Commentary on Galatians

“Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians” (6 chapters) written by St. John Chrysostom in Antioch in 393, is polemical in nature and directed against Judaizing Christians and Anomeans (extreme Arians). In the 1st chapter of St. John speaks of the inspiration of the Bible: “The Scripture was sent down to us, being written not by slaves, but by the Lord and God of all.” Christ himself encouraged the souls of the apostles to write the Gospels and Epistles. Chapter 2 touches on the theme of the greatness of the atoning sacrifice: “Christ redeemed us who were already sentenced to death... when we were all already dead, if not in reality, then by the death sentence against us. And after the law had already condemned us and God had sentenced us to death, Christ, having come and given Himself up to death, freed us all from death.” In chapter 3, the saint refutes objections in favor of maintaining the law. In the 4th - he opposes the observance of Jewish holidays and the new moon, and in the 5th - against circumcision. In the 6th chapter of St. John speaks about the power of the cross: “Whoever was previously subjected to death and killed others for circumcision, the cross taught him, counting circumcision on an equal basis with uncircumcision, to seek new, wondrous and above-heavenly works. He calls our life a new creation... our soul, having grown old in sin, was suddenly renewed through baptism, as if created again, which is why a new and heavenly way of life is also required of us; ...heaven, and earth, and finally all creation, together with our bodies, must pass into a state of incorruption.” *The title of the work in Greek is ῾Υπόμνημα εἰς τὴν πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολήν. *The title of the work in Latin is In epistulam ad Galatas commentarius. Gal.1:1–3. Paul the Apostle, chosen not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and all the brethren who are with me - to the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. The Motivation for Paul to Write His Letter. – Paul was called by Christ himself. – The authority of the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and the same. – Resolution of the objections of the Anomeans. - Against the Anomeans and Arians. - Against Judaizing Christians. – The question of whether Christians should be circumcised. - Paul's humility. 1. The beginning of the message is filled with great anger and at the same time great wisdom; and not just the beginning, but the whole message, one might say. This is because always talking with those being taught with meekness, even if strictness was necessary towards them, is more characteristic not of a teacher, but of a destroyer and ill-wisher. That is why the Lord, who mostly spoke with meekness with his disciples, in some cases uses severity in his words, and sometimes pleases them, and sometimes condemns them. So, having said to Peter: “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah” (“Blessed are you, Simon, var Jonah”) and promising to lay the foundation of the Church at his confession (Matthew 16:17), a little after these words he says: “Get away from Me, Satan! You are a temptation to me!” (“Follow me, Satan, you are my temptation”) (Matthew 16:23); and in another place he says again: “Do you really not understand yet?” ("Are you also without understanding") (Matthew 15:16). And finally, he instilled such fear in them, as John notes, that when they saw Him talking with a Samaritan woman, they reminded Him only about food, but not one dared to say: “What are you talking about?”, or: “What do you demand from her?” (John 9:27). Knowing this, Paul, following in the footsteps of the Teacher, also diversified his words according to the needs of those being instructed, in some cases using cauterization and cutting off, as it were, and in others, applying, as it were, softening medicines. So, to the Corinthians he says: “What do you want? come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness?” (“What do you want? Will I come to you with a club, or with love and a spirit of meekness?”) (1 Cor. 4:21), and to the Galatians he said: “Oh, foolish Galatians!” (“O foolish Galata”) (Gal.3:1), and not only once, but also on another time he used the same reproach (Gal.3:3). And at the end (of the message), also reproaching them, he said: “Nevertheless, let no one burden me” (“let no one give me labor”) (Gal.6:17). But, on the other hand, he consoles them when, for example, he says: “My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth” (“my children, in the same way I am sick”) (Gal. 4:19), and much more similar to this. And that the message is truly filled with anger will become clear to everyone even after a quick reading of it. But it must be said what irritated him against his disciples: without a doubt, it was not something unimportant and not worthy of attention, because in that case he would not have reproached them so strongly. After all, it is common for cowardly, cruel and grief-stricken people to become irritated over minor incidents; just as showing indifference in important matters is typical of the lazy and sleepy. But Paul was not like that. So, what was this offense that outraged him? Great and very difficult, moreover, alienating them all from Christ, as he himself says further: “Behold, I, Paul, say to you: if you are circumcised, Christ will not benefit you in any way” (“I say to you, Paul, that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing”); and again: “You who justify yourselves by the law... have fallen from grace” (“even if you were justified by the law, you have fallen from grace”) (Gal. 5:2, 4). So what does this mean? This requires more detailed explanation. Some of the believing Jews, still under the influence of the views of Judaism, and at the same time arrogant with ambition, wanting to arrogate to themselves the dignity of teachers, appeared to the Galatians and began to teach that it was necessary to be circumcised, observe the Sabbath and the new moon, and not accept Paul, who rejected all this. “After all, Peter, James and John,” they said, “these chief apostles who were with Christ, did not forbid this.” And indeed, they did not prohibit; but they did this not because they recognized the necessity of all this, but only out of condescension towards the weakness of the Jewish believers. Paul, who preached among the pagans, did not find the need for such condescension, whereas when he was in Judea, he himself made such condescension. But the false teachers, without indicating the reasons why both he and those (the apostles) allowed such condescension, deceived the simpler people, saying that they should not listen to Paul, since he appeared only yesterday or today, while Peter and those with him are the foremost of the apostles; Moreover, he is a disciple of the apostles, and they are disciples of Christ; he is one, but there are many of them, and they are the pillars of the Church. They, in addition, accused (Paul) of hypocrisy, saying that he himself, while rejecting circumcision, in other cases undoubtedly performed Jewish rites; and that he preaches differently to them, and differently to others. That is why, seeing that the whole people were inflamed and a dangerous fire had broken out in the Church of Galatia, that its building was shaking and threatening to fall, (the apostle), overwhelmed with just anger, as well as sorrow (he declared this too, saying: “I would like to come to you now and change my voice”) (Gal. 4:20), writes a letter, answering to all charges. And first of all, at the very beginning, he objects to what those who humiliated him said, namely, that the other apostles were disciples of Christ, and he was a disciple of the apostles. That is why he began the letter like this: “Paul is an apostle, not chosen by men or through man” (“Paul, an apostle neither of man nor by man”) (Gal. 1:1). As I said above, those false teachers claimed that Paul was the last of all the apostles and that he had already learned faith from them. Peter, James and John were called first, and occupy the first place among the disciples, and received the dogmas of faith from Christ himself, and therefore one should believe more in them than in the first. The named apostles do not forbid either circumcision or keeping the law (of Moses). 2. Saying this and similar things, and thereby humiliating Paul and exalting the dignity of those (apostles), however, not with the goal of glorifying them, but in order to deceive the Galatians, they untimely inspired them to keep the law. So, (the apostle) quite rightly began (the epistle) in this way. In fact, since they humiliated his teaching, saying that it is from man, whereas the teaching of Peter is from Christ, then (the apostle) at the very beginning immediately refutes this, saying that he is an apostle (chosen) “not by men and not through man.” True, Ananias baptized him (Acts 9:17), but it was not he who led him out of error and led him to faith, but Christ himself called to him from above with that wonderful voice and thus caught him, Peter and his brother, as well as John and his brother - the latter was called by the Lord while walking by the sea, but Paul - after ascending to heaven. And just as they had no need for a second calling, but leaving their nets and everything else, they immediately followed Him, - in the same way, this one, from the first calling, ascended to the very top of perfection, and immediately accepting baptism and entering into an irreconcilable struggle with the Jews, thereby greatly surpassing the apostles: “I have labored more than all of them,” he says, “(“more than ... we have labored”) ( 1 Corinthians 15:10). But in the present case he does not touch upon this, but is only content with pointing out his equality (with the other apostles). After all, what was important for him here was not so much to show his superiority over them, but to destroy the cause of temptation. So, the words “not by men” (“not from men”) applied to everyone (preachers), since the preaching of the Gospel has its beginning and foundation from above; the words “not through man” (“not by man”) referred exclusively to the apostles, since Christ called them not through people, but directly himself. But why did he not mention the calling and did not say: “Paul, not called by men,” but he mentions the apostleship? Because that was the whole point. After all, (the seducers) said that the right of teaching was transferred to him from people - the apostles, and therefore he must follow them. But that this right was not received by him from people - this was testified by Luke, who said: “When they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said: Separate Me Paul and Barnabas” (“But to those who serve the Lord and fast, the Holy Spirit said: Separate Me Barnabas and Saul”) (Acts 13:2). From this it is clear that the power of the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and the same. In fact, being sent by the Holy Spirit, (the apostle) says, however, that he was sent by Christ. He shows this in another place, attributing to the Spirit (the Holy) that which befits God. Thus, in a conversation with the Milesian presbyters, he says: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you shepherds and overseers” (“Take heed... to yourselves and... to the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to shepherd the church”) (Acts 20:28), although in one of his other letters he says: “God has appointed others in the Church, firstly, as Apostles, secondly, prophets,... further - shepherds and teachers" ("God has placed them in the church first, the apostles, second the prophets, third the teachers") (1 Cor. 12:28). Thus, he uses words indifferently, assimilating to the Spirit what belongs to God, and vice versa - ascribing to God what is characteristic of the Spirit. But he also stops the lips of heretics in another way when he says: “By Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Since they say that such an expression is used in relation to the Son, as having less importance, then look what he does: he puts it before the name of the Father, teaching us thereby not to lay down laws for the incomprehensible nature and not to determine the measure of divinity between the Son and the Father, since having said: “Jesus Christ,” he added: “and God the Father.” After all, if he, having separately mentioned only the Father, had used this expression - “through Whom,” then perhaps they would have resorted to a trick, saying that the expression “through Whom” befits the Father, since the actions of the Son relate to Him; now, having mentioned the Son and the Father together and used the same expression in relation to Them, he no longer leaves any room for such an invention, since he does this not in order to attribute what belongs to the Son to the Father, but in order to show that this expression does not allow for any difference in Their essence. What will those now say who imagine some kind of reduction (of the divine hypostases) in baptism on the basis that baptism is performed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? After all, if the Son is lower in dignity than the Father only because He comes after the Father, then what will they say now, after the Apostle, having started with Christ, then moves on to the Father? But we won't say anything blasphemous. When entering into competition with them, we must not deviate from the truth, but even if they went crazy a thousand times, we still need to stay within the limits of piety. That is why, just as here, only on the basis of what (the apostle) mentioned Christ before, we will not call the Son greater than the Father - after all, this would be the height of madness and all wickedness - so there, (in the commandment of baptism), on the basis of the fact that the Son is placed after the Father, we should not consider the Son less than the Father. "Who raised Him from the dead." What are you doing, Pavel? Desiring to bring the Judaizers to faith, you do not expose any of His great and brilliant properties, just as you wrote to the Philippians, saying that “He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (“in the form of God, not by admiration without being... equal with God”) (Phil. 2:6); as then, in his letter to the Hebrews, he loudly proclaimed that He is “the radiance of glory and the image of His person” (Heb. 1:3); or as the son of thunder proclaimed about Him at the beginning of his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (“in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word”) (John 1:1); or as, finally, Jesus himself often declared to the Jews, saying that He was of equal power with the Father and had the same authority (John 5:17, 19-37). You say nothing of the kind, but, leaving all this aside, you mention what happened to His flesh, pointing to the cross and death? Yes, he says. After all, if the speech were addressed to people who do not know anything great about Christ, then it would be decent to say this about Him; but since people are rebelling against us, thinking that they will be punished if they deviate from the law, that is why the circumstance that completely abolishes the need for the law is mentioned, that is, the benefit that has come to everyone from the cross and resurrection. If he had said that “in the beginning was the Word,” or that It was in the image of God and made Himself equal to God, and the like, then by this he would have shown the divinity of the Word, but would not have helped at all in the present matter; Having said: “to those who raised Him from the dead,” he thereby reminded us of the most important benefit shown to us, and this brought him considerable benefit in this case. After all, most people usually listen not so much attentively to words that prove the greatness of God, but to conversations that reveal His benefits to people. That is why, postponing the conversation about the first, he talks about the benefit shown to us. 3. But the heretics object, saying: “Look, the Father raises the Son!” Since they have once been infected with the disease of heresy, they become feignedly deaf to what concerns the height of dogmas, and choose only those related to the state of humiliation (of Christ), said in consideration of His humanity, or the honor of the Father, or according to some other dispensation (of God), and, considering such passages separately, they harm themselves (I will not say - Scripture). I would gladly ask them why they say this? Is it really in order to present the Son as weak and not having the power to resurrect even the body? But faith in Him alone brought about the fact that even the shadow of those who believed in Him raised the dead (Acts 5:15). So, people who believed in Him, being themselves mortals, raised the dead with just the shadow of their earthy bodies and the clothes that clothed these bodies - but He could not resurrect Himself? Isn't this sheer madness and the highest degree of insanity? Have you not heard what He says: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (“destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up”) (John 2:19), and again: “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again” (“the area of the imam to lay down my soul, and the area of the imam to receive it again”) ( John 10:17–18)? So why is it said that the Father raised Him up? This is why many other things that (the Son) does are attributed to (the Father). This is said in honor of the Father and for the sake of the weakness of the listeners. “And all the brethren who are with me” (“And all the brethren who are with me”) (Gal.1:2). Why doesn’t he add this anywhere in other epistles? There he either puts his name alone, or calls two or three others by name; here he named the entire multitude, and therefore did not mention anyone by name. Why is he doing this? He was reproached for being the only one who preaches this way and introduces new teachings into the dogmas of faith. Therefore, wanting to destroy such suspicion and show that he had many like-minded people, he joined the brethren, letting them understand that what he wrote, he wrote in accordance with their opinion. "To the Churches of Galatia". After all, the flames of error engulfed not one city, not two or three, but the entire Galatian people. Notice here also the great indignation (of the apostle). He did not say: “to the beloved,” nor did he say: “to the saints,” but to “the Churches of Galatia.” This was a sign of someone who was greatly grieving and revealing his sadness - that he did not greet them either in the name of love or in the name of honor, but in the name only of their society, and that he did not even add: “to the churches of God,” but simply said: “To the churches of Galatia.” At the same time, he is in a hurry to bring their division to unity at the very beginning, and therefore he added the name of the Church, thereby wanting to shame them and bring them together. In fact, being divided into many parts, they could not be called by this name, since the name of the Church is the name of agreement and unanimity. “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord... Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:2-3). He considers it necessary to use this (greeting) everywhere, especially now, sending the letter to the Galatians. Since they were in danger of falling from grace, he wants them to be established in it again. They became enemies of God, and therefore he asks God to lead them to the former peace with Himself. "God the Father". And with these words the heretics are again easily defeated. They claim that John, saying at the beginning of his Gospel: “and the Word was God” (“and God is the Word”) (John 1:1), used the word “God” without the term “καί Θεός ήν ο Λόγος” because he wanted to present the deity of the Son as lesser (the deity of the Father); and that again, when Paul says that the Son was the image of God (Phil. 2:6), he does not say this about the Father, because this word (Θεου) is put here without a member; what will they say now when Paul says not “από του Θεου” - “from God” (using this word with the prefix του), but “από Θεου Πατρός” - “from God the Father” (without adding a term)? He calls God here Father, not flattering them, but on the contrary, strongly reproaching them for this and bringing to mind the reason why they became sons. After all, it was not through the law, but through the washing of rebirth that they were awarded such an honor. That is why everywhere and at the beginning of his messages he repeatedly points out the manifestations of God’s goodness, saying almost like this: “Slaves, enemies and outcasts, how is it that you (being such) suddenly call God Father? Has the law granted you this high kinship? Why, in this case, do you, having left the One who brought you so close to Himself, turn again to the mentor?” And not only the name of the Father, but also the names applied to the Son are sufficient to show them this goodness. “Therefore,” it is said, “His name will be called Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (“save His people from their sins”) (Matthew 1:21); the name Christ brings to mind the anointing of the Spirit. 4. “Who gave himself for our sins” (“who gave himself according to our sins”) (Gal. 1:4). Look, He did not serve slavishly or under compulsion, and no one betrayed Him, but He betrayed Himself, and therefore, when you hear John saying that the Father gave His only begotten Son for us (John 3:16), then do not belittle the dignity of the Only Begotten on this basis and do not think anything human about Him. Although it is said that the Father betrayed Him, it was not so that you would consider the service (of the Son) servile, but so that you would learn that this service was also pleasing to the Father. This is exactly what Paul showed here, saying: “according to the will of God and our Father” - not by command, but “by will.” In fact, since the Father and the Son have one will, what the Son wanted, the Father also wanted the same. "For our sins" ("according to our sins"). “We were mired,” he says, “in countless iniquities and deserved the most severe punishment. The law not only did not deliver us, but also condemned us, making our sins more obvious and being unable to free us and appease the wrath of God; and the Son of God made this impossible possible, by resolving our sins, and placing us, former enemies, in the category of friends, and giving us countless other blessings.” Then he says: “that he may deliver us from this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4). Again, other heretics use this expression to slander real life and cite (as proof of this) the testimony of Paul. “Behold,” they say, “Paul calls this present age evil.” But tell me, what is a century? Time consisting of days and hours. So what? Is the continuation of days and the course of the sun evil? But no one will ever say this, even if he reaches extreme madness. Will you say that (the apostle) called the present life evil, not time? But these words do not mean that, and you are not based on the words of Paul, weaving an accusation against real life, but you are arbitrarily making up your own interpretation. In this case, allow us to interpret what was said (by the apostle), especially since our interpretation is both pious and has a basis. So what do we say? The fact that no evil can ever be the cause of good, and real life serves as the cause of countless crowns and the greatest rewards. That is why Blessed Paul himself immeasurably praises this life, saying: “But if life in the flesh brings fruit to my work, I do not know what to choose” (“But if I live by the body, this is the fruit of my work: and what I will, I do not know”) (Phil. 1:22). And giving himself a choice - whether to live here, or to be resolved and be with Christ, he prefers to stay here. And if real life were evil, he would not say this about himself; and no one can ever use evil to achieve good, or fornication to achieve chastity, or envy to achieve benevolence. And when Paul says about the carnal mind that it does not obey the law of God, and indeed cannot (Rom. 8:7), he thereby says that vice, while remaining vice, cannot be virtue. Therefore, when you hear about the evil age, then understand by this evil deeds, a corrupted will. And Christ came not in order to put us to death and thus take us out of this life, but in order to leave us in the world and make us worthy of heavenly life. That is why in His conversation with the Father He said: “they are in the world, but I come to You” (“and these are in the world, and I am coming to You”). And again: “I do not pray that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil” (“I do not pray that you remove them from the world, but that you keep them from enmity”), that is, from vice (John 17:11, 15). If you do not accept this explanation, but continue to assert that real life is evil, then do not condemn suicides. In fact, just as a person who frees himself from vice deserves not censure, but rewards, in the same way, in your opinion, someone who ends his life by violent death, by strangulation or in any other way, will not be worthy of condemnation. But in reality, God subjects such people to greater punishment than murderers, and we all turn away from them with horror, and this is quite fair, because if it is criminal to kill others, then even more so to kill yourself. If real life is evil, then murderers should be rewarded for the fact that they deliver us from evil. Moreover, those who say this also refute themselves. In fact, by recognizing the sun, and with it the moon, as a deity and worshiping them as the creators of many blessings, they contradict themselves. After all, they (the sun and the moon), as well as other stars, are completely useless for anything else, but benefit us for the real, evil, as they claim, life, nourishing and illuminating the bodies and promoting the ripening of fruits. How, in your opinion, do these gods contribute to this arrangement of evil life? But neither the stars - not gods, in any case, but the works of God created for our benefit - nor the world itself are evil. If you point out to me murderers, adulterers and grave robbers, then all this does not speak at all against real life, because these sins depend not on our life in the flesh, but on a corrupted will. If they depended on real life and were, as it were, necessarily connected with it, then no one would be free and pure from them. Look, no one is able to avoid the necessary needs of carnal life. What are these needs? Eating, drinking, sleeping, growing, hungering, thirsting, being born, dying, and all others of this kind. And no one can get rid of these needs - neither a sinner, nor a righteous man, nor a king, nor a commoner, but we are all subject to this necessity of nature. In the same way, if doing evil were, by its very nature, an inevitable part of life, then no one would escape it, just as it is impossible to avoid those natural needs. Don't tell me that rare people lead virtuous lives. You will never find someone who would overcome the necessary natural