to Him. That is why (the apostle) did not simply say “Spirit,” but added “pledge” (“betrothal”), in order to assure us that we will receive everything promised by God. Indeed, if God did not want to give us everything that he promised, he would not have been pleased to give us a deposit, so as not to lose it in vain and in vain. And look how good-natured Paul is! “What else,” he says, “should be said to confirm that the truth of the promises does not depend on us, when the very fact that you stand firmly and unshakably in the faith depends not on us, but on God? “He who approves” (“Let him know”) 2 of you,” he says, “is God,” that is, we do not approve of you, because we ourselves need an affirmer. So, no one should think that the truth of preaching through us is in danger. He himself (who confirms us in faith) took everything upon himself, he takes care of everything.” 5. What does it mean: “anointed” and “sealed”? This means that he gave the Spirit, through whom he accomplished both - anointing and sealing, making us together prophets, priests, and kings, because in ancient times those who received these virtues were anointed. But now we have not just one of these virtues, but all three, and moreover to the highest degree, since we hope to receive the kingdom, and we become priests when we offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God, (according to the instructions of the Apostle, who) says: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (“present your members as a living sacrifice... pleasing to God”) (Rom. 12:1), finally we become and prophets, because what “eye has not seen and ear has not heard” (“eye has not seen and ear has not heard”) is revealed to us. (1 Cor. 2:9). But we can be kings in another way, namely, if we curb inappropriate thoughts. That such a king (who curbs his thoughts) really is a king, and even more than dressed only in a diadem, I will now show you. The king has a lot of troops, and we have even more thoughts. Indeed, it is impossible to count the immense multitude of our thoughts. However, one can see not only the multiplicity of our thoughts, but also the fact that in this multitude there are generals, and captains of thousands, and centurions, and archers, and slingers. What else distinguishes a king? Clothes. But he (who curbs his thoughts) also puts on even the best and most precious clothing, which neither moth eats up nor time destroys. He also has a multi-faceted glorious crown - the crown of God's mercy, as it is said: “Bless my soul the Lord... who crowns you with mercy and bounty” (Ps. 103:1, 4); crown of glory - “he crowned Him with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:6); the crown of God's favor - “you crown it with favor as with a shield” (“as if you crowned us with weapons of favor”) (Ps. 5:13); the crown of graces is “a beautiful crown for your head” (“for you will receive a crown of graces on your head”) (Proverbs 1:9). You see how variously this diadem is decorated, and how much more magnificent it is than the ordinary one. But let us examine more carefully and deeply the belonging of these kings. An ordinary king, having spearmen in his power, gives orders to all of them, and they all obey and serve him. But I will show you that another king has greater power. As for the number of subjects, it is equal for both, or even more for the latter; All that remains is to consider the obedience (provided to both). Do not present to me here as an example (kings) who were deprived of their kingdom, or who were killed by their own bodyguards. No, we will not bring such (kings) onto the stage, but on both sides we will look for those who successfully ruled their kingdoms. So, present anyone you like on your side, and I will oppose one patriarch (Abraham) to everyone you present. Think what a multitude of thoughts must have risen in his soul when he was commanded to sacrifice his son? However, he conquered all these thoughts, and they all obeyed him with greater fear than his bodyguards did to any king. With one glance he tamed all thoughts, so that not one of them dared to show the slightest sign of contradiction, but they all bowed before him and submitted to him as to a king, although by nature they are very rebellious and even indomitable. The points of the spears aimed directly at by numerous warriors are not as terrible as these thoughts were then. Isn't the natural love of a father for his son sharper than even the copies? Therefore, she could wound her father’s soul much deeper than the most sophisticated spear tip. There has never been such a sharp spear as the arrows of thoughts, sharpened in the depths of the soul by parental love for their son and piercing the heart of the righteous. It requires time, intention, a blow, and a feeling of excruciating pain, and then death follows. Here nothing of the kind was required; consequently, the wounds were inflicted much faster and deeper. But, despite the fact that so many thoughts took up arms against him then, there was great silence in his soul; and all his thoughts, standing before him in orderly order, decorated him more than frightened him. So, look at this righteous man at that moment when he pulled out the knife, and contrast him with whatever kings you like - the Augustans, the Caesars. You will surely not imagine anything so lofty, and you will never find a model so majestic and so worthy of heaven. This