needs. Therefore, as long as there is at least one who succeeds in virtue, the truth of our word will remain immutable. What are you saying, unfortunate and pitiful one, is this present life really evil, in which we have come to know God, philosophize about the future, become angels from people and form one host with the heavenly powers? What other evidence can we find against your evil and corrupt mind? 5. “Why,” you say, “did Paul call the present age evil?” He said this according to the common usage of the word. So we usually say: “Today was a bad day for me,” blaming not the time, but deeds and circumstances. In the same way, Paul, condemning the evil desires of the heart, used the generally accepted expression and shows that Christ has freed us from past sins and placed us in safety from them for the future. Having said: “who gave himself for our sins” (“who gave himself according to our sins”), he showed the first, by adding the words: “in order to deliver us from the present evil age” (“as if he would deliver us from the present evil age”), he indicated a safe haven for the future. The law was powerless for (liberation from) some of the named sins, but grace had power for (cleansing) both. “According to the will of God and our Father” (Gal. 1:4). Since they thought that they were disobeying God, who gave the law, and were afraid, leaving the ancient law, to follow the new one, then (the apostle) corrects this prejudice, saying that this is pleasing to the Father. And he said not just “Father,” but “Our Father,” and he often makes such an addition in order to shame them by pointing out that Christ made His Father our Father. “To him be glory forever... Amen” (Gal.1:5). And this is something new and extraordinary. We do not find the word “Amen” anywhere at the beginning or in the preface of the epistles, but usually it comes after many (reasonings). Here, wanting to show that what was said contained a sufficient denunciation of the Galatians, and that his speech was completely finished, he put this (word) at the beginning of the epistle. Obvious offenses do not require lengthy preparations (for exposure). Therefore, remembering the cross and resurrection, the atonement for sins, safety from them for the future, the will of the Father and the consent of the Son, grace, peace and all the gifts of God, he concluded his speech with a doxology. And not only for this reason he did so, but also from excessive amazement at the greatness of the gift and the abundance of grace, and from the idea of ​​what we were, and what God had made us beyond our expectations and in a very short time. Not being able to express this in words, he concluded his speech with a doxology, sending praise to God for the entire universe - not such that would be worthy of Him, but which was possible for him. That is why after this he continues his speech with even greater force, ignited, as if by a strong flame, from the presentation of the good deeds of God. Having said: “To him be glory forever... Amen,” he then begins his denunciation even more strongly, with the following words: “I am amazed that you are so quickly turning from him who called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel” (“I am strange, because you are so quickly changed from him who called you by the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1:6). Since they thought to please the Father by observing the law, just as the Jews did by persecuting Christ, he first of all shows that by doing this, they insult not only Christ, but also the Father. “By doing this,” he says, “you separate yourself not only from Christ, but also from the Father, because just as the Old Testament belongs not only to the Father, but also to the Son, in the same way grace is a gift not only of the Son, but also of the Father, and everything is common to them: “everything that belongs to the Father is Mine” (John 16:15). Having thus shown that they are also retreating from the Father, he places two guilts on them: apostasy and a very rapid retreat. Of course, they would be worthy of blame even if they had disappeared after a long time, but here we are talking about seduction. After all, the one who retreats after a long time is also worthy of blame, but the one who falls at the first attack and even from a distance of arrows shows an example of extreme weakness. The apostle also accuses the Galatians of this, as if saying: “What does it mean that those who deceive you do not even need time, but even one first attack is enough for them to subdue you all and take you captive? What excuse can you have?” If, in relation to friends, such an act is a crime, and one who has abandoned his former and useful friends is worthy of condemnation, then think about what punishment is subject to the one who has abandoned God, who called him? When he says: “I am surprised” (“I am alien”), then with this word he does not reproach them only for the fact that, after such abundant gifts, after such great forgiveness of sins and such great love of God, they voluntarily surrendered to the yoke of slavery, but at the same time it shows what opinion he has of them, that is, high and excellent. In fact, he would not have been surprised at what happened if he had considered them weak and easy deceived, “but since,” he says, “you were from among those who sincerely believed and labored a lot, then I am surprised.” ("How much will you suffer without it? And how much more will you suffer") (Gal.3:4). “Move over” (“offered”). He did not say “passed over” (“transferred”), but “pass over” (“are offered”), that is, “I still do not believe and do not think that this deception will have complete success,” which again shows the hope of converting them. He expressed this more clearly later, saying: “I am confident about you in the Lord, that you will not think otherwise” (“I hope for you that you will understand nothing else”) (Gal. 5:10). "From him who called you by the grace of Christ" ("from him who called you by the grace of Christ") (Gal. 1:6). Calling, of course, is the work of the Father, but the reason for calling is the Son, since He reconciled us and gave us the gift of grace - after all, we did not receive salvation from righteous works. It would be better to say that what belongs to the Son also belongs to the Father, and what belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. “All that is Mine,” He says, “is Yours, and Yours is Mine” (“All of Mine is Yours, and Yours is Mine”) (John 17:10). And he did not say: “you are leaving the gospel,” but “from him who called you” (“from him who called you”), that is, God. He used an expression that was more threatening to them and was more likely to strike them with fear. The people who wanted to deceive the Galatians did not do it immediately, but little by little changing the essence of the truths preached to them, without changing their names. The deceptions of the devil are of the same kind - and he unnoticedly lays out his nets. If they had begun to say: “Deny Christ,” then the Galatians would have been wary of them as deceivers and corrupters, but now, leaving them for the time being in the faith and covering their deception with the name of the gospel, they with greater boldness undermined the building, covering, like those who undermine the walls, as if with some kind of veil, the teaching preached with these names. 6. So, in view of the fact that they called their false teaching the gospel, (the apostle) very opportunely stands up for the very name and acts directly, saying: “to another gospel, which is nevertheless not another” (“another gospel, which there is no other”) (Gal. 1: 6-7). Beautiful (said) because it really is not different. But just as it happens to the sick who suffer harm from healthy food, so the Marcionites suffered the same thing here. They took advantage of these words and said: “So Paul said that there is no other gospel,” since they do not accept all the evangelists, but only one, and, moreover, having cut off and changed many things in him arbitrarily. What, in this case, do the words spoken by the same apostle mean: “according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 14:24)? So, their words deserve great ridicule; but even if they were funny, it is still necessary to expose their lies for the sake of those who are easily tempted. What shall we say? The fact is that even if very many wrote the Gospels, but if they write the same thing - in this case, many Gospels will represent one, and the multitude of those writing will not in the least prevent him from being one, just as vice versa, although one who wrote, would say the opposite, what he wrote will not be one. In fact, one or not one (the Gospel) is determined not by the number of writers, but by the identity or difference of content. From this it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel. After all, when four people say the same thing, it will not be different only due to the difference in persons, but it will be one due to the agreement of what they wrote. And Paul does not speak here about the number of preachers, but about the disagreement of what is preached. Therefore, if, by the strength of what is written and by the correctness of the dogmas, the Gospel of Matthew represents one thing, and Luke another, then (the Marcionites) rightly quote the words of Paul; if (these Gospels represent) exactly the same thing, then let them stop being crazy, pretending not to know what is quite clear to small children. “Only there are people who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7). This means: “As long as you are sound in mind and pay attention only to what is right and not to what is perverted, inventing what is not, you will not recognize another Gospel.” Just as a damaged eye sees one thing instead of another, so the mind, disturbed by the influx of evil thoughts, is usually subject to exactly the same disease. That is why those suffering from insanity imagine one thing instead of the other. But this madness is more dangerous than that, since it causes harm in the knowledge of not sensory objects, but spiritual ones, and produces disorder not in the pupil of the carnal eyes, but in the eyes of the mind. “And those who wish to transform the gospel of Christ” (“and those who want to transform the gospel of Christ”). True, they added only one or two more commandments, re-establishing the commandment of circumcision and keeping days; but, wanting to show that even a slight violation of the law destroys everything, he said that the Gospel is overthrown. Just as the one who even slightly spoils the seal on the royal coins makes the entire coin worthless, in the same way, the one who distorts even the slightest dogma of the right faith already exposes everything to destruction, gradually moving from one damage to another, worse one. So, where are those who condemn us in strife for disagreeing with heretics? Where are those who say that there is no difference between us and them, but that the existing discord comes from covetousness? Let them hear what Paul says, namely, that those who overthrow the Gospel are those who reintroduce even something of little importance into it. They reintroduce what is not unimportant, because how can it be unimportant when they call the Son of God a creation? Haven’t you heard how in the Old Testament someone who gathered wood on the Sabbath and thereby violated one commandment, and not the most important one at that, was subjected to severe punishment (Num. 15:32–36), or that Uzzah, who wanted to support the ark of the covenant that was threatening to fall, immediately died because he appropriated a ministry that was not appropriate for him (2 Sam. 6:6–7 )? So, if the violation of the Sabbath and touching the falling ark led God to such indignation that those who dared to do both did not receive the slightest pardon, then will he who perverts the terrible and ineffable dogmas of faith really receive justification and pardon? There is no pardon for him, no! This very thing is the cause of all evil, namely, that we do not worry about small offenses. That is why more serious sins arose, because small ones remain without proper correction. And just as in relation to bodies, those who neglect to heal wounds thereby cause fever, decay and death, in the same way in relation to souls - those who do not pay attention to minor errors fall into major ones. “So-and-so,” they say, “sins against fasting, and there is nothing important here”; another is firm in the Orthodox faith, but, being a hypocrite for the sake of the times, does not profess it with such boldness - “and this,” they say, “does not represent a very great evil”; another, being irritated, threatened to deviate from the right faith, but even this supposedly did not deserve punishment, “since he,” they say, “sinned in anger and irritation.” And countless sins of this kind, as everyone can see, invade the Church every day. Therefore, we became worthy of ridicule in the eyes of the Jews and Greeks, (seeing) how the Church is divided into countless parts. If those who attempt to deviate from the divine laws and make some unimportant change in them were subjected to corresponding censure, then a real infection would not appear and such a great storm would not engulf the Church. So, see why Paul calls circumcision a reversal of the gospel. 7. And now many among us fast on the same day as the Jews, and likewise observe the Sabbath; we endure it with courage, or, better, with humiliation. What am I talking about Jewish (customs)? Even some of us observe many pagan customs, sorcery, fortune-telling, omens, observing the days, superstitious signs at birth and writings full of all sorts of wickedness, which they, unfortunately, place on the heads of newly born children, teaching them from the first days of life to despise labors for virtue and subjecting their fate to the deceitful dominion of the fate that controls them. But if those who are circumcised will not benefit from Christ at all (Gal. 5:2), then can faith serve in any way for the salvation of those who introduce such wickedness? It is true that circumcision was instituted by God, but since it was harmful to the Gospel if it was not observed at the right time, Paul did everything to stop it. Is it really true that after Paul made such efforts to stop Jewish customs simply because their observance was untimely, we will not destroy pagan customs? What excuse will we have? That is why everything with us is now in such confusion and confusion; and those who were instructed, filled with great pride, overthrew the order, and everything was perverted. Now if anyone reproaches them even a little, they despise their bosses because we raised them poorly. Meanwhile, if the leaders were really unfit and filled with countless vices, then even in this case it would not be permissible for the student to disobey them. Indeed, if it is said about the Jewish teachers that they, as those who sat in the seat of Moses, deserved to be listened to by those being taught, although their deeds were so evil that (the Lord) ordered the disciples not to imitate them and not to compete in them (Matthew 23: 2-3), then what kind of apology will those who mock and despise the heads of the Church deserve, by the grace of God piously living? After all, if it is not permissible to condemn each other, then it is even more impossible to condemn teachers. “But even if we or an angel from heaven preached to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed.” himself. And since they also relied on the dignity of James and John, in view of this he also mentioned the angels. “So that you do not point out to me,” he says, “James and John, (I say): even if one of the first angels from heaven began to damage the preaching of the gospel, let him be anathema.” And it was not in vain that he said - “from heaven” (“from heaven”), but for the purpose that you, on the basis of the fact that the priests are called angels (in the words): “For the mouth of the priest must keep knowledge, and the law is sought from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (“before the lips of the priests keep understanding, and the law is sought from his mouth: for the angel of the Lord Almighty is”) ( Mal.2:7), - he did not think that these angels were being spoken here; he added the words “from heaven” to the powers on high. And he did not say: “if they preach contrary things,” or “overthrow everything,” but “if they preach even the least important gospel contrary to what we preached, let them be anathema.” “As we said before, so now I speak again” (“As I spoke before, and now I speak again”) (Gal. 1:9). So that you do not think that the previous words were uttered in anger, or said exaggeratedly, or somehow came out involuntarily, he repeats them again. After all, if someone says something, being excited by anger, he will soon repent of his words; whoever says the same thing another time shows that he said it after thinking it, and that having previously decided in his mind, he pronounced what was said exactly as he decided. Abraham, begging (the rich) to send Lazarus, said: “They have Moses and the prophets; If they do not listen to them, they will not listen to those who rose from the dead” (Luke 16:29, 31). Christ, presenting Abraham as saying this, wants to show that He wants the Scriptures to be believed more than those raised from the dead. But Paul (when I call Paul, I mean Christ at the same time, because He Himself acted in his soul) prefers (Scripture) to the angels descending from heaven; and quite fair. In fact, angels, although great, are slaves and servants, and all Scripture was sent down to us, being written not by slaves, but by the Lord and God of all. That is why he says: “If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what we preached to you.” He did not say: “such and such”, which is very reasonable and not burdensome. Why, indeed, was it necessary to mention names to someone who had such superiority that he embraced everyone - both above and below? Having pronounced a curse on the evangelists and angels, he thereby embraced all dignity, and having pronounced a curse on himself, he embraced all kinship and friendship. “Do not tell me,” he says, “that this is what your fellow apostles and friends preach, because I will not spare myself if they preach the opposite. However, he does not say this to condemn the other apostles, who, as it were, perverted the sermon (of the Gospel); no: “Whether we,” he says, “or they, this is how we preach” (1 Cor. 15:11); but by this he only wanted to show that the dignity of persons is not taken into account when it comes to truth. “Do I now seek favor from people, or from God? Do I try to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (“Now do I argue with men, or with God, or do I seek to please men? Even if I had pleased men, I would never have been a servant of Christ”) (Gal. 1:10). “Even if,” he says, “I could deceive you with my words, would I really be able to deceive God, Who knows all secret thoughts and constantly pleasing Whom is the subject of my only concern?” Do you see the apostolic spirit? Do you see the height of the gospel? He said the same thing in his letter to the Corinthians: “we do not defend ourselves against you, we give you a reason to boast about us” (“but we give you guilt to boast”) (2 Cor. 5:12); and also: “It means very little to me how you judge me or how other people judge me” (“I have little to eat, lest I get it from you or from men”) (1 Cor. 4:3). Since he, as a teacher, is forced to defend himself in front of his students, although he patiently endures this, he is at the same time indignant; however, not out of pride - let it not be - but because of the frivolity of those who are deceived and because they have little faith in his words. That's why he said it, almost saying, “Do I have anything to do with you? Will people judge me? I have a deal with God, and I do everything to justify myself there, before His court; Yes, I have not yet reached such a misfortune that, preparing to give an answer in my sermon before the Lord of all, I began to damage dogmas.” 8. So, he said the above words partly in defense of himself, partly wanting to repel them. After all, those being taught should not judge their teachers, but believe them; “But since the order has already been perverted,” he says, “and you have sat down in the place of judges, then know that I care very little about justification before you, but I do everything for God, so that I can be justified before Him in the preached dogmas.” Whoever wants to gain the favor of people uses a lot of guile and cunning, uses deception and lies to win over and win over listeners; on the contrary, whoever wants to gain favor with God and tries to please Him needs only a sound and pure mind, since the Divine cannot be deceived. “From this it is obvious,” he says, “that we are not writing this out of ambition, and not in order to have disciples, and also not because we seek glory from you, since we are trying not to please people, but God. If I wanted to please people, then even now I would be on the side of the Jews, and now I would still be persecuting the Church. But since I despised an entire people and friends and relatives and high glory and preferred persecution, enmity, warfare and everyday death to all this, it is obvious that everything that I say now, I do not say to gain human glory.” He said this because he intends to tell both his previous life and the sudden change, and to clearly prove that he stands for the truth, so that they would not think that he was doing this wanting to justify himself before them, and would not become proud. That’s why he said in advance: “Am I now seeking favor from people?” (“Do I now argue with men?”) He knew that in order to correct those being instructed, it is sometimes timely to offer something lofty and great. Although he could provide evidence of the truth of his preaching from another source - for example, prove it on the basis of signs, wonders, dangers, prisons, daily deaths, hunger and thirst, nakedness and on the basis of other similar things, but since he is now speaking not about false apostles, but about the apostles - and the latter themselves participated in these dangers - he proceeds to solve the issue from the other side; in other cases, when he addresses his speech to the false apostles, he uses a comparison, showing off his patience in tribulations and says: “Servants of Christ? (I say in madness) I am more. I was much more in labor, immensely in wounds, more in prisons and many times at the point of death” (“Are the servants of Christ? I say not in wisdom, more than I. In labor I am multiplied, in wounds more painful, in prisons I am overflowing, in deaths are many”) (2 Cor. 11:23). Now he talks about his former way of life, and says: “I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not that of men, for I also received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (“But I tell you, brethren, the gospel preached from me was not according to man.” ) (Gal.1:11–12). See how he presents evidence from everywhere that he was a disciple of Christ, who himself, without human intervention, deigned to open to him the understanding of everything. But how is it possible to prove to non-believers that God himself, without human intervention, revealed to you those ineffable secrets? “This proves,” he says, “my former way of life (and sudden conversion): after all, if God had not revealed these secrets to me, I could not have changed so suddenly.” For those who learn from people, if they firmly and ardently adhere to their convictions, it sometimes takes time and a lot of effort to be convinced otherwise; whoever so suddenly changed and, being at the highest stage of madness, came to such a sincere consciousness, clearly shows that he so suddenly returned to sanity thanks to divine revelation and instruction. That is why he is forced to mention his former life and call them to witness what was with him. “Of course, you do not know,” he says, “that the only begotten Son of God himself directly called me (with His voice) from heaven,” because how can you know this, since you were not there; - but you know well that I was a persecutor. After all, the rumor about my cruelty reached you, despite the enormous distance between Palestine and Galatia; and such a rumor about me would not have spread so far if my cruelty had not been too great and unbearable for everyone.” That’s why he says: “You have heard about my former way of life in Judaism, that I cruelly persecuted the Church of God and devastated it” (“for you have sometimes heard of my life as a Jew, how they persecuted the Church of God in great numbers and destroyed it”) (Gal. 1:13). Do you see with what power each (word) expresses itself and is not ashamed? After all, he not only persecuted, but persecuted with all cruelty, and not only persecuted, but also devastated, that is, he tried to destroy, ruin, overthrow and exterminate the Church; to do so is characteristic of the devastator. 