righteous man then triumphed over the most powerful autocracy, because there is nothing more autocratic than nature. Therefore, even if you presented thousands of men who killed tyrants, you will not show us a single similar man. Truly, this was a victory peculiar to an angel, and not to a man. Look. Nature is thrown down with all her weapons, with all her army; and he stands firmly, stretching out his hands not with a crown, but with a knife, which is more brilliant than any crown; and hosts of angels applaud him, and God himself from heaven proclaims him the winner. Since he was a citizen of heaven, he received his proclamation from there. So what could be more glorious than this? Or better yet, what could equal this reward? If at the Olympic Games, not the herald standing below, but the king himself, sitting above, had stood up and declared the winner the winner, would he not have considered such a proclamation a reward more brilliant than the crowns themselves, and would he not have attracted the attention of all spectators? Tell me now, to what degree of glory and greatness should this holy man be placed, whom not an earthly king, but God himself from heaven loudly proclaims as a winner - not at the Olympic spectacle, but at the spectacle of the whole world, before hosts of angels and archangels? If you wish, we will listen to the proclamation itself. What was this proclamation? - “Abraham! Abraham!... do not raise your hand on the boy and do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God and did not withhold your son, your only son, for Me” (“Abraham, Abraham, ... do not lay your hand on Isaac, but do something to him: now I know that you feared God, and you did not spare your beloved son for My sake”) ( Gen. 22:11–12). What does this mean? Is it possible that He who knows all things before they came into existence has only now recognized (Abraham)? After all, the fear of God of this man was even obvious to man: he showed so many examples of his obedience to God - for example, when God said to him: “Get out of your land, from your kindred” (“Get out from your land and from your kindred”) (Gen. 12:1), when for God and out of reverence for Him he allowed his nephew to choose the most fruitful country, when he delivered him from great and many dangers, when by command He did not hesitate to go to Egypt, and was not upset when he lost his wife there, and in many other cases. From these examples, as I said, man could know the fear of God (Abraham), not only God, Who does not need to wait for the actual deeds to see their consequences. Moreover, how did (God) justify him if he did not know him? “Abraham believed,” they say, “to God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (“Abraham believed... and it was counted to him as righteousness”) (Rom. 4:3). 6. So, what does it mean: “now I know” (“now I know”)? The Syriac translator renders these words as follows: “now you have shown,” i.e. to people. “I myself,” he says, “knew you for a long time, even before all My commands to you.” But why (only showed it) to people now? Were the previous examples not sufficient to demonstrate his fear of God? Without a doubt, sufficient. But this last example is undoubtedly so superior to all the previous ones that they seem insignificant in comparison. So, “now I know” is said with the intention of exalting this last feat (Abraham) and placing it above all others. This is a common way of expression among many people on occasions of particular importance and superior to previous ones. For example, if someone receives from another a gift that is incomparably greater than the previous ones, then he usually says: “Now I know that so-and-so loves me,” expressing by this not that he did not know this before, but wanting to show that the present gift is greater than all (previously received). So God, talking (with Abraham) in human language, says: “Now I know,” wanting to show nothing more than the superiority of his real feat, and not that at this time he only learned his fear of God, or how great this fear of God is. So when He said: “I will go down and see” (“Come, let us go down and see”) (Gen. 18:21), He said this not because He needed to go - after all, He fills everything and sees everything clearly - but in order to instill in us that He determines something not without a reason. Also, when David says: “The Lord looked down from heaven” (“The Lord is from heaven”) (Ps. 13:2), then this metaphor, taken from people, means exact knowledge in God. So it is here: “Now I know” (God) said to show that this feat is higher than all previous ones; and in confirmation of this he adds the following words: “You did not spare your son, your only son, for Me” (“as if you did not spare your beloved son for My sake”). He didn’t just say “son,” but he also added “the only one” (“beloved”). In fact, (Abraham) fought here with firmness not only against nature, but also against that love for his son, which was especially great in him, both because of his own virtue and in view of the many virtues of his son. If fathers do not indifferently endure death and criminal children, but they also mourn them, then who will express the height of wisdom of this father, who decided to slay his son with his own hands - the son of the real, only begotten, beloved Isaac? Truly, this feat is more brilliant than thousands of diadems and countless crowns. From someone who wears an ordinary crown, it can be taken away not only by sudden death, but also before death by thousands of unfavorable circumstances; on the contrary, from the one who is decorated with this extraordinary diadem, no one can take everything away after death - neither his own nor someone else’s. Consider, please, the most precious stone in this diadem, because at the top it is fixed as if by a precious stone. What is this? In a word: “For Me” (“For My Sake”). Indeed, it is not surprising that he did not spare his son, but that it was for His sake. O blessed right hand! What wonderful knife did you perceive? Oh, wonderful knife! What wonderful right hand received you? Oh, wonderful knife! What use have you been appointed to, what service have you performed, and in what wonderful ways have you served? How is it that you are stained with blood and not stained? I don’t know what to say anymore: this sacrament was so terrible! The knife did not touch the body of the youth, did not pass through the throat of this saint, was not stained with the blood of the righteous; and to be fairer, he touched it, and passed through, and was stained with blood, and was drowned in it, and was not drowned. Perhaps it seems to you that I am contradicting myself, like someone who has lost his mind. And indeed, my mind is lost when thinking about the miracle that happened to this righteous man; however, I do not contradict myself at all. Indeed, the hand of this righteous man had already plunged a knife into his son’s larynx, but the hand of God did not allow the pierced knife to become stained with blood. It was not Abraham who only held the knife, but God too. And while Abraham strikes with a decision of the will, God stops him with His voice. One and the same voice armed the right hand of the righteous and held it, and the hand, controlled by God, as if by a leader, did everything according to His command, and in all movements obeyed His voice. Look, in fact: God said: “slaughter” - and she immediately armed herself; said: “Don’t stab” - and she immediately puts the weapon aside. Everything was so skillfully arranged. Thus, God showed in him to the whole world - a leader and a warrior, to a host of angels - a crowned priest, a king, crowned with a diadem, or better yet, with a knife, with a victory sign in his hand, a hero, a winner without a battle. Just as some military leader, putting forward a skillful and courageous warrior, often brings fear to his enemy with just the rotation of his weapon, just the sight and speed of his movement, so God, just by will, by just the appearance and position of the righteous man, struck and put to flight our universal enemy the devil, who, I think, then fled in fear and horror. “But,” someone will say, “why did not God allow the right hand of the righteous to be stained with the blood (of his son) in order to immediately resurrect the slain?” Because it is unusual for God to accept such bloody sacrifices: they serve as a meal only for damned demons. Here (in Abraham’s sacrifice) both the Lord’s love for mankind and the servant’s fidelity were revealed together. Before (Abraham) only came out of his land; and now he has even abandoned his nature. That is why, in addition to his son, he received another incomparably greater one - and very justly. In fact, he decided not to be called a father, just to appear before God as a faithful servant, and for this he not only remained a father, but also became a priest. And since he abandoned his own for God, for this God, returning what was his, gave him his own. Moreover, when enemies plot intrigues against the righteous, God allows temptations to reach the point itself and then works miracles - this was the case, for example, in the furnace of Babylon and in the lion’s den; when He himself commands them to do something, His command stops at their readiness to fulfill it. 7. Tell me now, what else was missing to this valor? In fact, did Abraham foresee what would happen? Could he have foreseen God's love for mankind? True, he was a prophet, but even a prophet does not know everything. Otherwise, the slaughter (of Isaac) would have been unnecessary and unworthy of God. If he needed to know that God is able to resurrect from the dead, then he learned this much more convincingly in the resolution of Sarah’s barrenness, or even before this example, because he believed. You should not only be surprised at this righteous man, but also compete with him. Seeing how he, during such great indignation and stormy waves, floats as if in clear and calm weather, and you, like him, take into your hands the helm of obedience and courage. Don’t just think about the fact that he built an altar and prepared firewood, but remember what his son said to him, and think about how many terrible hordes rushed at him when he, the father, heard from his son the words: “Where is the lamb?” ("Where is the sheep?") (Gen.22:7). Think how many thoughts rose up against him then, armed not with iron, but with fiery spears that struck and pierced his heart from all sides? If even now many, even without being fathers, lament this and shed tears, not knowing how this matter ended; many, and knowing this, cry, as I see, what kind of suffering must have been endured by the one who gave birth, raised and, being already in old age, had only this one son, whom he now sees before him, hears these words, and is preparing