9. “And he prospered in Judaism more than many of my peers in my generation, being an immoderate zealot for the traditions of my fathers” ( “And he prospered in Judaism more than many of my peers in my generation, being overly zealous for the traditions of my fathers”) (Gal. 1:14). Lest you think that such activity was the result of anger, he explains that he did all this out of jealousy, albeit in ignorance, and did not persecute out of vanity or enmity, but “being an immoderate zealot of my fatherly traditions” (“zealot of my fatherly traditions”). And these words mean the following: “If what I did against the Church, I did not out of human motives, but out of divine jealousy, erroneous, it is true, but in any case - jealousy, then how now, having struggled for the Church and having learned the truth, can I do this out of vanity? After all, if during my delusion I was not possessed by such a passion, but zeal for God prompted me to such a course of action, then even more so when I learned the truth, it would be unfair to suspect such vanity in me. Indeed, as soon as I turned to the dogmas of the Church and renounced all Jewish errors, I showed even greater zeal here than there, and this serves as proof that I have truly changed and are embraced by divine zeal. If not this, then what else, tell me, could have disposed me to such a change and exchange honor for reproach, peace for danger, security for suffering? There was no other reason except love for the truth.” “When God, who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him to the Gentiles, I did not then consult with flesh and blood.” the Gentiles, but they were not joined to flesh and blood” (Gal. 1:15–16). See how he tries to show here that even the time during which he remained in error was dependent on some inscrutable discretion (of God). In fact, if he was chosen from his mother’s womb to be an apostle and destined for this service, and was called afterwards and, moreover, being called, obeyed (the Caller), then it is obvious that God delayed calling him for some inscrutable reason. What kind of look (of God) could there be here? Perhaps you first want to hear from me why (God) did not call him along with the twelve (apostles); but, so that, having retreated from the subject that occupies us, I do not continue the words beyond what is proper, I beg your love not to learn everything from me, but also to investigate for yourself and pray to God so that He will reveal it to you. In addition, we said something about this when I discussed with you about the change of his name, and why he, who bore the name of Saul, was called Paul; if you have forgotten, then by consulting that book, you will find out all this. Now, in order, we will continue our speech, and note how he again shows that what happened to him was not a human act, but that God arranged everything regarding him according to a special providence. "And he who called by His grace" ("and called by His grace"). “God,” he says, “called him for his virtue.” “He is My chosen vessel,” He said to Ananias, “to proclaim My name before the nations” (“My chosen vessel is... to carry My name before nations and kings”) (Acts 9:15), that is, “he is capable of serving and doing great things.” This is the reason for his calling (God); He himself (the apostle) everywhere attributes everything to the grace and ineffable love of God, saying this: “But I received mercy, not because I was able or worthy, but so that in me... He showed all longsuffering as an example to those who will believe in Him in eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:16). Do you see the height of humility? “For this reason,” he says, “I have had mercy, so that no one will despair, after the worst of all people has been rewarded with God’s love for mankind.” After all, this is precisely what he wants to show with the words: “so that in me... he may show all long-suffering as an example to those who will believe in Him.” “Reveal Your Son in me” (“reveal Your Son in me”). And Christ says in one place: “No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal it” (Matthew 11:27). Do you see that both the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father? The same thing happens in relation to fame. The Son glorifies the Father and the Father the Son: “Glorify Me,” He says, “so that I may glorify You”; and again: “how I have glorified You” (John 17:1, 4). But why didn’t He say: “show His Son to me,” but “in me”? In order to show that he not only learned through words what related to faith, but was also filled with the Holy Spirit, because when the revelation illuminated his soul, he had Christ speaking within him. “That I may preach Him to the Gentiles” (“let me preach Him to the Gentiles”). Not only his very conversion to faith, but also his calling (to the apostleship) was the work of God: “After all, He revealed Himself to me for the purpose that I would not only know Him, but would announce Him to others.” And he did not simply say “to others,” but: “so that I preach Him to the Gentiles” (“let me preach Him to the Gentiles”), already thereby preparing a considerable basis for his defense precisely from the very origin of the disciples. After all, it was not equally necessary for him to preach to Jews and pagans. “I did not then consult with flesh and blood” (“abiye who did not join flesh and blood”). Here he points to the apostles, calling them by nature. But if he says this about all people, we do not contradict this either. “And I did not go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who preceded me” (“nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who were first before me”) (Gal. 1:17). If anyone considers these words separately, they may think that they are filled with great boasting and are completely inconsistent with the spirit of the apostles. In fact, deciding something with yourself and not revealing your thoughts to anyone can be mistaken for pride. “Have you seen,” it is said, “a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope in a fool than in him” (“I have seen a man who did not expect himself to be wise, but a fool has more hope than him”) (Prov. 26:12); and: “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and understanding in their own eyes!” ("woe, who are wise in themselves and understand before themselves") (Is. 5:21); and Paul himself says: “Do not dream of yourself” (“Do not be wise about yourself”) (Rom. 12:16). 10. So, anyone who heard similar instructions from others and himself taught the same to others could not, of course, fall into such conceit - not only Paul, but even any (simple) person. But, as I said, this saying, when considered in isolation, may lead to doubt and sway some of the listeners; if we give the reason why this was said, then everyone will applaud and be surprised at the one who said it. So let's do this. After all, one should not consider individual words, since this will entail many errors; in the same way, one should not examine a single saying, but it is necessary to pay attention to the intention of the writer. And in our conversations, if we do not use this method and seek out the true thoughts of the speaker, then we will create many misunderstandings, and the whole meaning of the speech will be distorted. And what can we say about words, when in deeds, if we do not follow this rule, everything will fall into complete disorder? In fact, doctors cut the body and dissect some bones, but robbers often do the same. What a misfortune it would be if we could not distinguish a robber from a doctor! Likewise, murderers and martyrs who are put to a painful death undergo the same suffering, but there is undoubtedly a great difference between them. If we do not observe the indicated rule, if we examine only the deeds, without taking into account the intentions of those doing them, then we will not be able to see the indicated difference, but we will call Elijah, Samuel, and Phinehas murderers, and perhaps we will call Abraham a child killer. Let us examine Paul’s thought with which he wrote these words; We will find out his purpose and what he always was in relation to the apostles - and then we will know with what intention he said this. Of course, he said both this and the previous one not in order to praise himself - how, in fact, could he do this when he exposed himself to a curse (Gal. 1:8)? - but in order to preserve the security of the Gospel everywhere. Since those who destroyed the Church said that one should follow those apostles who do not forbid this, and not Paul, who forbids it; and thanks to this, Jewish error penetrated unnoticed; then he was forced to resolutely rebel against this, not thinking of saying anything bad about the apostles, but wanting to bring down the pride of those who were unjustly exalted. That is why he says: “I did not then consult with flesh and blood” (“I did not join flesh and blood”). And it would be extreme absurdity if the one who learned from God began to consult with people. He who receives teaching from people quite rightly again resorts to the advice of people; but he who was worthy of that divine and blessed word and learned everything from Him who possesses the very treasure of wisdom, why would he still consult with people? Such a person should rightly not learn from people, but teach people. So, he said these words not out of pride, but to show the dignity of his preaching. “And I did not go,” he says, “to Jerusalem to the Apostles who preceded me” (“not even a sigh to those who were my first apostles”). Since they said that the others (the apostles) were older than him and were called before him, that is why, he says, he did not go to them. If he needed to enter into an agreement with them, then He who opened the word of the sermon to him would have commanded him to do this too. So, why didn't he go there? Of course, I went, and not just, but to learn something from them. When? When in the city of Antioch, which from the very beginning showed great zeal for the Church, bewilderment arose about the same subject about which we are now discussing, and (the apostles) wanted to know whether it was necessary to circumcise those who believed from the pagans, or whether they should not be forced to undergo it at all. Then Paul himself and Silas went (to Jerusalem). How then does he say that he did not go and consult? Firstly, because he did not go there of his own free will, but was sent by others; and secondly, not to learn, but to convince others. And from the very beginning he himself held the opinion that the apostles later confirmed - namely, that one should not be circumcised; but since they still did not consider him worthy of trust and listened more to those who were in Jerusalem, he went there, not, however, to learn anything more himself, but to convince his opponents that those in Jerusalem agreed with this. Thus, from the very beginning he saw what needed to be done and had no need for a teacher; and in what the apostles had to approve after a long discussion, he was unshakably confirmed from above even before their reasoning. Luke, explaining this, said that Paul had a great and lengthy dispute with them on this subject even before his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2). But since the brothers wanted to know about this (and from the other apostles), he went there, for them, and not for himself. If he says: “and did not go” (“not even a sigh”), then in explanation of these words we can say that he did not go there at the beginning of his sermon, and even then, when he went there, he did not go there to study. After all, it is precisely both of these thoughts that he points to in the words: “at that time he did not consult with flesh and blood” (“abiye did not join flesh and blood”). He did not simply say: “I did not consult” (“they did not join”), but “at the same time” (“abiye”). If afterward he went there, it was not to receive something. “But he went into Arabia” (“but died into Arabia”) (Gal.1:17). Look what a fiery soul! He tried to occupy countries that had not yet been cultivated and remained in a wild state. If he had remained with the apostles, having nothing to learn from them, then the work of preaching would have stopped, whereas they should have spread the teaching everywhere. That is why this blessed one, fiery in spirit, immediately began the task of teaching people who were not yet taught and wild, choosing a life that was difficult and fraught with many dangers. 11. And look how humble he is! Having said: “I went to Arabia” (“I died in Arabia”), he added: “and again returned to Damascus” (“and again we returned to Damascus”). He does not say anything about his exploits, nor about whom and how many he taught, while immediately after baptism he revealed such jealousy that he confused the Jews and aroused such hatred for himself both in them and in the pagans that they lay in wait for him and wanted to kill him; and this would not have happened if he had not acquired a great multitude of believers. Since they were defeated by his teaching, they could only turn to murder, and this was clear proof of Paul’s victory. But Christ did not allow him to die, preserving him for preaching. And despite this, he does not say anything about these exploits of his, and therefore whatever he says, he does not say out of ambition and not in order to be considered greater in comparison with the other apostles; and also not because he was upset that he was humiliated before them, but out of fear that any harm would come from this to the preaching. After all, he himself calls himself a monster, and the first of sinners, and the last of the apostles, and even unworthy of such a name (1 Cor. 15:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:15); and this is said by the one who worked the most - which is a special proof of his humility. In fact, whoever, without admitting anything good about himself, speaks humbly about himself, is, of course, prudent, but he cannot be called humble; Whoever, despite so many crowns, talks about himself like this, knows how to be modest. “And again we returned,” he says, “to Damascus” (“and again we returned to Damascus”). And how much, in all likelihood, he accomplished there! About this city he says that the ethnarch (regional ruler) of King Aretas guarded this city, wanting to capture the blessed one (2 Cor. 11:32); and this served as the clearest proof that he attacked the Jews there very strongly. But here he says nothing about it, and even there he would not have mentioned it if he had not seen that at that time the very circumstances required this story; but he would have kept silent in the same way as here: saying that he came and left, he says nothing more about what was there. “Then, three years later, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter” (“Then I sighed for three years in Jerusalem to spy for Peter”) (Gal. 1:18). What could be more humble than such a soul? After so great and so many exploits, having no need for Peter, nor his word, but being equal to him - I won’t say anything more for now - he still comes to him, as if to the greatest and oldest, and the reason for traveling there is only to see Peter. Do you see how he gives due honor to the other apostles and not only does not consider himself better than them, but does not even consider himself equal to them? And this is clearly evident from the journey he took. In fact, just as today many of our brethren go to holy men, in the same way Paul, for the same reason, then went to Peter, but only with much greater humility. Nowadays, travel is undertaken for the benefit, and the blessed one (Paul) went not to learn anything and not to correct any of his errors, but solely for the sake of seeing (Peter) and honoring him with his presence: “to see,” he says, “with Peter” (“to spy on Peter”). And he did not say “to see Peter,” but “to see Peter” (i.e., to recognize him), as people usually say when considering great and noble cities. So he considered it worthy of special effort just to see this husband. His deeds clearly show the same thing. Indeed, when he came to Jerusalem after he had converted many of the pagans and had done such deeds as none of the others (the apostles) had done, after he had converted Pamphylia, Lycaonia, the people of Cilicia and all those living in this part of the earth and brought them to Christ, he first comes to Jacob with great humility, as if to an elder and honored with greater honor. Then he listens to his advice, and, moreover, contrary to what he himself says now. “You see, brother,” said (Jacob), “how many thousands of Jews have believed. ...But he cut his hair also and ... be clean” (Acts 21:20, 24) - and he cut his hair and performed all the Jewish customs. Where there was no harm to the gospel, he was the most compliant; Where he saw that compliance would cause harm to some, he did not use this excess of humility, because this would no longer mean being humble, but destroying and corrupting those being instructed. “And he stayed with him fifteen days” (“And he stayed with him for fifteen days”). The journey undertaken (for Peter's sake) was proof of great respect for him (Paul), while their stay for so many days showed their friendly disposition and sincere love for each other. “But I saw no other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19). Look what a great disposition he has towards Peter: for his sake he undertook the journey and stayed with him. I speak about this so often and want to keep it in your memory so that when you hear the words spoken, apparently, against Peter, none of you suspects the apostle. To warn of this, he himself speaks of visiting Peter, so that when he says: “I resisted Peter” (Gal. 2:11), no one would consider these words a manifestation of enmity and competition; and indeed, he honors this husband and loves him more than anyone else. After all, he came to Jerusalem, according to him, not for the sake of any other of the apostles, but solely for his sake. “I have not seen another of the Apostles...,” he says, “except James, the brother of the Lord” (“But I have not seen anyone else from the Apostles except James”). “I saw it,” he says, “but I didn’t learn anything from him.” But notice with what respect he named this one too. He didn’t just say “Jacob,” but added his glorious title, “brother of the Lord,” so he was alien to any kind of envy! If he had only wanted to indicate the one he was talking about, he could have made it clear by using another distinctive feature, and called him the son of Cleopas, as the Evangelist said (John 19:25). However, he did not say so, but since he considered the honorary names of the apostles to be his own names, then, as if exalting himself, he also dignifies him. After all, he didn’t call it what I said, but how? Brother of the Lord. Although he was not actually the brother of the Lord in the flesh, but was only considered such, however, this did not stop (the apostle) from recognizing the dignity of this man. And in many other places he shows that he was disposed towards all the apostles as sincerely as was fitting for him. “But in what I write to you, I do not lie in the sight of God.” “(But in what I write to you, behold, in the sight of God I do not lie.”) (Gal. 1:20). Do you see the humility of this holy soul shining equally everywhere? He, as if competing at a trial and preparing to be tortured, took care of such protection of himself. “After this I went to the countries of Syria and Cilicia” (“Then I came to the countries of Syria and Cilicia”) (Gal. 1:21), - after a meeting with Peter. Again he begins the word of the sermon and the feat that lies ahead, without touching the Jews, both because he was sent to the pagans and because he did not want to build on someone else’s foundation. That is why he did not meet, even by chance, with other apostles; this is clearly evident from further words. “I was not personally known to the churches of Christ in Judea,” he says, “but they only heard that he who once persecuted them is now preaching the faith, which he formerly destroyed” (“But we do not know who we are to the churches of Judea... But having heard the sound of persecuting us sometimes, now preaches the faith, even though sometimes destroying it”) (Gal. 1:22-23). What could be more modest than such a soul? In fact, everything that served to accuse him, such as, for example, the fact that he persecuted the Church and devastated it, he outlined with particular force and detail, thus revealing his former life; and what could show him on the bright side is passed over (in silence). And having the opportunity, if he wanted, to retell all his exploits, he does not talk about any of them, but, having crossed the immeasurable sea in one word and saying: “I went to the countries of Syria and Cilicia” (“I came to the countries of Syria and Cilicia”), and: “they heard that the one who persecuted them once was now preaching the gospel of the faith that he had previously destroyed” (“hearing the bang, as if persecute us sometimes, now preaches the gospel of faith, sometimes destroys us”), did not add anything more. What did he want to say with the words: “I was not personally known to the churches... in Judea” (“we do not know the churches of Judea”)? (I wanted) you to know that he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that he was not even known to them by sight. “And they glorified God for me” (“and I glorified God for me”) (Gal.1:24). Notice here too the rule of his humility, and with what strictness he fulfills it. He did not say, “they marveled at me, they praised me, they were amazed at me,” but he showed that it was all a work of grace. “And they glorified God,” he says, “for me.” (Gal.2:1-2) Then, fourteen years later, I went again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. I walked by revelation. How do false apostles differ from true ones? – Why did Paul circumcise Timothy? - Paul's prudence. - About the competition between Paul and Peter. – Against Christians who keep the old law. The reason for the first ascent to Jerusalem, according to him, was Peter and his meeting with him, and the reason for the second was the revelation of the Spirit. “And there I set before them, and especially to the most famous, the gospel which I preached to the Gentiles, lest I run or have labored in vain” (“And I set before them the gospel which I preach in the Gentiles, but privately to imaginary ones, lest I should run in vain, or run in vain”) (Gal. 2:2). What are you saying, Pavel? Having not decided to offer at first or after three years, how can you ask after fourteen years whether you are struggling in vain? How much better would it have been to do this right away at the very beginning, rather than after so many years? Why did you strive if you were not sure that you did not struggle in vain? Who could be so foolish as to preach for so many years without knowing whether he preaches well? And what is even more incomprehensible than this is that he walked, as he says, by revelation. However, although this is more incomprehensible than the first, as I said, it can give us an explanation of even that. After all, even if he walked on his own impulse, then even in this case it is difficult to explain his action, because it is impossible to allow this blessed soul to fall into such recklessness, and he himself says: “And therefore I do not run as if against the wrong, I do not fight so as to only beat the air” (“this is how I flow, not as if it were unknown, so I struggle, not like beating the air”) ( 1 Corinthians 9:26). So, if (you are running) not to the wrong, then how can you say: “I have not labored or labored in vain” (“let me not flow in vain, or flow”)? From this it is clear that if he had walked without revelation, then even then he would have acted in a way that is characteristic only of the unreasonable; only then what he did would be inappropriate; when the grace of the Spirit attracts him, then who will dare to suspect him of anything like that? That is why he added: “by revelation,” so that before resolving the issue you would not condemn him as foolish, knowing that what he did was not a human act, but a matter of divine providence, which arranges both the present and the future. So, what is the reason for this journey of his? Just as when he first came from Antioch to Jerusalem, he came not for himself - because he himself clearly knew that he must follow the teachings of Christ without any change, but in order to reconcile those who were disputing among themselves - in the same way now he went not because he had a need to find out whether he had labored in vain, but in order to completely convince those who accused him. Since the latter had a higher opinion of Peter and John and thought that he did not agree with them, since he preached the Gospel without circumcision, and they allowed it, and since they thought that in this case he was acting against the law and struggling in vain, he therefore says: “I went and told them the gospel, not in order to learn anything from them myself,” as he speaks more clearly below, “but in order to admonish those who who suspected this, that I was not struggling in vain.” And the Spirit, foreseeing this competition, disposed him to go (to Jerusalem) and communicate his teaching there. That is why he says: “walked by revelation,” and took Barnabas and Titus with him so that they could witness his preaching. “And I offered there, and especially to the most famous, the gospel that I preached to the pagans” - that is, without circumcision (“And I set before them the gospel that I preach among the nations privately to imaginary ones”). What does “specially” (“in private”) mean? After all, whoever wants to correct general dogmas does not set them out in private, but expounds them in front of everyone. But Paul did not do this, since he did not want to learn something or correct, but to take away the reason for deception from those who wanted to deceive others. Since in Jerusalem everyone was offended if anyone allowed a deviation from the law and forbade the use of circumcision, that’s why (James) said: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and they all... have heard enough about you that you... teach everyone to deviate from Moses” (“You see, brother, how many of those... believed, and they all... were informed... about you, that you taught to deviate from the law”) (Acts 21:20-21). Since, I repeat, they were tempted, he did not dare to come openly and present his sermon in front of everyone, but suggested to the “especially famous” (“privately imaginary”), under Barnabas and Titus, that they should be reliable witnesses before his accusers, that the apostles did not find his preaching objectionable, but, on the contrary, confirmed it. When he says: “to the most famous” (“imaginary”), he does not say this in order to deprive them of the dignity that belongs to them, since he also says about himself: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (“I think that I also have the Spirit of God”) (1 Cor. 7:40), which simply means a person moderating his dignity, and not denying in himself what he has in the same way here: saying - “the most famous” (“imaginary”), he says this according to the general opinion about them and his own. “But they did not force Titus, who was with me, even though he was a Greek, to be circumcised” (“But neither Titus, who was with me, a Greek, needed to be circumcised”) (Gal. 2:3). What does it mean – “even though she is Hellenic” (“Hellen sy”)? This means - “(Titus) was from the Hellenes and uncircumcised.” “Not only I,” he says, “preached this way, but Titus also did the same, and the apostles did not force him, uncircumcised, to be circumcised.” This was the surest proof that the apostles did not condemn Paul's teachings or his actions. And what is even more important - it was proof that even when the opponents, having learned about this, insisted on circumcision, they could not force the apostles to order it - which is exactly what he pointed out with the words: “to the false brethren who crept in” (“and for the false brethren who came”) (Gal. 2:4). Who are these false brethren? This requires a lot of research here. After all, if the apostles allowed circumcision here, then why do you call those false brothers who, in agreement with the opinion of the apostles, themselves ordered it to be done? Firstly, because it is not the same thing to demand that something be done and to allow it to be done. In fact, whoever orders insists on this as necessary and important, and whoever, although he does not demand it himself, does not forbid the one who wants it, he allows a certain action, not as a necessary due, but for some special reason. I will say, for example: Paul wrote to the Corinthians and commanded wives and husbands to live together again (1 Cor. 7:5). 2. But lest you think that he was imposing a law on them with these words, he added: “However, this was said by me as permission, and not as a command” (“I say this by advice, [but] not by command”) (1 Cor. 7:6), because this did not mean a decisive sentence on him, but condescension to their intemperance. That’s why he says: “through your intemperance” (1 Cor. 7:5). If you want to know Paul’s opinion about this, then listen to what he says: “I desire that all men may be as I am” (1 Cor. 7:7). It’s the same here - the apostles allowed circumcision not as defenders of the law, but out of condescension towards the weakness of the Jews. Indeed, if they defended the law, they would not preach to the Jews this way, and to the pagans differently; and if something had to be done according to the law of Christ by the unfaithful, then it is obvious that the same had to be done by all the faithful. If they decided by law not to burden the pagans with this (circumcision), then they showed that they allowed it to the Jews only out of condescension. But the false brethren did this not out of such a motive, but in order to tear the believers away from grace and again subject them to the yoke of slavery. This is the first difference that puts a great distance between the apostles and the false brethren. The second thing is that the apostles did this in Judea, where the law was still in force, but the false brethren did this everywhere, because they wanted to enslave all the Galatians. From this it is clear that this was not done for creation, but for complete destruction. And besides, the apostles allowed this with a different intention, and with a different intention the false brethren forced it. “Those who came secretly to spy on our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus” (“Whoever came to spy on our freedom, even the imams in Christ Jesus”) (Gal. 2:4). Do you see how he expressed their hostility by the name of the spies? Indeed, spies enter only in order to, having found out the affairs of their opponents, prepare for themselves the most convenient means of defeating and destroying them; The false brethren did the same then, wanting to subject the Galatians to Old Testament slavery. Thus, and from here it is clear that the intention of the apostles and the false brethren was not the same, but, on the contrary, completely opposite. The first allowed leniency in order to gradually lead them out of slavery; the latter established this in order to subject them to even greater slavery. Therefore, they carefully spied and observed who was circumcised - just as Paul, pointing to this, said: “those who came to spy on our freedom” (“the spies of our freedom”), revealing their cunning not only by the name of spies, but also by the fact that they came secretly and in a secret way. “We have not yielded even for an hour, nor have we submitted ourselves for an hour” (Gal. 2:5). Notice the height and expressiveness of these words. He did not say “they listened” (in the word), but “they submitted” (“to subjugation”), because they did this not in order to teach something useful, but in order to subjugate and enslave them. “Therefore,” he says, “we yielded to the apostles, but not to those.” “That the truth of the gospel may remain with you” (“that the truth of the gospel may remain in you”) (Gal. 2:5). “So that what we taught in words may be confirmed by deeds, namely, that what was old has passed away and everything new has become, that whoever is in Christ is a new creation (“if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”) (2 Cor. 5:17) and that those who are circumcised will not benefit from Christ at all (Gal. 5:2, 6:15). In affirming this truth, we did not yield to (them) for an hour.” But since the actions of the apostles immediately spoke against him, and therefore some could naturally say: “how do they command this?” - then look how wisely he resolves this objection. He does not indicate the true reason, namely, that the apostles did this out of condescension and for a special reason, since this could harm the listeners. After all, there is no need to know the reasons for the action of those who, thanks to it, will receive some benefit, because if the reason for what is being done is revealed, then everything will be destroyed. Therefore, only the one who does it should know the reason for the action; those for whom the benefit is prepared through it should not know this reason. And to make what I say more clear, I will present an example from the same subject. This blessed Paul himself, who abolished circumcision, when he wanted to send Timothy as a teacher to the Jews, first circumcised him, and then sent him (Acts 16:3). He did this so that the listeners would have more confidence in Timothy, and he came to them circumcised in order to destroy circumcision. And he himself, as well as Timothy, knew the reason for this matter, but did not tell his disciples. Indeed, if they had known that he was circumcised in order to destroy circumcision, they would not have listened to his preaching at all, and all the benefit would have been lost, but now ignorance brought them the greatest benefit. Believing, of course, that he did this as the keeper of the law, they favorably and willingly accepted both him and his teaching. And accepting his teaching little by little and establishing themselves in it, they abandoned the ancient, which would not have happened if they had known the reason at the very beginning. In fact, if they knew this, they would begin to turn away from him, and, turning away, they would not listen, and without listening, they would remain in the same delusion. And so that the latter did not happen, he did not discover the reason. That is why here, too, he does not reveal the reasons for such an action, but he leads his word in a different way, saying this: “And in those who are famous for something, no matter what they have ever been, there is nothing special for me: God does not look at the face of a person” (“from those who pretend to be what they once were, they are nothing different from us: God does not accept the face of man”) (Gal. 2:6). Here he not only does not defend the apostles, but also speaks strongly against these saints in order to benefit the weak. His words have the following meaning: “If they allow circumcision, then they will also give an answer to God. After all, God, just because they are considered great and supreme, will not respect their faces.” However, he did not speak so frankly, but with caution. In fact, he did not say: “If they damage the sermon and preach not as commanded, they will answer at the last judgment and suffer a heavy punishment”; He didn’t say anything like that, but it seems that he refers to them much more respectfully, saying this: “And in those famous for something, no matter what they ever were” (“from those who imagine that they were something, they once were”). And he did not say: “what they are now,” but “were” (“besha”), showing by this that they also stopped preaching like that after the light of preaching shone everywhere. With the words: “whatever they were at one time” (“what they once were”), he says: “If they preached like that, then they themselves will give an answer. And not before people, but before God they will give an answer.” 3. He said this not because he doubted them or did not know their intentions, but, as I said, because he considered it more useful to conduct his word this way. Then, so that they would not think that he was taking the opposite path, accusing them, and thus not giving rise to division, he immediately corrected his speech, saying: “And the famous ones laid nothing more on me” (“for they have laid nothing on me”) (Gal. 2:6). What does this mean? “What you say,” he says, “I don’t know; and, meanwhile, I know for certain that they did not contradict me, on the contrary, they were like-minded and agreed with me,” - after all, this is precisely what he shows with the words: “they gave me ... the hand of fellowship” (“right hands of Dasha”) (Gal. 2:9). But for now he does not say this, but only says that they taught him nothing, corrected him nothing and added nothing to what he knew. “And the famous,” he says, “have not laid anything more on me” (“For the imaginary they have brought nothing more to me”). This means: “Having learned my teaching, they added nothing to it, corrected nothing, and this despite the fact that they knew that I came to communicate my teaching to them, moreover, I came by revelation of the Spirit to communicate this, and brought with me the uncircumcised Titus; but they neither told me anything more than what I knew, nor did they circumcise Titus.” “On the contrary…” (“But the opposite”) (Gal.2:7). What does “opposite that” (“opposite”) mean? Some think that by this he wanted to say that (the apostles) not only taught him nothing, but also that they themselves learned from him; but I won't say it. Indeed, what else would they learn from him? After all, each of them was perfect. So, this is not what he wants to say with the word “opposite that” (“opposite”), but that they not only did not reproach him, but, on the contrary, were so far from censure that they also approved of him, because the opposite of censure is approval. But against this, some could immediately say: “If they approved, then why didn’t they cancel circumcision? After all, if it was approved, then it should have been canceled.” But to say that it was cancelled, he considered it too immodest, and thought that by doing this he would stir up an open struggle against the (apostolic) confession. On the other hand, he saw that to openly admit that circumcision should be allowed was to meet with another objection. “If they approved of your preaching,” they would say then, “but they themselves allowed circumcision, then in that case they contradicted themselves.” How to resolve this difficulty? He could, of course, say that (the apostles) did this (allowed circumcision) out of condescension towards the Jews; but, having said this, he would have shaken the whole foundation of their wise dispensation. That is why he does not say this, but leaves it in doubt and unresolved, saying only: “And in those who are famous for something ... there is nothing special for me” (“from those who pretend to be something, ... there is nothing different from us”) (Gal. 2:6), as if saying to him: “I do not condemn or slander these saints; they themselves know what they did, since they must give an answer to God; the subject of my concern is to prove only that they did not reject my teaching, and did not correct it, and did not add anything to it, as if there was something missing in it, but, on the contrary, they approved it and confirmed it with their consent, and I have Titus and Barnabas as witnesses of this.” Therefore, he further says: “having seen that I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter was entrusted with the circumcision” (Gal. 2:7), meaning by circumcision and uncircumcision not the actual matter itself, but the nations distinguished by this from each other. Indeed, he goes on to say: “For he who assisted Peter in his apostleship to the circumcision also assisted me among the Gentiles” (“for he who assisted Peter in the message of circumcision, also aided me in the tongues”) (Gal. 2:8). So, just as he calls the Gentiles uncircumcision, so he calls the Jews circumcision. At the same time, he shows that he has equal honor (with the apostles) and compares himself not with any other of them, but with the Supreme One, showing by this that each of them received equal dignity. Having presented proof of his like-mindedness (with the apostles), he boldly and freely continues his conversation and no longer stops only at the apostles alone, but elevates his word even to Christ and the grace (apostleship) given to him by Christ, calling the apostles themselves witnesses of this, and says: “about the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, revered as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship” ( “Having known the grace of the Lord, which was given to me, James and Cephas and John became pillars of the world, and gave fellowship to Barnabas and me” (Gal. 2:9). And he did not say: “having heard,” but “having known” (“having known”), i.e., being convinced from the very deeds, “they gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship” (“the right hands gave me and Barnabas fellowship.”) Do you see how little by little he showed that his preaching was pleasing to both Christ and the apostles? In fact, grace would not have been given to him and would not have acted in him if such the preaching was not pleasing (to Christ). And where he needed to compare himself, there he mentions only Peter, and where it was necessary to present evidence, he names three together, and moreover with praise, saying: “James and Cephas and John, revered as pillars” (“Cephas and James and John, who were supposed to be pillars”). And again, with the word “honored” (“imaginaries”), he does not deny that they really were such, but cites the opinion of others, and says that “those great and glorious ones, whom everyone everywhere extols, are themselves witnesses of what I say, namely, that this is pleasing to Christ; that they were convinced of the truth of this from the very deeds and were convinced of it from experience itself. That is why they gave me their hand (communication), and not only to me, but also to Barnabas, “so that we may go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision” (“yes, we are to the tongues, and they are to the circumcision”) (Gal. 2:9). What a wealth of intelligence and indisputable proof of agreement! He shows that their teaching was in agreement with his teaching, and his teaching was in agreement with their teaching. Both sides wanted the same thing - that they should preach like this to the Jews, and he like that to the pagans, and therefore he added: “so that we might go to the pagans, and they to the circumcised” (“yes, we are to the tongues, but they are to the circumcision”). Do you see that here he does not call the actual thing circumcision, but the Jews? When he talks about the very action of circumcision, then, wanting to show its difference, he contrasts it with uncircumcision, for example, when he says: “Circumcision is useful if you keep the law; and if you are a transgressor of the law, then your circumcision has become uncircumcision" ("circumcision benefits you if you do the law; if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision") (Rom. 2:25); or again: “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has power” (“neither what circumcision can do, nor uncircumcision”) (Gal. 5:6). When he calls the Jews this way and wants to designate with this word not the deed itself, but the people, he contrasts it not with uncircumcision, but with the pagans. The Gentiles are contrasted with the Jews, and the circumcision is opposed to the uncircumcision, as, for example, when he says above: “For he who assisted Peter in the apostleship to the circumcision also assisted me among the Gentiles” (“for he who helped Peter in the message of circumcision, also helped me in the tongues”), or here again: “we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision” (“we are in tongues, they are for circumcision”), - he does not mean the very thing, but calls the Jewish people with this word, contrasting them with the pagans. 4. “Only that we remember the poor, which I tried to do exactly” (“Let us remember the poor, even if we endeavored to do this very thing”) (Gal. 2:10). What do these words mean? “In the work of preaching,” he says, “we divided the universe among ourselves: I took the pagans, and they took the Jews, as it pleased God; In caring for the poor of the Jews, I also helped them. Therefore, if there was disagreement and strife between us, they would not have accepted my participation.” What kind of beggars are these? Many of the believing Jews in Palestine lost all their property and were persecuted everywhere. He points to this in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he says: “and the plunder of your goods was received with joy” (“and the plunder of your goods was received with joy”) (Heb. 10:34); He points out the same thing in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, when he praises their courage: “you...,” he says, “have become imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus, which are in Judea, because you also suffered the same from your fellow tribesmen, as those from the Jews” (“you are more imitators... to the churches of God that are in Judea..., you also will suffer from your own people, just as you also suffered from the Jews” (1 Thessalonians 2:14). And everywhere he shows that those who believed among the pagans were not persecuted by those who remained in paganism, as those who believed among the Jews were persecuted by their fellow tribesmen, because the Jews are the most cruel people of all nations. That is why (the apostles) care so much about the Jewish believers, showing all their zeal towards them, and (the Apostle Paul himself) writes about them to both the Romans and the Corinthians. And he not only collects money for them, but also takes it himself (1 Cor. 16), and says: “And now I am going to Jerusalem to serve the saints” (“now I am coming to Jerusalem to serve the saints”) (Rom. 15:25), since they also needed the most necessary food. So here, pointing to this, he says that he was instructed to help them in this need, and he accepted this assignment and did not deviate from it. Having thus shown his agreement and like-mindedness (with the apostles), he further finds it necessary to mention his conversation with Peter, which took place in Antioch, and says: “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him, because he was criticized. For before the arrival of some from Jacob, he ate with the Gentiles; and when they came, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those of the circumcision" ("When Peter came to Antioch, his face was opposed to him, as if he were disgraceful. Before even one had come from Jacob, eating with their tongues: but when he came, he hid himself and went away, fearing those who were of the circumcision") (Gal. 2:11-12). Many, reading these words of the epistle without due attention, think that Paul is denouncing Peter’s hypocrisy; but this is absolutely not the case, this cannot be allowed, since we will find here the great prudence of both Peter and Paul, intimately aimed at the benefit of the listeners. But first it is necessary to say about the boldness of Peter and how he always preceded all the disciples (of Christ). Thanks to this, he received his name for his firm and unshakable faith: when everyone was asked in general, he, having anticipated others, answers: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) (Matthew 16:16), for which he was then entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In the same way, on the mountain he is the only one who speaks, and when (the Lord) talked about the cross, and all the others were silent, he alone said: “Be merciful to yourself” (Matthew 16:22). And although these words were not the fruit of mature reasoning, they still came from ardent love. And everywhere we see him more zealous than others, and anticipating others in danger. Thus, when (the Lord) appeared to the disciples on the shore, he, while others were hurrying to the shore on the ship, was not able to wait until the ship reached the shore; and even after the resurrection (of the Lord), when the Jews, breathing murder and frenzy, sought to destroy (the disciples), he was the first to speak up and dared, raised his voice and said that the Crucified One had risen and was in heaven. But it’s not the same thing to open closed doors and start a business, and then continue what you started with the same courage. So, how could it happen that he who gave his soul into the hands of such a multitude of people would then someday become a hypocrite? Who, despite the fact that he was subjected to scourging and chains, did not agree to yield at all his boldness, and, moreover, at the very beginning of the sermon, in the center of the capital, where such a great danger threatened him - how could such a person be afraid of the believing Jews after so much time and in Antioch, where there was no danger, and after he had already acquired great fame and witnessed it with such deeds? Who was not afraid of the Jews themselves, and moreover, at the very beginning and in their capital, how, after such a time had passed and, being in a foreign city, would he begin to fear those who separated (from the Jews)? So Paul is not saying this against Peter; but he says this with the same intention with which he said: “And in those who are famous for something, no matter what they ever were, there is nothing special for me” (“from those who pretend to be what they once were, nothing differs from us”) (Gal. 2:6). However, so that we no longer remain in doubt about this, it is necessary to reveal the reason for what was said. The apostles, as I said above, allowed circumcision in Jerusalem; since it was impossible to suddenly distract from the law; but when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything like that, but lived in the same way with the pagan believers; This is what Peter, no doubt, did then. When those who knew that he preached differently there came from Jerusalem, he stopped acting like pagans, fearing to offend them, and changed his way of life, having two goals in mind: so as not to lead the Jewish believers into temptation, and so as to provide Paul with a plausible opportunity for reproof. After all, if the one who preached in Jerusalem, without rejecting circumcision, had changed his way of thinking in Antioch, then the Jewish believers would have thought that he was doing this out of fear of Paul, and the disciples would have condemned him with extreme frivolity, and this could have been a considerable temptation. However, by his change he would not have given such suspicion to Paul, since the latter, who clearly knew everything, also knew the intention with which Peter acted this way. That is why Paul rebukes, and Peter endures it, so that the disciples, seeing the silence of the teacher, despite the reprimand given to him, could all the more easily change their way of thinking. If Paul had not begun to exhort them under such circumstances, he would not have accomplished anything important; now, taking advantage of the opportunity to sternly rebuke him, he instilled much greater fear in Peter’s disciples. And if Peter, having heard the reproof, began to contradict, then someone could rightly accuse him of perverting the structure of salvation; Now, when one denounces and the other is silent, the Jewish believers were struck with great fear. This is why he denounces Peter so strongly. 5. And look with what circumspection he speaks, letting those who are prudent notice that his words were not a matter of discord, but a matter of wise discretion. “When,” he says, “Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him, because he was subject to reproach” (“When Peter came to Antioch, there was opposition to his face, because he was disgraceful”). He didn’t say “he was subject to criticism from me,” but “from others.” And if Paul himself had condemned him, he would not have hesitated to say so. His words: “I personally opposed him” (“I confronted him in the face”) are only a figurative expression. If they really did not agree with each other, then, of course, they would not denounce each other in the presence of the disciples, since by doing so they would give a great temptation; now this apparent disagreement was useful. And just as Paul yielded (to the apostles) in Jerusalem, so they also yielded to him in Antioch. What was the contention? “For before some came from Jacob (who was himself a teacher in Jerusalem) he ate with the Gentiles; and when they came, he began to hide and withdraw, fearing those of the circumcision" ("For no one came from Jacob with their tongues eating; but when they came, they hid themselves and went away, fearing those who were of the circumcision") (Gal. 2:12); He was not afraid of this, so as not to be exposed to danger himself - in fact, the one who was not afraid in the beginning, much less could he be afraid now - but so that (the disciples) would not fall away, since he himself says to the Galatians: “I am afraid for you, lest I labor with you in vain” (“I am afraid for you, for we labored in vain”) (Gal. 4:11), and also to the Corinthians: “I am afraid that, just as the serpent... deceived Eve, so your minds may be corrupted” (2 Cor. 11:3). After all, the fear of death meant nothing to them, but the fear of the death of the disciples greatly affected their souls. “So that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy” (“for Barnabas also had enough of their hypocrisy”) (Gal. 2:13). Do not be surprised that he calls (Peter’s) action hypocrisy, because, as I said, he does not want to reveal his intentions for (the Jews) to correct themselves. Since they were strongly attached to the law, in view of this he calls (Peter’s) act hypocrisy, and denounces him so strongly as to completely destroy the prejudice that had taken root in them. And Peter, hearing this, also shows an appearance as if he were really guilty, so that thanks to the reproach made to him (those who believed from the Jews) would be corrected. If Paul had begun to reprove the Jewish believers themselves, they would have rejected his reproof with contempt and indignation, since they did not yet have much respect for him; Now, seeing that their teacher, being rebuked, was silent, they could neither neglect nor contradict what (Paul) said. “But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” (“But when I saw that they were walking wrongly in the truth of the gospel”) (Gal. 2:14). Do not let these words confuse you, since he does not say them to denounce Peter, but gives such a form to the words so that, when heard, they would benefit those who, through Peter’s denunciation, were to become better. “He told Peter in front of everyone” (“rekokh Peter before everyone”). Do you see how he corrects others? This is precisely why he said “in front of everyone” (“before everyone”), so that those listening would be afraid. What did you say? “If you, being a Jew, live like a pagan and not like a Jew, then why do you force the pagans to live like a Jew?” ("If you are a Jew, you live like a pagan, and not like a Jew, why should tongues live like a Jew?") (Gal. 2:14). But it was not the pagans, but the Jews who were drawn towards hypocrisy (by the example of Peter); Why, in this case, do you blame for something that didn’t happen? Why do you turn your speech not against the Jews who hypocrite them, but against the pagans? Why do you also accuse Peter alone, while others were hypocrites along with him? Let us consider what the accusation itself consists of. “...If you, being a Jew, live like a pagan and not like a Jew, then why do you force the pagans to live like a Jew?” ("If you are a Jew, you live paganly, and not like Jews, why should tongues live like Jews?") But there was only one (Peter) lurking: what, in this case, does he want to achieve by saying this? He wants to make sure that the exposure does not arouse suspicion against himself. If he had said: “You are doing evil by keeping the law,” then those who believed among the Jews would have accused him of insolence against their teacher; now, accusing him on behalf of his disciples, that is, those who converted from the pagans, he makes his speech more understandable, and not only by this, but also by the fact that, leaving the accusation of all others, he turned it entirely against the apostle. “If you,” he says, “being a Jew, live like a pagan, and not like a Jew” (“If you are a Jew, you live like a pagan, and not like a Jew”), almost completely explicitly saying: “you imitate your teacher, and yet he himself, being a Jew, lives like a pagan.” But he did not say so clearly, because his admonitions would not have been accepted, but Peter’s thought is revealed under the guise of a reprimand for the pagans. Likewise, if he had said: “Why do you force those who have converted from the Jews to live like Jews?”, his words would have been much more unbearable; now, as if taking the side of the disciples from the pagans, and not from the Jews, he thereby corrects the latter. After all, reproaches become most acceptable when they are not too severe. And none of the pagans could accuse Paul, because he spoke against the Jews. And Peter arranged all this for the good by his silence, taking on the appearance of hypocrisy, in order to thereby free the Jews from real hypocrisy. So, first he directs his speech personally to Peter, saying: “if you are a Jew,” and then he turns it to everyone in general, not excluding himself, and says this: “We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles” (“we are by nature a Jew, and not by the tongue of a sinner”) (Gal. 2:15). His words were in reality only an admonition, but they were given the appearance of a reproach because of the Jewish believers who were there. 6. He does the same in other places: when he apparently says one thing, he means something else; so, when in the letter to the Romans he says: “And now I am going to Jerusalem to serve the saints” (“Now I am coming to Jerusalem, serving the saints”) (Rom. 15:25). By this, of course, he did not want to say something, and not just to notify them of why he went to Jerusalem, but he wanted to encourage them to compete in alms. After all, if he wanted to indicate only the reason for his journey, then it would be enough to say: I am going (to Jerusalem) to serve the saints; and now, look how much more he adds: “for Macedonia and Achaia are zealous in some alms for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They are zealous, and they are in debt to them" ("For Macedonia and Achaia were good enough to create some kind of communication for the poor saints living in Jerusalem. For they are good and in debt."). And again: “For if the Gentiles have become partakers of their spiritual things, they must also serve them in their bodily things” ( “For if the Gentiles were partakers of them in spiritual things, they must also serve them in carnal things”) (Rom. 15:26-27). Look, as in the present case, he overthrows the proud thoughts of the Jews, reaching one through the other, and with authority he continues his speech, saying: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” (“we are Jews by nature, and not sinners by language”). What does it mean – “by the nature of Judea” (“by the nature of Judaea”)? “We are not converts from paganism, 2 but raised from infancy in the law, leaving the former way of life in which we were brought up, and resorted to faith in Christ.” “However, having learned that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 2:16). Look how carefully he says all this. “We left the law,” he says, “not because it was evil, but because it was weak. Therefore, if the law does not provide justification, then circumcision is unnecessary.” However, this is what he says now, and then he shows that circumcision is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous; and it is especially remarkable that at first he only said: “man is not justified by the works of the law” (“man is not justified by the works of the law”), then he expresses himself much more strongly: “If, seeking justification in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then is Christ really the servant of sin?” ("If, by seeking to be justified in Christ, sinners themselves are found, then is Christ a servant of sin?") (Gal. 2:17). “If,” he says, “faith in Christ cannot justify, but again it is necessary to follow the law, then, leaving the law for Christ and not receiving justification through this abandonment, but being condemned, we will have to recognize the culprit of condemnation as the One to whom we have passed, leaving the law for His sake.” Look, to what inevitable absurdity did he lead his words, and with what strength did he struggle? “If the law should not be abandoned,” he says, “but we left it for Christ, then how will we be judged?” But why do you speak and advise Peter, who knew this more perfectly than anyone? Didn't God reveal to him that an uncircumcised man should not be condemned for not being circumcised? Was it not he who, discussing this matter with the Jews, opposed them so strongly on the basis of this revelation? Was it not he who also sent clear instructions regarding this from Jerusalem? So, he says this not to correct Peter, but, finding it necessary to turn his speech to Peter, meanwhile denounced the disciples. Moreover, these words apply not only to the Galatians, but also to all those who, like them, suffer from the same disease. After all, although at the present time many are no longer circumcised, they fast and keep the Sabbath with them, and by doing this, they deprive themselves of grace along with them. If, in fact, for those who have just been circumcised, there will be no benefit from Christ, then when fasting and Sabbath are added to this, and instead of one commandment two are fulfilled, look at the danger that threatens, becoming even stronger over time! They did this in the beginning, when their city, church and everything else still existed, but these, being witnesses of both the punishment that the Jews suffered and the destruction of their city, and despite this keeping the law to an even greater extent, what justification can they present for preserving it when the Jews themselves, even with all their desire, can no longer keep it? Have you put on Christ, become a member of the Lord, been numbered among the highest city, and still grovel around the law? How is it possible for you to reach the kingdom (of heaven)? Listen to the words of Paul, who says that by keeping the law, the gospel is overthrown. And, if you want, find out how this is possible, and then be afraid and try to avoid the threatening abyss. Why do you really keep the Sabbath and fast together (with the Jews)? No doubt because you are afraid to leave the law and its regulations; but you would not be afraid to leave the law if you did not despise faith as weak and in itself unable to bring salvation. After all, if you are afraid of not keeping the Sabbath, then it is obvious that you are afraid of the law, as it is still in force at the present time. If the law is again needed, then, without a doubt, it is not part of it that is needed, and not just one commandment, but the whole law is needed; and if all, then little by little justification by faith will be destroyed. If you keep the Sabbath, why don't you also offer sacrifices? If, in fact, it is necessary to fulfill the law, then it is necessary to fulfill it all; if you don’t need to do everything, then you don’t need to do parts of it. If, on the other hand, you are afraid of being condemned for breaking one part of the law, then all the more should you be afraid of breaking the whole law; and if violating a whole law does not subject one to condemnation, then it is clear that violating a part does not subject it to it either; If the violation of one part is subject to condemnation, then even more so the violation of the whole law. And if it is necessary to fulfill the entire law, then it is necessary to reject Christ, or, following Christ, to become a transgressor of the law. After all, if the law must be fulfilled, then those who do not fulfill it are criminals, and Christ will be the culprit of this crime of the law, since He himself permitted the law to be fulfilled, and commanded others to allow it. 7. Do you see what lengths the Judaizers go to? They make Christ, the author of our salvation, the author of sin, just as Paul says: “Is Christ really the minister of sin?” (“Is Christ then a servant of sin?”) After he had brought them to such absurdity, he no longer needed evidence to refute them, but one denial was enough, which is why he only said: “No way” (“let it not be”), since against complete absurdity and shamelessness there is no need to find evidence, but one denial is enough. “For if I build again what I have destroyed, I make myself a criminal” (“Even though I have destroyed, I build again, I imagine a criminal”) (Gal. 2:18). Look at Paul's prudence. The Jews wanted to show that he who does not keep the law is a criminal; but he says the completely opposite and shows that he who fulfills the law is a criminal, and not only of faith, but also of the law itself, since by the words “I build again what I destroyed” (“even though I destroyed, I build again”) he means the law. And his words have the following meaning: “The law has lost its power, and we confirmed this by leaving it behind and resorting to salvation by faith. Therefore, if we strive to restore the law, then we thereby become criminals, since we stubbornly want to observe what was abolished by God himself.” The following shows how the law was repealed. “By the law I died to the law” (“I died by the law”) (Gal. 2:19). These words have a double meaning: either he is talking about the law of grace, because he usually calls grace the law, for example, when he says: “the law of the Spirit of life... freed me” (Rom. 8:2), or he means here the great law, wanting to show that through this same law he died to the law, that is: “The law itself persuaded me not to follow it anymore. And if after this I follow it, then I will thereby violate it.” How and in what way? Moses, predicting about Christ, says: “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers; listen to Him” (Deut. 18:15). Thus, those who do not obey Christ transgress the law. But we can also understand the words differently: “By the law I died to the law” (“by the law I died to the law”). After all, the law commands that everything written in it be fulfilled, and punishes those who do not do it. Therefore we all died to the law, since no one fulfilled it. And look with what caution he rebels against the law here too: he did not say: “the law died for me,” but “I died for the law.” And these words have the following meaning: “Just as it is impossible for the soulless and dead to obey the commandments of the law, so it is for me, who died from the curse of the law, because I died through what he says. Consequently, he should no longer demand obedience from the deceased, whom he himself killed, and, moreover, not only with a physical death, but also with a spiritual death, through which he subjected him to a physical one.” And that this is exactly what he says is clearly shown from what follows. “In order to live for God,” he says, “I was crucified with Christ” (“that I may live for God, I have been crucified with Christ”). Since he said: “I am dead,” so that no one should say to him: “How are you alive?” - he presented the reason for life, and showed that although the law killed him alive, Christ, having taken the dead, revived him through His death; and this shows a double miracle - firstly, (Christ) brought the dead to life, and secondly, through death he gave life. By death he means life here, because this is precisely what his words show: “in order to live for God, I was crucified with Christ” (“that I may live with God, having been crucified with Christ”). “But how,” someone will say, “was he crucified when he was alive and breathing? That Christ was crucified is clear; but how are you crucified and how do you live?” Look how he explains this too, saying: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (“I live no longer, but Christ lives in me”) (Gal. 2:20). Having said: “I have been crucified with Christ” (“Christ has been crucified”), he pointed to baptism, and with the words “and it is no longer I who live” (“I live for the wrong reason”), to the subsequent way of life by which our souls are killed. What does it mean: “Christ lives in me”? “That,” he says, “is that I do nothing that is not pleasing to Christ.” Just as by death he does not mean ordinary death, but death due to sins, in the same way by life he means liberation from them (sins), because according to God it is impossible to live otherwise than by dying to sin. “And now, just as Christ suffered bodily death, so I also suffered death in relation to sin. “Mortify,” he says, “your earthly members, which are fornication, uncleanness, and adultery” (Col. 3:5), and also: ... “our old man was crucified” (Rom. 6:6), which took place in the baptismal font. After this, if you remain dead to sin, you will live to God, but if you rise again to sin, you will lose this life. But Paul is not like that; he remained dead (to sin) all his life. “So, if I,” he says, “live a different life for God than the one I lived in the law, and have become dead to the law, then I can no longer fulfill anything from the law. 8. Look how correct his life is, and especially marvel at this blessed soul! He did not say, “I live,” but, “Christ lives in me.” Who dares to dispute the truth of these words? In fact, since he showed perfect obedience to Christ, abandoned everything temporary and did everything according to His will, he did not say, “I live for Christ,” but, what is much more important, “Christ lives in me.” Just as sin, having taken possession of a person, itself lives in him, directing his soul according to its desire, in the same way, if with the mortification of sin a person does what is pleasing to Christ, then such a life is no longer the life of a person, but living in us, that is, the Acting and Managing One (Christ). And since he said, “he was crucified,” and “and it is no longer I who live,” but died,” and it seemed to many that he was saying the incredible, he added: “And what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God” (“And as I now live in the flesh, by faith I live the Son of God”) (Gal. 2:20). “What I have said,” he says, “refers to spiritual life: if anyone wants to know my real carnal life, then even that became possible for me only through faith in Christ. As for the former way of life and the law, I was worthy of the greatest punishment, and I should have perished long ago: “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (“for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”) (Rom. 3:23), and Christ redeemed us who were already sentenced to death, redeemed us when we were already awaiting the imminent execution of this sentence and when we were all already dead, if not in in reality, then according to the death sentence about us. And after the law had already condemned us and God had sentenced us to death, Christ, having come and given Himself up to death, freed us all from death. Therefore, “even as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith” (“Even as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith”). And if this had not happened, then nothing could have prevented the general destruction, as happened during the flood; Only the coming of Christ, turning away the wrath of God, gave us the opportunity to live by faith.” And that he really says this, listen to the following further - having said: “And what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith” (“And now I live in the flesh, I live by faith”), he added: “into the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (“The Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me.”) What are you doing, Paul, appropriating what is common to all to yourself and referring exclusively to himself what was done for the whole world? In fact, he did not say “who loved us,” but “he who loved me.” Meanwhile, the Evangelist says: “God so loved the world” (John 3:16), and you yourself say in another place: “He who did not spare His Son, but delivered Him up, not for you, but for all” ( Rom.8:32); and again: “to gain for himself a special people” (Tit.2:14). So, what does what he said here mean? Having imagined all the hopelessness of human nature and the inexpressible care of Christ, as well as what he freed us from and what he gave us, he, being enveloped in the flame of love for Him, speaks in this way. Likewise, the prophets often call the God common to all theirs, saying: “God! You are my God, I have been seeking You from the early dawn” (“O God, my God, I come to you in the morning”) (Ps. 63:2). In addition, by this he wanted to show that each of us owes the same just gratitude to Christ as (he owed) if He had come for him alone. After all, He would not refuse to accept such intercession for one person, because He loves each person individually to the same extent as the whole world. Moreover, although the sacrifice was made for all of nature and was sufficient to save everyone, only those who believed took advantage of its benefit. And the fact that not everyone turned (to Christ), in any case, could not deter Him from such intercession, but just as the feast mentioned in the Gospel was prepared for everyone, and when those invited did not want to come to it, He still did not cancel it, but called others (Luke 14:16), so exactly did He do here. And the sheep that fell behind the ninety-nine was alone, and yet He did not despise it either (Matthew 18:12). Paul makes the same thing clear when, speaking about the Jews, he says: “For what then? even if some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness destroy the faithfulness of God? No way. God is faithful, but every man is a liar" ("What if they do not believe? Will unbelief destroy their faith in God? Let it not be: let God be true, but every man is a lie") (Rom. 3:3-4). So, after He loved you so much that He gave Himself, and when you no longer had hope of salvation, He led you to such a great and such a high life, you, having received such good, are you still turning to the Old Testament again? Having thus carefully examined what required investigation, he concludes his speech with a proclamation, saying: “I do not reject the grace of God” (“I do not reject the grace of God”) (Gal. 2:21). Let those who even now live in the Jewish way and are committed to the law hear this: what has been said applies to them as well. “And if there is justification by law, then Christ died in vain” (“If there were righteousness by law, then Christ would not die”). What could be worse than this sin? What other words are more capable of shaming than these? After all, if Christ died, it is obvious because the law is not able to justify us; if the law justifies, then the death of Christ is useless. But wouldn’t it be unreasonable to call this so great, so terrible and beyond the human mind, this indescribable sacrament, which the patriarchs eagerly awaited, which the prophets predicted, looking at which the angels were horrified, and which is rightly recognized by all as the most important work of God’s providence for us, useless and vain? Having thus presented the highest degree of absurdity in considering the accomplishment of such a great and important work to be useless (and this was precisely what the actions of the Galatians proved), he further reviles them, saying this: ( Gal.3:1 ) O foolish Galatians! Who deceived you not to submit to the truth, you, who had before your eyes Jesus Christ as if he were crucified? It is crazy to abandon faith and turn to the law again. – Refutation of objections in favor of retention of law. - Against the Anomeans. 1. Here he moves on to another subject. In the previous chapters he only showed that he became an apostle not from people or through people, and that he had no need for teaching from the apostles; here, after he has already presented himself as a trustworthy teacher, he talks with greater authority, comparing law and faith. So, at the beginning he says: “I am amazed that you ... are so quickly turning to a different gospel” (“I am strange, because you are so quickly changed”) (Gal. 1:6); and here: “Oh, foolish Galatians!” Then he hid his indignation, but now, after defending himself and proving it, he revealed it. If he calls them foolish, then do not be surprised at this: in doing so, he does not violate the law of Christ, which forbids calling his brother crazy (Matthew 5:22), but strictly fulfills it. After all, it doesn’t just say: “Whoever calls his brother crazy,” but “Whoever calls him in vain.” Some of the Galatians, in their justice, deserved this name, since after so many and such great benefits they did not cease to adhere to their former customs, as if nothing special had happened to them. If you call Paul an offender for this, then you will have to call Peter a murderer for Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). But if to say the first is crazy, then it’s even more crazy to say the last. Pay attention to the fact that he did not use such severity at the very beginning, but after denunciations and evidence, when they had already received this reproach, as if not from him, but as a necessary consequence of the denunciations themselves. In fact, only after he had proven that they reject faith and represent the death of Christ as unnecessary, he adds this censure, moreover, lighter than they deserved, since they were worthy of censure in even more severe terms. However, look how immediately, as soon as he reproached them, he softens his speech. He did not say: “Who deceived you? Who abused your simplicity? Who misled you?”, but – “Who deceived you?” (“Who are you who deceived?”), without thus depriving someone of blame and a certain amount of praise. By this he shows that their previous actions were worthy of envy, and that what happened to them was a matter of enmity of the devil, who was greatly annoyed at their prosperity. When you hear the word “envy” here, or in the Gospel the words “evil eye” (Matthew 6:23), which means the same thing, then do not think that one aspiration of the eyes can harm those whom they look at, because the eye, as a member of the body, in itself cannot be envious; but here Christ calls envy that way. After all, the work of the eye is simply to look, but to look cunningly depends on a corrupt heart. Since through the sense of sight knowledge of the objects we consider enters into our soul, and, for example, in most cases wealth arouses envy in us - and we see wealth with our eyes, as well as leaders and their retinue - he therefore called the evil eye that not only looks, but looks with envy and spiritual malice. Having said: “Who deceived you?” , he shows that envious people do this not out of reverence and not to make up for what is missing, but in order to destroy what was. After all, the work of envy is not to fill what is missing, but to take away something from what is already filled, in order to then deprive it of everything. And he says this not because envy itself has the power to harm, but because those who taught this decided to do it out of envy. “Who had Jesus Christ written before their eyes, as if he were crucified among you?” ("Whose presence Jesus Christ was written to be, was crucified in you?"). But He was not crucified in the Galatian country, but in Jerusalem: why does he say “with you” (“in you”)? By this he wants to point out the power of faith, which can see even distant things. And he did not say “crucified,” but “predestined to be crucified,” clearly showing that with the eyes of faith they saw this much better than some of those present there and looking at what was happening before them. In fact, many of these latter, seeing all this with their own eyes, they did not receive any benefit, and although they did not see it with their own eyes, they saw it even more clearly by the power of faith. By saying this, he both reproaches them and at the same time praises them. He praises for the fact that they accepted everything that happened with full confidence in the truth, but reproaches for the fact that they left Him, Whom they saw naked for them, tied to a pillar, nailed to a cross, spat on, mocked, given drink, reviled by robbers, pierced by a spear (all this he embraced with the words “Jesus Christ was destined to be crucified among you”), and, leaving Him, they turned to the law, not at all ashamed of His suffering. Notice how he, leaving heaven, earth, sea and everything else, preached the power of Christ, glorifying (one) the cross everywhere. This was the height of divine providence for us. “I just want to know this from you: did you receive the Spirit through the works of the law, or through the training of faith?” ("This is one thing I want to take away from you: did you receive the Spirit from the works of the law, or from the hearing of faith?") (Gal. 3:2). “Since you,” he says, “do not listen to lengthy instructions and do not want to see the full greatness of God’s economy, I want to convince you with a few words and the shortest proof, seeing your extreme ignorance.” Above, he admonished them with a conversation addressed to Peter, but here he turns his speech to them directly, borrowing everything that serves to convince them, not from what happened elsewhere, but from what happened to them, and he convinces and assures them not only from those talents that were communicated to them. That’s why he says: “I just want to know this from you: did you receive the Spirit through the works of the law, or through instruction in faith?” (“This is the only thing I want to take away from you: did you receive the Spirit from the works of the law, or from the hearing of faith?”) “You received the Holy Spirit,” he says, “you performed many miracles, performed signs, raising the dead, cleansing lepers, prophesying and speaking in different tongues. Has the law given you such power? But you have never done anything like this before. Therefore, faith? 2. So, is it not a matter of extreme madness to abandon faith, which has given you such great benefits, and again turn to the law, which has not given you anything similar? “Are you so foolish that, having begun in the spirit, you are now ending in the flesh?” (“Are you so foolish by nature? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now finished in the flesh?”) (Gal. 3:3). Again, at the right time, he reproached them. “It would behoove you,” he says, “to increase your success in faith over time; and not only did you not add anything, but you also went back. Others, starting small and gradually succeeding, finally ascend to the great, but you, having started with the great, moved on to the opposite. If you began from the carnal, then even in this case you would have to rise to the spiritual; Now, having begun with the spiritual, you have returned to the carnal, since to perform signs is a spiritual work, but to be circumcised is a carnal thing. But you moved from signs to circumcision, having comprehended the truth, you returned to images, after contemplating the sun you look for a lamp, after solid food you turn to milk.” And he did not say, “You are finished in the flesh,” 4, but, “You are finished in the flesh,” 5, showing by this that the false teachers, having caught them, killed them like dumb animals, when they themselves voluntarily agreed to endure whatever they wanted, just as if some commander and at the same time a brave warrior, who had already acquired countless trophies and victories, betrayed himself to the reproach of the traitors, he allowed them to brand his body without any resistance. “Have you really suffered so much without benefit? Oh, if only there was no benefit!” ("To what extent will you suffer? How much will you suffer") (Gal.3:4). This should have shocked them even more than what was said above. The recollection of signs could not influence them as much as an indication of the exploits and sufferings that they endured for Christ. “They want,” he says, “for you to lose everything that you have endured (for Christ), and they are trying to deprive you of your well-deserved crown.” But then, so as not to overwhelm their souls and not to crush their strength, he, without waiting for an answer from them, immediately added: “if only for no benefit” (“if only to the point and tuna”). “If you,” he says, “want to come to your senses and correct yourself, it will not be without benefit.” What will those who reject repentance say now? In fact, the Galatians received the Spirit, and performed signs, and were confessors, enduring countless dangers and persecutions for the sake of Christ, and after such good deeds they fell from grace. “And yet,” says (the apostle), “if you want, you can again achieve your previous state. “Does he who gives you the Spirit and performs miracles among you by the works of the law, or by the teaching of faith?” (“Give therefore the Spirit and make power work in you, whether by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith”) (Gal.3:5). “Were you worthy of such a gift and performed so many miracles,” he says, “whether because you kept the law or because you kept the faith? Of course, for faith.” Since (the false teachers) interpreted this this way and that, and everywhere proclaimed that faith without connection with the law has no force, then (the apostle) asserts the opposite, namely, that with the addition of the commandments of the law, faith will no longer bring any benefit, since faith only has force when nothing is added to it from the law. “You who justify yourselves by the law,” he says, “remained without Christ, you have fallen from grace” (“Whoever is justified by the law, you have fallen from grace”) (Gal. 5:4). But he speaks about this below, when he writes with even greater boldness, having already received a basis for this from what has been proven; now it is only paving the way for that. “You,” he says, “received the Spirit and performed signs when you listened to faith and not to the law.” Then, since the speech was about the law, he brought another proof, and the most controversial one, presenting Abraham as an example, and very opportunely, and with great benefit, saying this: “So Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (“as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”) (Gal. 3:6). “They prove,” he says, “the power of faith and the miracles you performed, but if you wish, I will try to assure you of this with examples from Old Testament history.” And since they had great respect for this patriarch, he presents him as an example, showing that he, too, was justified by faith. “If he, who lived before grace, was justified by faith, although he was adorned with good works, how much more are you. What damage did he suffer because he was not under the law? None, but faith alone was enough to justify him.” “But then,” they will say, “there was no law yet.” And now there is no law, just as there was none then. That is why, wanting to prove that the law is no longer needed, he presented as an example a person justified before the law, so as not to encounter such an objection. Indeed, just as the law had not yet been given, so now, having been given, it has received its end. Then, since they were much proud of their descent from Abraham (John 8:33) and were afraid that by abandoning the law they would lose their kinship with him, Paul again reverses this and dispels fear, showing that faith predominates and affirms kinship with him. And although he proved this more clearly in his Epistle to the Romans, he affirms this no less here, saying: “Know then that those who believe are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Then he confirms this truth with testimony from the Old Testament: “And the Scripture,” he says, “foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foreshadowed to Abraham: in you all nations will be blessed” (“And the Scripture foresaw that by faith God would justify the nations, first preaching the gospel to Abraham, that through you all the nations would be blessed”) (Gal. 3:8, Gen.12:3). So, if not those who had a natural kinship with him are his sons, but those who imitated his faith - this is precisely what the words mean - “in you all nations will be blessed” (“of you all the nations”), then it is clear that (and the believing pagans) are brought into this kinship. 3. With these words he shows something else very important. Since they were confused by the idea that the law is older than faith, and faith after the law, he destroys this bewilderment, showing that faith is older than the law, and that this is clearly seen from the example of Abraham, since the latter received justification before the law appeared. And at the same time, it shows that what happened in recent times happened according to prophecy: “And the Scripture,” he says, “foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and not from the law, foreshadowed to Abraham” (“the Scripture foresaw that by faith God would justify the tongues, having first preached the gospel to Abraham”). What does this mean? “The lawgiver himself,” he says (by this), “before he gave the law, determined that the pagans should be justified by faith.” And he did not say “revealed,” but “preached the gospel,” so that you would know that the patriarch rejoiced at this method of justification, and strongly desired that it be carried out. But since they were also afraid of something else, (because) it was written: “Cursed is he who does not fulfill the words of this law and does not walk in them” (“Cursed is everyone... who does not abide in all the words of this law that I do”) (Deut. 27:26), then he eliminates this fear, wisely and prudently reversing what was said in the law, and shows that those who forsake the law are not only not cursed, but also blessed, and those who keep the law are not only not blessed, but also cursed. Those (zealots of the law) said that he who does not keep the law is cursed, but he (the apostle) shows that he who keeps the law is cursed, and he who does not keep it is blessed. They also said that he who trusts in faith alone is cursed, but he also shows that he who hopes in faith alone is blessed. How does he prove all this? We did not tell you some ordinary thing, and therefore you must be especially attentive to what will be said next. The Apostle and above have already shown this, saying that the Scripture foretold to the patriarch: “In you all nations will be blessed.” And then there was no law yet, but there was faith; Therefore, he came to the following conclusion: “Therefore those who believe are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal.3:9). But lest they contradict this and say: “(Abraham) quite rightly received justification from faith, because at that time there was no law; But show me that faith justified even after the law was given,” (the apostle) goes on to this, and shows more than they require - not only that faith justifies, but also that the law damns those who adhere to the law. But in order for you to understand this, listen to what the apostle himself says: “all who are established in the works of the law are under a curse” (“For those who are by the works of the law are under a curse”) (Gal. 3:10). But this is a position that requires further proof. Where can it be proven? (This is clear to everyone) from the law itself: “Cursed is everyone who does not continually do everything that is written in the book of the law. But that by the law no one is justified before God, this is clear to everyone" ("Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all those things that are written in the book of the law, as I have done. But by the law no one will be justified..., it will appear") (Gal. 3:10-11). Indeed, everyone has sinned and is under a curse. But he does not say this yet, lest they think that he himself is expressing his opinion, but again he confirms this with evidence, which in a few words contains both - both that no one fulfilled the law (that is why they were cursed), and that faith justifies. What kind of evidence is this? From the prophet Habakkuk, who says: “The righteous shall live by his faith” (“the righteous shall live by faith”) (Habakk.2:4). It shows not only that justification depends on faith, but also that it is impossible to be saved through the law. “Since,” he says, “no one fulfilled the law, but for its transgression everyone was cursed, then another more convenient path (to justification) is open - through faith; and this also serves as the strongest proof that no one can be justified by law.” In fact, the prophet did not say: “the righteous shall live by law,” but “by faith.” “But the law is not of faith; but whoever does it will live by it” (“But the law does not come from faith: but he who did it... will live in them”) (Gal. 3:12). “The law,” he says, “requires not only faith, but also works; but grace through faith saves and justifies.” Do you see how he proved that those who keep the law were cursed because it was impossible to keep it? But how does faith have this power to justify? He announced this earlier, and proved it with great force. Since the law was powerless to lead a person to justification, another sufficient means was found - faith, which makes what is impossible under the law possible. So, if Scripture says that the righteous will live by faith, denying salvation through the law, and if Abraham received justification by faith, then it is clear that the power of faith is great. So, it is clear that he who does not abide in the law is cursed, but he who abides in faith is righteous. “But how can you prove to us,” someone will say, “that that curse no longer exists? After all, Abraham was before the law, and we, having once fallen under the yoke of slavery, subjected ourselves to a curse: who broke this curse? Look with what haste he goes to meet this objection, although for this, of course, what was said earlier was enough. Indeed, how can one be subject to damnation who was once justified, and died to the law, and received new life? However, he is not content with all this, but also proves it in another way by writing: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)” (“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) ( Gal.3:13, Deut.21:23). Moreover, the people were subject to another oath, as it is said: “Cursed is he who does not fulfill the words of this law” (“Cursed is everyone... who does not abide... in those written in the book of the law”) (Deut. 27:26, Gal.3:10). But what of this? Let the people be subject to this curse, because they did not fulfill it constantly, and there was no one who could fulfill the whole law; but Christ replaced this curse with another, which says: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”). And since the one who hangs on the tree is cursed, and whoever breaks the law is under an oath, meanwhile, whoever wants to destroy this oath must be free from it and must take upon himself this oath (undeserved) instead of that (deserved), then Christ took upon himself such an oath, and with it destroyed the deserved one. And just as someone innocent, deciding to die instead of someone condemned to death, thereby delivers him from death, Christ did exactly the same. Since Christ was not subject to curse for breaking the law, He took upon Himself, instead of what we deserved, an undeserved curse, in order to free everyone from what was deserved - because He committed “no sin, and no lie was in His mouth” (Is. 53:9). 4. So, just as he who died for those who were about to die frees them from death, in the same way he who took the curse upon himself freed them from the curse. “That the blessing of Abraham... might come to the Gentiles” (“Let the blessing of Abraham be upon the Gentiles”) (Gal.3:14). How then against the pagans? “In your seed,” it is said, “all nations will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Christ. And if this were said about the Jews, then how would it be consistent with common sense that those who were subject to damnation for breaking the law should become the culprits of blessing for others? After all, no one under a curse can communicate to another a blessing that he himself has lost. From here it is clear that all this is said about Christ, since He was the seed of Abraham, and through Him the nations are blessed, and thus the promise of the Spirit appears. Pointing precisely to this, (the apostle) said: “That we may receive the promised Spirit through faith” (“that we may receive the promise of the Spirit by faith”). And since the grace of the Spirit cannot be poured out on someone who is ungrateful and in enmity, they are blessed first of all through the removal of the curse; then, being justified through faith, they receive the grace of the Spirit. Thus, the cross destroyed the oath, and faith introduced justification, while justification brought down the grace of the Spirit. "Brethren! I speak according to human reasoning: even a testament confirmed by man, no one cancels or adds to it" ("Brethren, I say according to man: no one sweeps away or commands a testament made beforehand" (Gal. 3:15). What does it mean – “I speak according to human reasoning” (“I speak according to man”)? This means “I use human examples.” Since he confirmed his word with Scripture, and the miracles that happened to them, and the suffering of Christ, and the example of the patriarch, he finally turns to universal custom. He is in the habit of constantly using this method of proof, both in order to soften his speech and in order to make it more acceptable and more understandable for the most incapable. So, talking with the Corinthians, he says: “Who, while tending a flock, does not eat milk from it? Who, while waiting for grapes, does not eat its fruit? (1 Cor. 9:7). And again to the Jews he says: “a testament is valid after the dead: it has no force when the testator is alive” (“for there is a covenant among the dead: nothing can be done while the testator is alive”) (Heb. 9:17). And from many other places anyone can be sure that he loves to use this type of evidence. And God himself in the Old Testament often speaks in such a way as, for example: “Will a woman forget her suckling child?” (“Will the woman forget her food?”) (Is.49:15). And again: “Will the product say to the potter, “What are you doing?” (Isa.29:16, 45:9). And in Hosea he likens himself to a husband despised by his wife (Hosea 1:2). And in the images of the Old Testament, everyone can see a lot borrowed from human examples, when, for example, the prophet girds himself and goes into the potter’s hut (Jeremiah 18:2). So, what does the example given (by the apostle) mean? The fact that faith was ancient, and the law came later, has a temporary meaning, and was given (the law) in order to prepare the way for faith. That’s why he says: “Brothers! I speak according to human reasoning" ("brother, I speak according to man"). Having called them senseless above, here he calls them brothers; Thus, he simultaneously scolds them and consoles them. “Even a testament approved by man” (“both testaments pre-established by man”). “If a person,” he says, “makes a will, will anyone then dare to change it or add anything?” This is what the word “commands” means. Therefore, all the more should one not do this in relation to the covenant of God. To whom did God make his will? “But to Abraham,” he says, “the promises were given to his seed. It is not said: and to descendants, as if about many, but as about one: and to your seed, which is Christ. What I say is that the covenant about Christ, previously established by God, is not abolished by the law, which appeared four hundred and thirty years later, so that the promise loses its validity. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise; but to Abraham God gave it according to the promise" ("To Abraham the words were vows, and to his seed. He does not say: and by seed, as for many, but as for one: and to your seed, which is Christ. But this I say, the covenant that was made beforehand from God in Christ, the law that was four hundred and threety years old did not sweep away, ruin the promise. For though the inheritance be of the law, no one is of the promise: but to Abraham was given the promise of God" (Gal. 3:16-18). So, so God made a testament to Abraham, saying that the pagans would receive a blessing about his seed; How then can the law destroy these (blessings)? And since no example can express the object he depicts, that’s why he said earlier: “I speak according to human reasoning” (“I speak according to man”). Do not infer anything inconsistent with the greatness of God from the example given. Look at this example from the highest point: God promised Abraham that through his seed the nations would be blessed; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ. Four hundred and thirty years later the law came. So, if the law gives blessing, and life, and justification, then the said promise is not valid. But how is it that no one destroys a human will, but God’s will becomes invalid after four hundred and thirty years? Indeed, if what this will promised is not given by it, but by another in its place, then it is obviously rejected. But does this make any sense? “So, why,” they will say, “was the law given?... Because of crimes” (“For the sake of crimes”) (Gal. 3:19). Thus, the law is not superfluous. Do you see how he agrees with everything? How does he look at everything with many eyes? Since he exalted faith and showed that it is older than the law, so that no one would think that the law is unnecessary, he corrects this error, showing that the law was not given in vain, but with very great benefit: because of crimes, that is, so that the Jews would not live without fear and would not reach extreme wickedness, but so that the law would serve for them instead of a bridle, teaching, pacifying, and restraining them from violating, if not all, then at least some of the commandments. Thus, there was considerable benefit from the law. But until when? “Until the time of the coming of the seed to which the promise relates” (“Until the seed comes to whom the promise is made”), he says, meaning (by seed) Christ. So, if the law was given only before the coming of Christ, then why do you continue it further and beyond the appointed time? “Taught through the Angels, by the hand of a mediator” (“Taught by the angels, by the hand of an intercessor”). He calls angels either priests or the angels themselves, as ministers in the laying down of the law. Here he calls Christ the intercessor, showing that He existed before, and that He Himself gave the law. “But there is no mediator with one, but God is one” (“But there is one mediator, but there is one God”) (Gal. 3:20). 5. What will the heretics say here? After all, if (the Father alone) is one true God (John 17:3), and as a result of this the Son can no longer be the true God, then, consequently, He is not God, since it is said: “Our God, the Lord is one” (“God... is one”) (Deut. 6:4). But if, despite the fact that the Father is called one God (1 Cor. 8:6), and the Son is God, then it is obvious that if the Father is called true, the Son is true. “An intercessor,” he says, “is a mediator between any two parties. Between whom was Christ the mediator? It is clear that between God and people. Do you see how he proves that Christ himself gave the law? If He Himself gave the law, then He has the power to abolish it. “Then the law is contrary to the promises of God?” (“Is the law then against the promise of God?”) (Gal.3:21). If blessings were given to the seed of Abraham, and the law introduces a curse, then it is, of course, contrary to the promises of God. How does he resolve this contradiction? At first he simply denies what was said, saying: “No way” (“let it not happen”); and then he proves (the denied), saying this: “For if a law had been given that could give life, then truly righteousness would have come from the law” (“if a law had been given that could give life, then truly there would have been righteousness from the law”). And these words have the following meaning: “If we,” he says, “had the hope of life in the law, and if our salvation were in its power, then perhaps what you say about the law would be true; If you are saved by faith, then, even if the law exposes everyone to damnation, you will not suffer any harm after faith has appeared, which delivers you from everything. If a promise were given by the law, then you could rightly fear that, having fallen from the law, you would also lose justification; but if the law was given in order to shut everyone up, that is, so that it would expose and reveal their own sins, then it not only does not prevent you from receiving the promises, but even facilitates this receipt.” So, pointing to this, he said: “But the Scripture has shut up all under sin, so that the promise of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22). Since the Jews were not aware of their sins, and not realizing them, they did not want to forgive them, God gave them a law that would open their wounds, and through this encouraged them to seek a doctor. The word “concluded” (“shuttered”) means “convicted, and having convicted, kept them in fear." Do you see that the law is not only not contrary to the promises, but was even given because of the promises? If the law had arrogated to itself the work and power of justification, then this would have been said fairly; but if it serves another and did everything for another, then how can it be contrary to the promises of God? If the law had not been given, then everyone would have been mired in lawlessness, and none of the Jews would have wanted to listen to Christ; Now, when the law was given, it brought two benefits: firstly, it guided those who listened to it to feasible virtue, and secondly, it aroused in everyone the consciousness of their sins, which especially disposed them to seek the Son (of God). So, those who did not believe the law did not believe in order not to know their sins. And pointing precisely to this, he said in another place: “For not understanding the righteousness of God and striving to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God” (“not understanding God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness, not obeying the righteousness of God”) (Rom. 10:3). “And before the coming of faith, we were shut up under the guard of the law, until the time when it was necessary to open ourselves to faith in us” (“Before the coming of faith, be careful under the law, to be shut up in the faith that will be revealed”) (Gal. 3:23). Do you see how clearly he confirmed what we said? With the words “they were shut up” (“shuttered”) and “under guard” ( “Strictly bechom”) it does not mean anything other than the protection of the Jews, carried out through the commandments of the law. In fact, the law, keeping them, as it were, within walls, in fear and life according to the law, thereby kept them for the faith. “Therefore the law was our guide to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (“The law also became our guide in Christ, that by faith we might be justified”) (Gal. 3:24). Pestun does not oppose the teacher, but assists him, keeping the young pupil from any vice and carefully preparing him to accept the teacher’s lessons; and when the pet acquires the skill, the nurturer finally leaves him. That is why he says: “after faith has come,” which makes a person a perfect man, “we are no longer under the guidance of a teacher” (“but faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor of Esma”) (Gal. 3:25). “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (“For you are all sons of God... through faith in Christ Jesus”) (Gal.3:26). So, if the law is a pestun and we were imprisoned by it, then it is not an adversary of grace, but a collaborator; if even after the coming of grace he continues to remain under his yoke, in that case he will be an adversary. If he begins to hold us back when we should move on to grace, then he will constitute an obstacle to our salvation. Just as a lamp that illuminates at night, if with the onset of day it began to interfere with seeing the sun, it would not only not fulfill its purpose, but would also cause harm - so the law, if it serves as an obstacle to receiving more. Thus, those who preserve it now thereby greatly pervert it. Likewise, a nurturer makes his pet funny if he keeps him with him when, according to the demands of time, he should have left him. That is why Paul says: “after faith has come, we are no longer under the guidance of a teacher” (“but having come to faith, we are no longer under a teacher”). So, we are no longer under supervision. “For you are all sons of God” (“For you are all sons of God”). This is the power of faith, and how he gradually reveals it! First, he showed that faith made them the sons of Abraham: “Know this,” he says, “that those who believe are the sons of Abraham” (“understand that they are by faith, these are the sons of Abraham”) (Gal. 3:7); now he declares that they are sons of God: “For you are all sons of God,” he says, “by faith in Christ Jesus” (“you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”) - by faith, and not by law. Then, since he said something great and amazing, he also shows the image of adoption. “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (“As many as you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ”) (Gal.3:27). Why didn’t he say: “All of you who were baptized into Christ were born of God”? After all, this would be more consistent with proof that they are sons of God. Because the expression he used is much stronger. In fact, if Christ is the Son of God, and you have put on Him, have the Son in yourself and have become like Him, then through this you are brought into one relationship with Him and into one image. “There is no longer Jew nor Gentile; there is neither slave nor free; There is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free: there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus") (Gal. 3:28). Do you see an insatiable soul (not satisfied with what has been said once)? Having said that through faith we became sons of God, he does not stop there, but tries to find something even greater, which could more clearly prove the immediate unity with Christ. And having said: “They have put on Him,” he is also not satisfied with this expression, but, explaining it, represents such a union even closer and says: “you are all one in Christ Jesus” (“you are all one in Christ Jesus”), i.e. “You all have one appearance, one image - the image of Christ.” What could be more amazing than these words? Who was previously a Hellenic, a Jew and a slave, now bears the image not of an angel or an archangel, but of the Lord of all himself, and reflects Christ in himself. “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (“If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”) (Gal. 3:29). Do you see how he finally proved what was said above about the seed, i.e., that blessings were given to Abraham and his seed? Gal.4:1–3. I will also say: the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, although he is the master of everything: he is subordinate to trustees and stewards until the time appointed by his father. So we, as long as we were children, were enslaved to the material principles of the world. Against the observance of Jewish holidays and the New Moon. – The tenderness of Pavlova’s soul. – It is unreasonable, contrary to the prototypes, to subject oneself to the yoke of slavery. 1. (The Apostle) speaks here of childhood not according to age, but according to mind, and shows that God from the very beginning wanted to bestow his blessings on us, but since we were still in a state of infancy, he left us under the elements of the world, that is, new moons and Saturdays, because these days depend on the course of the sun and moon. “Therefore, those who even now bring you under the yoke of the law do nothing more than return you, having already reached adulthood, back to infancy.” Do you see what observing the days means? It reduces the master, the owner of the house, who has complete power over everything, to the state of a slave. “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent His (Only Begotten) Son, who was born of a woman, and was made subject to the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons” (“When the end of the year had come, God sent His Son..., begotten of a woman, we are under the law, that He may redeem those under the law, that we may receive sonship”) (Gal. 4:4-5). Here he gives two reasons and two good actions of the incarnation: deliverance from evils and the bestowal of benefits, which no one else could accomplish except Him alone. What were these benefits? Redemption from the curse of the law and adoption: “to redeem those under the law,” he says, “and that we may receive adoption as sons.” He said beautifully - “receive adoption” (“let us receive adoption”), showing by this that (adoption) belonged to us. Indeed, it had long been promised, as he himself repeatedly indicated this, mentioning the promises regarding it given to Abraham. “But how can it be seen,” they will say, “that we have become sons?” He has already given one proof of this when he said that we have put on Christ, who is the Son; and now he brings something else - that we have received the spirit of adoption. “And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ” (“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now bear a servant, but a son: if he be a son and heir of God... by Christ”) (Gal. 4:6–7). And indeed, we could not call (God) Father if we had not first become His sons. So, if grace has made us from slaves free, from infants to adults, from strangers heirs and sons, then would it not be reckless and extremely ungrateful to leave this (grace) and return to our previous state? “But then, not knowing God, you served gods who are not gods in essence. Now, having come to know God, or, better yet, having received knowledge from God, why are you returning again to the weak and poor material principles and want to enslave yourself to them again?” ("But then, since you do not know God, you do not serve by nature as God; now, having come to know God, even more than having been known from God, you return again to the weak and evil elements, which you again want to serve from above") (Gal. 4: 8-9). Here (the apostle), addressing the pagan believers, says that serving idols is the same as observing the days, and that it now deserves greater punishment. That is why he calls the gods elements, and not (gods) by nature, because he wants to convince them of the same thing and bring them into greater fear. His words have the following meaning: “Then you, being in darkness and leading your life in error, were chained to the earth; and now, after you have come to know God, or better yet, received knowledge from Him, are you not incurring greater and more severe punishment upon yourself if, despite such great care for you, you again voluntarily expose yourself to the same disease that you suffered before? It was not through your own efforts that you found God, but you spent your life in error, and He Himself drew you to Himself.” He calls the elements weak and poor because they have no power to deliver the promised benefits. “You observe the days, and the months, and the seasons, and the years” (Gal.4:10). From these words it is clear that (the Judaizers) preached to the Galatians not only circumcision, but also the need to observe Jewish holidays and the new moon. “I fear for you, lest I labor among you in vain” (Gal. 4:11). Do you see the sincere participation of the apostle? They are in danger, and he fears and trembles for them. Therefore, he said the words “I labored for you” (“I labored in you”) in order to greatly shame them, as if saying by this: “Do not make my great labors in vain.” Having said, “I’m afraid,” and then adding, “Isn’t it in vain,” he both aroused fear in them and inspired them with good hopes. In fact, he did not say: “I labored in vain,” but “didn’t I labor in vain” (“food like we labored in vain”). “So far,” he says, “there has been no shipwreck; but I still see a storm that can cause it. Therefore, I am afraid, but I do not despair, since it is in your power to correct all this and return to the former silence.” Then, as if extending a helping hand to those in danger of shipwreck, he presents himself to them as an example, saying: “I beseech you, brethren, be as I am, for I also am as you are” (“be as I am, and as you are”) (Gal. 4:12). He speaks this to the Jewish believers, and therefore cites himself as an example in order to convince them to abandon ancient rites. “Even if you,” he says, “had no other example, then you only need to look at me to fearlessly decide on such a change. So, look at me: I also experienced the same state before, and moreover to a strong degree, and burned with zeal for the law; but, despite this, later he was not afraid to leave the law and change his life. You also know well with what great zeal I adhered to Judaism, and how with even greater readiness I later left it.” And very wisely (the apostle) presented this example after everything. In fact, many people, even though they have found countless proofs, and fair ones at that, are still more likely to be carried away by the example of one of their brothers, and when they see someone else doing something, they are more likely to be inclined to do the same themselves. “Brethren... you have not offended me in any way” (“Brotherhood... you have not offended me in any way”). See how he again calls them by a respectful name, and thereby reminds them of grace. After he had strongly convicted them of breaking the law and attacked them from many sides, he now again moderates his speech and consoles them, using more kind words, because just as incessant caresses weaken a person, so constant reproaches harden them even more. Therefore, it is good to observe moderation everywhere. Look how he justifies himself in the denunciation he made, showing that not simply out of hatred, but motivated by concern for them, he told them all this. Having thus made a deep wound, he immediately pours the oil of consolation on it. And in order to prove to them that what was said was not the result of hatred or enmity towards them, he reminds them of the love that he showed towards them, and adds praise to them to his justification. 2. That’s why he says: “I beg you, brethren... You have not offended me in any way: you know that, although I preached the gospel to you the first time in the weakness of my flesh, you did not despise my temptation in my flesh and did not abhor it” (“I pray you. You will not offend me in any way. Know that because of the weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you...: and my temptations, even in my flesh, will not humiliator”) (Gal.4:12–14). But it is not a great merit to not offend: even the most ordinary person is unlikely to want to harm a person who has not offended him in any way, or to insult him needlessly and innocently. “And not only did you not offend me, but you also showed great and unspeakable affection towards me; and therefore it cannot be that someone who enjoyed such respect among you began to say this out of malice. So, I say this not out of hatred for you, but out of excessive love and concern for you.” “I ask you, brethren... You have not offended me in any way: you know that, although I preached the gospel to you in the weakness of my flesh.” No soul can be more benevolent, more tender and loving than this holy soul. And therefore, what was said before was the result not of reckless anger and not of passionate indignation of the soul, but of great care. “And what am I saying – “they didn’t offend”? On the contrary, you have shown great and cordial affection for me.” “You know,” he says, “that although I preached the gospel to you the first time in the weakness of the flesh, you did not despise my temptation in my flesh and did not abhor it.” What does he mean by this? “While preaching to you,” he says, “I was persecuted, scourged, subjected to thousands of deaths, and, despite all this, you did not despise me.” This is exactly what the words mean - “you did not despise my temptation in my flesh and did not abhor it” (“you did not despise my temptations in my flesh, nor did you despise them”). Do you see spiritual wisdom? In his very justification, he again reproaches them when he shows them how much he suffered for them. “And yet,” he says, “this did not in the least seduce you, and you did not disdain me for these sufferings and persecutions,” since it is these (sufferings and persecutions) that he calls weakness and temptation. “And they received me as an angel of God” (“But as an angel of God you received me”) (Gal.4:14). So, isn’t it strange to accept someone who is persecuted and persecuted as an angel of God, but not to accept someone who teaches what is necessary? “How blessed you were! I testify about you that, if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. So, have I really become your enemy by telling you the truth?” ("What then is your blessedness? I testify to you, that even if your hair were mighty, you would have given it to me quickly. Even so, you would have been an enemy, telling you the truth.") (Gal. 4:15-16). Here he is perplexed and amazed, and tries to find out from them themselves the reason for their change. “Who seduced you,” he says, “and convinced you to treat us differently? Have you not cared and served and counted dearer than your own eyes? What happened? Where does this hostility come from, where does this suspicion come from? Is it because I told you the truth? But for this, in any case, you should honor and please me even more - and yet now I have become your enemy, telling you the truth. Truly,” he says, “I don’t know any other reason than that I told you the truth.” And look with what humility he defends himself. The impossibility of him saying this out of malice towards them is proved not by what he did for them, but by what they did for him. He did not say: “How is it possible that I, who for you was subjected to scourging, persecution and countless sufferings, should now begin to plot against you?” - but borrows evidence from what they could be proud of, saying: “How is it possible that the one whom you revered and accepted as an angel began to pay you for this with enmity?” “They are jealous for you not for good, but want to excommunicate you, so that you will be jealous for them” (“They are jealous for you not for good, but want to excommunicate you, but you are jealous of them”) (Gal. 4:17). “There is jealousy and praiseworthy, when someone is jealous to imitate another in virtue; but there is also evil jealousy - the desire to deviate the virtuous from virtue; This is precisely what they (the false teachers) are seeking now, seeking to deprive you of perfect knowledge and lead you to the superficial and false, not for any other purpose, but in order to themselves take the position of teachers, and to put you, who are now above them, in the place of disciples.” This is exactly what (the apostle) showed with the words: “so that you are jealous of them” (“yes, you are jealous of them”). “On the contrary, I wish,” he says, “that you would be better than them and serve as an example for the most perfect. And this really was the case when I was with you,” which is why he adds: “It is good to always be jealous of good things, and not only in my presence with you” (“It is good to always be jealous of good things, and not just always come to you”) (Gal. 4:18). Here he makes it clear that his absence was the cause of this evil, and that blessed is the state when students maintain sound teaching not only in the presence of their teacher, but also during his absence; and since they have not yet reached this degree of perfection, he uses all means to bring them to this point. “My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is represented in you” (“My children, even as I am sick, until Christ is represented in you”) (Gal. 4:19). Look how embarrassed he is, how worried he is. “My brothers, I ask you”; “My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth” (“my children, in the same way I am sick”). He imitates a mother who fears for her children. “Until Christ is represented in you” (“Until Christ is represented in you”). Do you see fatherly love? Do you see sorrow worthy of an apostle? Do you hear the cry he let out, more bitter than the cry of a woman in labor? “You have destroyed,” he says, “the image, you have lost the high affinity, you have changed the likeness; you need another revival, a new re-creation; but, despite this, I still call you children, you miscarriages and premature babies.” However, he does not say exactly this way, but differently, since he spares them and does not want to harden them, adding wounds to wounds; just as skillful doctors do not treat those who have suffered a long illness immediately, but at intervals, so that they do not die when they fall into cowardice, so does the blessed one (Paul). And these torments of his were all the more painful than physical torments, the stronger his love was and the more important their sin was. 3. However, as I have always said and will never stop saying, a small crime has disfigured all the beauty and damaged the image (of God in man). “I would like to come to you now and change my voice” (Gal.4:20). Notice how impatient he is, how passionate he is, how he cannot bear it. This is already the property of love: it is not content with (absentee) words, but also seeks a date. “To change my voice,” he says. This means changing it into a deplorable one, shedding tears, and making everyone cry. But it was impossible to show tears and sobs in a letter, and that is why he is eager to see them. “Because I am at a loss about you” (“I don’t think about you”). “I don’t know,” he says, “what to say; I don't know what to think. How is it that you, having reached such a heavenly height, and through the grave calamities that you endured for your faith, and through the signs that you performed by faith, now suddenly descend to such humiliation that you turn to circumcision and the Sabbath, and unite with the Jews? That is why he said at the beginning: “I am amazed that you ... are so quickly moving on to another gospel” (“I am amazed that you are being offered so quickly”) (Gal. 1:6), and here he says: “I am perplexed about you” (“I do not wonder about you”) - as if saying by this: “What should I say? Where should I start speaking? What to think? I am perplexed. Therefore, all that remains is to cry, as the prophets did in hopeless cases." But this method of healing is also important - not only to exhort, but also to cry. He said this in a conversation with the Milesians: “for three years... with tears I did not stop teaching... you” (Acts 20:31). Yes, and we, overcome by hopeless and difficult circumstances that befall us against expectation, more often than not always give in to tears. So, having denounced them and reproached them and consoled them again, he finally began to cry; crying expresses not only censure, but also affection. It does not irritate like reproach, and does not weaken like pleasing, but it is a mixed medicine, and has great power in exhortations. Thus, softens their heart with his tears; and, having more favored them, he again enters into the competition, offering a subject of even more importance for discussion and showing that the law itself does not require that it be observed. Above, he cited Abraham as an example, and now he presents the law itself as convincing that it should no longer be observed, but left, which, of course, was a stronger (evidence). “If you want,” he says, “to be obedient to the law, then leave it, since it itself demands it. However, (the apostle) does not say exactly this way, but achieves the same thing in a different way, using history. “Tell me,” he says, “you who want to be under the law: do you not listen to the law?” (“Speak to us, who desire to be under the law; do you not obey the law?”) (Gal.4:21). He said well - “those who want to be” (“like you want”), since the matter depended not on the course of things, but on their inappropriate jealousy. Here he calls the book of Genesis the law, which he often does, calling the entire Old Testament that way. “For it is written, Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, and the other by a freewoman.” (Gal. 4:22) Again he points to Abraham; however, without repeating what was said before, but since this patriarch was held in great esteem by the Jews, then (the apostle) shows that the images in him received their beginning, and the real events were also destined in him. And since he first showed that they (the Galatians) are the sons of Abraham, then further, in view of the fact that the sons of this patriarch had unequal dignity - one was born of a slave, and the other of a free woman - he says that they are not only the sons of Abraham, but also such sons as his free and noble son was. Such is the power of faith. “But he who is of a slave is born according to the flesh; and he who is of a free woman is born according to the promise" ("But he who is of a slave is born according to the flesh; and he who is of a free woman is born according to promise") (Gal. 4:23). What does “according to the flesh” mean? Since he said that faith unites us with Abraham, and it seemed incomprehensible to the listeners how he calls those who did not descend from him sons of Abraham, he shows that this extraordinary deed was accomplished by God. Isaac, who was not born according to the natural order, not according to the law of marriage, and equally, not from the power of the flesh, was, however, a son and a real son, born from withered bodies and a matted womb. It was not the flesh that conceived, and it was not the seed that produced the fruit, since the mother’s womb was (doubly) dead - both in age and in barrenness, but it was the word spoken by God that formed it. On the contrary, the slave was not born this way, but according to the laws of nature and ordinary marriage. And yet, one born not according to the flesh was preferred to one born according to the flesh. “Therefore, do not worry, because you were not born according to the flesh (of Abraham), since, by virtue of the fact that you were not born according to the flesh of him, you are especially related to him.” Being born according to the flesh does not increase, but diminishes, dignity, since being born not according to the flesh is more miraculous and spiritual, as is clearly revealed by the example of those who are born again. Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but was a slave, and not only a slave, but was even expelled from his parental home; and Isaac, born according to the promise, as a true son and free, remained lord of all. “In this there is an allegory” (“The essence is allegorical”) (Gal.4:24). (The Apostle) contrary to custom, called the image an allegory. His words have the following meaning: this story depicts not only what appears in it at first glance, but also expresses something else, and therefore is called an allegory. What was she depicting? Nothing other than real events. “These,” he says, “are two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, who gives birth into slavery, which is Hagar” (“For this is two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, who gives birth to work, who is Hagar”) (Gal. 4:24). Who are these “siyas”? The mothers of the mentioned sons are Sarah and Hagar. What do two covenants mean? Two laws. But since in history these were the names of the wives (of Abraham), then (the apostle), adhering to the general meaning of these names, draws a great consequence from the names themselves. “For Hagar,” he says, “means Mount Sinai in Arabia” (“Hagar, Mount Sinai is in Arabia”) (Gal.4:25). Hagar was called a slave, and Mount Sinai in the language of that country means this (rab). 4. Thus, all those born in the Old Testament were of necessity slaves. In fact, the mountain on which the Old Testament was given, being of the same name as the servant, embraces Jerusalem itself, as shown by the following words - “corresponds to the present Jerusalem” (“it is attached to the present Jerusalem”). This means that it is akin to him and closely points to him. “For he and his children are in bondage” (“He works with his children”) (Gal.4:25). What follows from this? The fact that not only was Hagar a slave and gave birth to slaves, but also the covenant itself, the image of which was the slave. Jerusalem, by location, lies not far from that mountain whose name means slave, and on this mountain the law was given. But what did Sarah represent? “And the Jerusalem which is above is free” (“And the Jerusalem which is above is free”) (Gal.4:26). Therefore, those born in it are not slaves. The image of lower Jerusalem was Hagar, and obviously from the mountain that bore this name; and the image of the highest is the Church. However, (the apostle) is not content with images alone, but cites the testimony of Isaiah to confirm his words. Indeed, having said that Jerusalem above is our mother and calling the Church by this name, he points to a prophet who says the same thing that he said. “Rejoice,” he says, “barren, non-bearing; shout and shout, you who did not suffer from childbirth; because she who is forsaken has many more children than she who has a husband” (“Rejoice, you who are barren, you who do not give birth; break away and cry, you who are not sick; for there are many more empty children than those who have husbands”) (Gal. 4:27). Who is this barren one, and who is this one who was abandoned before? Isn’t it obvious that this is a pagan Church, previously deprived of the knowledge of God? And who is the one who has a husband? Isn't it clear that it is a Jewish synagogue? And yet the barren one surpassed her in having many children. The first embraced only one people, but the children of the Church filled Greece and the barbarian countries, the earth, the sea and the whole universe. Do you see how Sarah, by deed, and the prophet, by word, foreshadowed the future for us? But look - Isaiah first called her barren, and then showed that this barren woman later became prolific. This also happened educationally with Sarah, since she, too, being barren at first, later became the mother of numerous offspring. However, this is not enough for Paul, but he also carefully examines how matter became barren, in order to show from here the closeness of the image to the truth in question. That is why he adds: “We, brethren, are the children of promise according to Isaac” (“but we, brethren, are children of promise according to Isaac”) (Gal. 4:28). After all, the Church was not only barren, like Sarah, and not only, like the latter, later turned out to have many children, but also began to give birth in the same way as her. Indeed, just as Sarah became matter not by nature, but by the promise of God (He who said: “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son” (Gen. 18:10), himself, entering the womb, formed a child), - in the same way, in the matter of our rebirth, nature has no meaning; but the divine words pronounced by the priest - they are known to believers - and only they recreate and regenerate the baptized person in the font of water, as if in a mother’s womb. So, if we are children of a barren woman, then together we are free. “But what kind of freedom is this,” someone will say, “if the Jews dominate everywhere and punish believers with whips, and those who consider themselves free are persecuted?” Indeed, this was the case at a time when the faithful were persecuted everywhere. “But this circumstance should not confuse you,” says (the apostle), “since it was also foreordained in the same image: after all, Isaac, being free, was persecuted by the slave Ishmael.” That is why he further says: “But just as then he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. What does Scripture say? Cast out... the son of the slave, for the son of the slave will not be heir with the son of the free woman" ("but as then in the flesh he was born as a spiritual persecutor, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? Cast out... the son of the slave, for the son of the slave should not inherit with the son of the free man") (Gal. 4:29-30). So what? Is this really all the consolation is for the free to know that they will suffer persecution from slaves? “No,” says (the apostle), “I do not stop there; but listen to what follows, and then you will receive sufficient consolation so as not to be faint-hearted in persecution.” What's next? Cast out the son of the slave, since he will not be the heir along with the son of the free woman. Do you see the retribution for short-term tyranny and misplaced arrogance? The boy is deprived of his father's heritage and becomes an exile and a wanderer along with his mother. And you notice the wisdom of what was said. He did not say that he was being expelled only because he persecuted, but so that he would not be the heir. He was not punished for temporary persecution (this is both unimportant and not at all relevant); but because (God) did not allow him to be a participant in what was prepared for his son, showing by this that, regardless of persecution, this was predetermined for him from above, and its cause was not persecution, but God’s determination. And he did not say: “The son of Abraham will not be an heir,” but “the son of a slave,” giving him a name from a low family. But Sarah was barren: so was the pagan Church. Do you see how prototype is contained in everything? Just as she, without giving birth in all her early years, becomes matter in extreme old age, so the pagan Church began to give birth when the fulfillment (of times) came. The prophets also foretold this, saying: “Rejoice, O barren, unbearable; shout and shout, you who have not suffered from childbirth; because she who is abandoned has many more children than she who has a husband” (“rejoice, you who are barren, you who do not bear children, shout and cry, you who are not sick with stomach, for there are many more empty children than those who have husbands”) (Isa. 54:1), - calling the Church by this name. Indeed, the latter did not know God before, but when she knew it, she surpassed the synagogue in number of children. “Therefore, brethren, we are not the children of a slave, but of a free woman” (“Likewise, brethren, we are not the children of a slave, but of a free woman”) (Gal. 4:31). All this is explained and revealed (the apostle), wanting to show that what happened was not a new thing, but was foreshadowed by God over many centuries. So, isn’t it crazy for those chosen so many centuries ago and who have already received freedom to voluntarily subject themselves to the yoke of slavery? Then (the apostle) gives another reason, convincing them to stand firmly in the dogmas of the faith. Gal.5:1. So stand in the freedom that Christ has given us. Against those who are circumcised. - Instead of the law, the yoke of love. - The easiest path to virtue. – Why are good deeds called the “fruit” of the spirit. 1. “Have you freed yourselves, that you are again striving under the former dominion? (Christ) Himself redeemed you; did another pay the ransom price for you?” Do you see how many means (the apostle) uses to divert them from Jewish error? Firstly, he shows that it is extremely insane for those who have become free from slaves to want to become slaves again from the free; secondly, it makes them understand that, despising the liberator, and loving the enslaver, they will turn out to be cruel and ungrateful towards their benefactor; thirdly, it suggests that this is no longer possible, since the law lost its dominion after another bought us all from it once and for all. With the word “stand” he indicates their inconstancy and instability. “And do not be subjected again to the yoke of slavery” (“And do not remain under the yoke of work again”) (Gal. 5:1). The word “yoke” depicts the severity of the law, and by saying “again” (“packs”), reveals their great insensitivity: “If you yourself had not experienced this heaviness, you would not deserve such reproaches; but if you know from experience the full severity of this yoke and, despite this, you yourself again submit to it, then do you deserve any apology? “Behold, I, Paul, say to you, if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you in no way.” Look at the danger! Rightly, therefore, he anathematized the angels themselves (Gal. 1:8). But in what way will they not benefit from Christ? He did not prove this himself, but only declared it, since the dignity of his face was more convincing than any other evidence (that is why he first said: “Behold, I, Paul, tell you,” which served as proof of his confidence in the disposition of those to whom he spoke). But we, as far as possible, will offer something of ourselves to explain why the circumcised person will not benefit from Christ at all. He who is circumcised is circumcised as if fearing the law, but he who fears the law does not believe in the power of grace, and he who does not believe does not receive any benefit from grace, which he does not believe. On the other hand, whoever is circumcised makes the law his master; whoever, considering the law to be master, at the same time violates most of it and observes only the least, again exposes himself to damnation; but how can one be saved who exposes himself to a curse and rejects the freedom from curse brought by faith? And if it is permissible to say something incredible, such a person does not believe in either Christ or the law, he has stood in the middle between one and the other, wanting to receive benefit from both, and therefore will not receive anything from anywhere. Then, having said that there will be no benefit for them, he, although not directly and in short words, also gives evidence, saying this: “Again I testify to every man who is circumcised, that he must do the whole law” ( “I testify... to every man who is circumcised, that he must do the whole law”) (Gal. 5:3). “So that you do not think that this was said out of hostility, for this,” he says, “I say not only to you, but also to every person who is circumcised, that he must fulfill the whole law, because the provisions of the law are closely related to each other. And just as the one who, being free, gave himself up to slavery, no longer does what he wants, but submits to all the laws of slavery, so in relation to the law: if you accept even one insignificant part of it and submit yourself to its yoke, then you will attract all its power upon yourself. The same thing happens in a worldly inheritance: whoever takes nothing from it is free from all obligations imposed on the heir of the deceased; If someone has received, at least not the entire inheritance, but only a small part of it, then for this part he assumes all the responsibilities of the heir. The same thing happens in relation to the law, and not only in the way I said, but also in others, because the commandments of the law are interconnected. For example, circumcision is connected with sacrifice and observation of days and places; a place with countless types of purifications; cleansing is inseparable from many different rituals; the unclean is not allowed to make sacrifices, or enter sacred places, or do anything else like that. Thus, the law requires a lot even for one commandment. So, if you were circumcised, but not on the eighth day, or even on the eighth, but without a sacrifice, or even with a sacrifice, but not in the designated place, or in a specific place, but not according to the prescriptions of the law, or even though in accordance with the precepts of the law, but being unclean, or even clean, but purified by unestablished rites, then all these labors of yours were lost. That is why he says that (the circumcised one) must fulfill the whole law. If the law prevails, then fulfill not part of it, but all of it; if it has no power, then do not perform even part of it.” “You, who justify yourselves by the law, are left without Christ, you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Following the proof, he further shows the extreme danger of their position. If he who resorts to the law cannot find salvation in it, and meanwhile falls away from grace, then what remains for him except the inevitable punishment, when the law has no force and grace does not accept him? 2. Having thus strengthened their fear, shaken their thoughts and pointed out the shipwreck that threatens them, he then opens to them a harbor of grace close to them, as he does everywhere, promising in it the surest and most reliable salvation. Therefore, he further says: “But we in the Spirit wait for and hope for the righteousness of faith” (“For in the Spirit we wait for the hope of righteousness from faith”) (Gal. 5:5). “We,” he says, “have no need of any provisions of the law, since faith is sufficient to impart to us the Spirit, and through it justification, and, in addition, many and great benefits.” “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has power, but faith working through love” (“In Christ Jesus neither circumcision is able, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Do you see how he addresses them now with great boldness? “He who has put on Christ,” he says, “let him not worry about circumcision.” However, he did not say that circumcision is harmful; How, then, does he consider him indifferent? It is indifferent to those who were circumcised before accepting the faith, but not to those who were circumcised after accepting the faith. See how he rejected circumcision, putting it along with uncircumcision. After all, faith makes the difference. So, if someone is recruiting wrestlers, then whether they will be crooked or snub-nosed, black or white, this is not at all important in the matter of selection, but one must only look for in them that they are strong and experienced in their field. In the same way, it will not harm anyone who wants to enter into a new covenant if he does not observe all these bodily rites, just as it will not bring any benefit if he observes them. What does it mean - “acting by love” (“hastened by love”)? With these words (the apostle) greatly offends them, showing that their deviation from the truth occurred because they were not yet confirmed in love for Christ, since here not only faith is required, but also abiding in love. As if he had said: “If you had loved Christ as you should, you would not have turned to slavery, you would not have abandoned your Redeemer and you would not have offended the Liberator.” He points here together to those who plotted against them, making it clear that even if they had love for them, they would not have decided to do this. In addition, with these words he wants to correct their lives. “You walked well: who stopped you from obeying the truth?” ("Tchaste is good: who will rebuke you") (Gal.5:7). These are not the words of one asking, but of one who is perplexed and grieving, just as he said above: “Who has deceived you?” ("who deceived you is") (Gal. 3:1). “Such persuasion is not from Him who called you” (“Controversy is not from Him who called you”) (Gal. 5:8). “He who called you did not call you so that you would hesitate so much, nor did he give you the commandment to live like a Jew.” Then, so that someone doesn’t say: “Why are you exaggerating the matter so much and making it seem so terrible? We have kept only one commandment of the law, and you are making such a noise,” listen to how it frightens them, not by their actual act, but by the consequences that come from it, in the following words: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (“a little leaven leaves the whole mixture”) (Gal. 5:9). “So you too,” he says, “this small error, left without correction, can overcome you and lead you completely into Judaism, just as leaven (leavens) dough. “I am confident about you in Christ, that you will not think otherwise” (“I hope for you in the Lord, that you will understand nothing else”) (Gal. 5:10). He did not say “you do not understand,” but “you will not understand,” that is, “you will be corrected.” How do you know this? But he didn’t say “I know,” but “I hope.” “I trust in God,” he says, “and with firm hope I call on His assistance for your correction.” And he didn’t just say, “I hope in you,” but added, “in the Lord.” He everywhere combines reproof with praise; as if he had said: “I know my students, I know your readability; I rely in this both on the Lord, who does not allow even the most insignificant person to perish, and on you, who can easily return to their previous state.” But at the same time, he urges us to make our own efforts, since it is impossible to receive anything from God if we do not bring anything on our part. “But he who troubles you, no matter who he is, will bear condemnation” (Gal. 5:10). On both sides he encourages them to correct himself: both by encouraging them and by threatening and predicting punishment for the seducers. But note that he never named the attackers by name, so as not to make them even more shameless. And the meaning of his words is this: “Although you will not think differently, this will not save the perpetrators of seduction from punishment, but they will be condemned, since it is impossible to allow the piety of some to ease the fate of others, evil ones. He says this so that false teachers do not make the same attack on others. And he didn’t just say “embarrassing,” but also strengthened the expression by saying: “whoever it is.” “Why are they persecuting me, brothers, if I still preach circumcision?” ("But, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why are we still persecuted") (Gal. 5:11). Since they slandered him that he often observes Jewish rites and preaches (uncircumcision) feignedly, then look how he showed himself clean (from this slander), calling them themselves as witnesses. “You yourself know,” he says, “that the reason for the persecution of me was that I commanded the law to be abandoned; and if I preached circumcision, then why would they persecute me? The Judaizers cannot accuse me of anything other than this. And if I allowed them to believe according to their fatherly customs, then, of course, neither those who believed nor those who disbelieved would plot against me, since none of their customs would be rejected.” 3. What then? Didn't he preach circumcision? Didn't he circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:3)? I cut it, of course. How, then, does he say, “I don’t preach”? Notice his caution here too. He did not say, “I do not perform circumcision,” but “I do not preach,” i.e., “I do not teach to believe so, and you should not take my action as a statement of dogma: I really circumcised, but did not preach circumcision.” “Then the temptation of the cross would have ceased” (“for the temptation of the cross was abolished”) (Gal. 5:11). This means: “If what you say is true, then the barrier and enmity that separates us has been destroyed.” The Jews were seduced not so much by the cross as by the teaching not to follow the customs of their fathers. And when they brought Stephen to the Sanhedrin, they did not say that he reveres the Crucified One, but that he speaks (blasphemous words) against this place and against the holy law (Acts 6:13). And they accused Jesus himself of destroying the law (John 5:16). That is why Paul says: “If we allow circumcision, then your struggle with us has ceased - there is no longer any enmity against the cross and preaching; if we are killed every day, then why are we accused of this? And they laid hands on me because I brought the uncircumcised into the church. Am I really so unreasonable, he says, that by allowing circumcision, I would have decided in vain to expose myself to such evil and to present such a temptation to the cross? You can see for yourself that they don’t antagonize us for anything so much as for circumcision. So, was I really so unreasonable as to expose myself to grief and lead others into temptation without any reason?” And he called this the temptation of the cross because the doctrine of the cross commands to abandon fatherly customs, and that it was this command that primarily seduced the Jews and served as an obstacle to accepting the cross. “Oh, that those who disturb you were removed!” (“Oh, that those who corrupt you may be cut off”) (Gal.5:12). Look how strict (the apostle) is here towards the seducers (Galatians). At first he reproached the seduced, twice calling them foolish, but after he had sufficiently taught and enlightened them, he turned to the seducers. And here we must notice the wisdom (of the apostle). He convinces and admonishes the first, as his children, who are still capable of improving, but he cuts off the seducers, as aliens and terminally ill; he points to this latter when he says: “whoever he is will bear condemnation” (“he will bear sin, whoever he is”), and to the former when he threatens them and says: “Oh, that those who trouble you were removed!” ("Oh, so that those who corrupt you may be cut off"). And he rightly said - “corrupting” 6. In fact, they forced them, leaving their fatherland and freedom and heavenly kinship, to seek a foreign and unknown fatherland, and having expelled them from the heavenly and free Jerusalem, they forced them to wander as captives and strangers. That is why (the apostle) wants them removed. The meaning of his words is as follows: “I do not care about them at all, since “a heretic, after the first and second admonition, turn away” (“a heretic of a person, after the first and second punishment, deny”) (Titus 3:10). If they want, let them not only be circumcised, but also (their whole body) cut up.” So, what will those who dare to distort themselves say now, thereby bringing upon themselves the oath of the apostle and condemning the dispensation of God - the supporters of the Manichaeans? But the Manichaeans only say that the body is malicious and composed of an evil substance, and these very deeds give rise to their absurd rumors, cutting off the member, as if hostile and malicious. In this case, it would be more appropriate to gouge out the eyes, since through them lust enters the soul. But neither the eye nor any other member is to blame for this, but only evil will is to blame. If you cannot abstain, then why don’t you cut off your tongue for blasphemy, your hands for theft, your feet for their desire for evil, and your entire body, so to speak? And the ear, delighted by playing the flute, often relaxes the soul, and the nostrils, when sensing the incense, seduce the heart and lead to pleasure. So, let's cut off everything - ears, hands, and nostrils? But this is extreme wickedness and satanic madness. It is only necessary to correct the disordered aspiration of the soul, because the evil demon, who always delights in murder, could suggest that he should destroy the organ itself, as if the great artist had made a mistake. “How does it happen,” someone will say, “that lust is kindled from the fatness of the body?” But here again the sin of the soul, since the fatness of the body depends not on the body, but on the soul. After all, if she wants to drain him, she has every opportunity to do so. You act like someone who, seeing someone laying down lighted wood and setting a house on fire with it, would leave the arsonist completely aside and begin to blame the fire for the fact that it flared up so much because it engulfed many logs of the house. But it is not the fire that is to blame, but the arsonist. Fire is given for cooking, for lighting and for many other needs, and not for burning houses. In the same way, the desire is given for procreation and preservation of life, and not for adultery, fornication and debauchery; given so that you would be a father, and not an adulterer, so that you would have lawful relationship with your wife, and not corrupt her in an illegal way, so that you would leave your seed, and not defile someone else’s. After all, adultery does not depend on natural desire, but on unnatural uncontrollability, since desire seeks only copulation, and not just such copulation. 4. However, I said this now not without intention, but I am starting some competitions and starting a fight against those who call God’s creation evil and, not paying attention to the carelessness of the soul, madly rebel against the body and slander our flesh, about which the Apostle Paul further speaks, blaming not the flesh, but blasphemous thoughts. “You are called to freedom, brethren, if only your freedom is not a pretext for pleasing the flesh” (“For you are quickly called to freedom, brethren; let it not be freedom... for the guilt of the flesh”) (Gal. 5:13). Here (the apostle) seems to come to the moral part of the epistle; but in this epistle he admits a certain peculiarity which is not found in any of his other epistles. He usually divides all other epistles into two parts, of which in the first he discusses dogmas, and in the last he sets out the rules of life; meanwhile, here, having moved on to moral teaching, he then again adds dogmatic teaching to it; and this is because moral teaching again has a need for dogmatic teaching in the fight against the Manichaeans. What do the words mean: “as long as your freedom is not a reason to please the flesh” (“let it not be freedom... the guilt of the flesh”)? “Christ,” he says, “freed us from the yoke of slavery and gave us freedom to do evil, but to use it as a means to obtain a greater reward, ascending to the most perfect wisdom.” Since he everywhere calls the law a yoke of slavery, and grace a liberator from the curse of the law, lest anyone should think that he commands the law to be abandoned so that we can live lawlessly, he warns such suspicion, saying: “Not in order (we are freed from the law) to live lawlessly, but to acquire wisdom above the law, because the bonds of the law are loosed. And I say this not in order for us to humiliate ourselves even more, but in order to exalt ourselves more. After all, both the fornicator and the virgin both transgressed the limits of the law, but not in the same way, but one fell into the worst, the other rose to the better, one transgressed the law, and the other surpassed the law.” So, Paul says the following: “Christ has freed you from the yoke, not so that you would jump around and run wild, but so that, having been freed from the yoke, you would flow better.” Then (the apostle) indicates the way by which this can easily be achieved. What is this method? “By love,” he says, “serve one another” (“Serve one another through love”) (Gal. 5:13). Here again he makes it clear that the cause of their error was ambition, disagreement, lust for power and pride, since the mother of heresies is the passion of lust for power. And with the words “work for each other,” he showed that this evil came precisely from vanity and pride, and therefore represents a corresponding cure. “Since you were divided among yourself due to the desire to rule one over the other, then serve each other, and in this way you will be united again.” However, he does not clearly name the sin, but clearly offers only a method of correction, so that from here they will already recognize their sin, just as if someone, without telling (directly) a dissolute person that he is dissolute, would begin to convince him to be chaste. And indeed, whoever loves his neighbor as he should will not refuse to serve him more submissively than any slave. Just as fire brought to wax easily softens it, in the same way the warmth of love, stronger than fire, destroys all pride and arrogance. That is why he did not simply say “love one another,” but “work” (“serve”), indicating the highest degree of love. And so that, having freed themselves from the yoke of the law, they do not become disorderly, he places on them another yoke, the yoke of love, which, although stronger than the first, is much lighter and more pleasant. Then, explaining what the good of love is, he says: “For the whole law is contained in one word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (“for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself”) (Gal.5:14, Matt.22:39, Lev.19:18). Since they perverted the law in every possible way, he says: “If you want to fulfill the law, then do not be circumcised, because it is not fulfilled in circumcision, but in love.” See how he cannot forget his grief, but constantly returns to what causes him this grief, even after moving on to moral teaching. “But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not destroyed one another” (Gal. 5:15). He does not express his thoughts directly, so as not to upset them, although he knew that this was what was happening between them; but he says the same thing with an air of some doubt. He did not say: “because you bite each other,” and further (he did not say directly), just as again and later he did not directly say that you would be destroyed by each other; such speech is characteristic only of one who intimidates and warns against danger, and not of one who condemns. He used the strongest words. He didn’t just say “you bite,” which is what an irritated person sometimes does, but he added, “and you eat,” which is typical of someone rooted in malice. The one who bites satisfies only the passion of anger, but the one who eats reveals in himself the extreme degree of brutality. However, he is not talking here about bodily bites and eating, but he means even worse ones. In fact, it is not so much the one who eats a person’s flesh who causes harm as the one who gnaws at his soul, since the more precious the soul is than the body, the more painful the harm done to it. “Beware lest you be destroyed from one another” (“Take heed lest ye be destroyed from one another”), he says. Since deceivers and malefactors come to destroy others, that is why he says: “Be careful that the matter does not come to you.” Division and strife are disastrous and ruinous, no doubt, both for those who accept them and for those who introduce them, and still eat away more than moths. 5. “I say, walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” Here he shows another way that facilitates virtue and contributes to the fulfillment of what has been said above - a method that gives birth to love and is supported by love. Indeed, nothing makes us more loving than living according to the spirit, and nothing convinces the spirit to dwell in us more than the power of love. That is why he says: “walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh” (“walk in the Spirit, and do not commit the lusts of the flesh”). Since he previously named the cause of the disease, he now points to a medicine that brings health. What kind of medicine is this and what kind of power is this, on which the benefits mentioned above depend, if not life in the spirit? That’s why he says: “Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit is contrary to the flesh: they oppose each other, so that you do not do what you would like.” do" (Gal.5:16–17). Here some attack (us), saying: “So the apostle divides man into two, representing him as if composed of opposite natures, since he attributes the struggle against the soul to the body.” But this is completely unfair, since he does not call the body flesh here; and if he means body here, then what meaning will the following words have? “He desires,” he says, “what is contrary to the spirit” (“lusts against the spirit”). But after all, the body belongs to the number of things that do not move, but are moved, not active, but by which they act - how, in this case, does it desire? Desire undoubtedly belongs to the soul and not to the body. Yes, and in other places of Scripture it is said: “desires... my soul" (Ps. 83:3); also: “whatever your soul desires, I will do for you” (1 Samuel 20:4); and again: “Do not follow the inclination of your soul” (Sir.5:2); and again: “so desires my soul” (“this is what my soul desires”) (Ps. 41:2). How does Paul say: “the flesh lusts against the spirit” (“the flesh lusts against the spirit”)? He usually calls flesh not the physical nature, but the evil will, for example, when he says: “you do not live in the flesh, but in the Spirit” (“you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit”) (Rom. 8:9); and again: “those who