to immediately kill? On the other hand, what prudence in the words (of the son)! With what meekness he listens to (his father’s) answer! And who was acting here? Is it really the devil to further inflame (Abraham’s) heart? No, God acted here to further test and purify the golden soul of this righteous man. When Job's wife spoke, then the devil acted, because that was the advice (Job 2:9). But Isaac did not utter a single blasphemous word; on the contrary, he said everything very piously and prudently. His words were unusually touching, and flowed sweetly from his calm and gentle soul like honey. Such words could soften a heart of stone; but they did not touch or shake that adamant (Abraham) at all. He did not say: “Why do you call father the one who a little later will not be your father; the one who has already lost this honor? But why does the son ask (the father)? Of course, not simply out of curiosity and not out of excessive inquisitiveness, but because he also cared about the fulfillment of what he had undertaken (the sacrifice). He reasoned with himself like this: “If my father had not wanted to make me a participant (of the sacrifice), he would not have left the slaves at the foot of the mountain, and he would not have taken me alone (to the mountain),” which is why he asks his father when they were alone and no one could hear their conversation. That's how prudent this son was! Husbands and wives, are not your hearts on fire? Isn’t each of you mentally ready to hug and kiss this youth? Who among you is not amazed at his prudence and is not amazed at his reverent submission, due to which he, even while (his father) was tying him up and laying him on the firewood, was not afraid, did not jump up, and did not denounce his father as if he were crazy; on the contrary, he allowed him to tie him up, lead him and lay him on the firewood, and endured all this in silence, like some kind of lamb, or - better - like the common Lord of all? And indeed, Isaac imitated Him in obedience and meekness, and was His image: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearers is silent” (“like a lamb before its shearers, it is silent”) (Is. 53:7). True, this youth spoke; but his Lord also spoke. How was he voiceless? That is, he did not say anything boldly and rudely, but everything was so modest and compliant that his words, more than silence, revealed his humility and meekness. In exactly the same way, although Christ said to the one who hit Him on the cheek: “If I said something bad, show me what is bad; What if it’s good that you beat Me?” (“If you speak evil, bear witness to evil; if it is good that you slay Me?”) (John 18:23), but with these words he revealed His meekness even more than if he had remained silent. And as Isaac pronounced the name of his father at the altar, so Christ cried out from the cross, saying: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (“Father, forgive them: they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). What about the patriarch? "God will provide for himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (Gen. 22:8). Both of them pronounce natural names, one of the father, the other of the son. God, he didn’t say a word anymore, so as not to be curious in vain. So prudent was this youth in the very flower of his age. So, do you see how many armies and how many battles this king won? Truly, the barbarians, who often attacked Jerusalem, were not as terrible for this city as (for Abraham) the thoughts that rebelled against him from everywhere. And yet, he triumphed over them all. Do you want to see him as a priest? The proof is not far away. Indeed, when you see him standing at the altar with fire and a knife in his hands, why will you doubt his priesthood after that? If you want to see the sacrifice he made, you can see it – even the greater one. He brought a son, he brought a ram, and above all, his will. He sanctified his right hand with the blood of a ram, and his soul with the slaughter of his son. Thus, he was ordained a priest by the blood of his only begotten and by the sacrifice of a lamb, just as the (under-the-law) priests were sanctified by the blood of (sacrifices) offered to God. Do you finally want to see (in Abraham) a prophet? “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw and rejoiced,” says (Christ) (John 8:56). Likewise, in the baptismal font you are made a king and a priest and a prophet: a king - having cast down all evil deeds and putting to death sinful desires; a priest - through dedicating himself to God, through sacrificing his body to Him and through the spiritual slaughter of himself, (according to the apostle, who) says: “if we died with Him, we will also live with Him” (2 Tim. 2:11); finally, you become a prophet - since you know the future, you become inspired and sealed. Just as soldiers are sealed with a seal, so believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit, so that you will be noticeable to everyone if you are out of ranks. The Jews had the seal of circumcision, but we have the “pledge of the Spirit” (“betrothal of the Spirit”). So, having learned this and reflected on the high dignity we received in baptism, let us show in ourselves a life worthy of this grace, so that we may also receive the future kingdom, which we all may be worthy of through 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. You might be interested in: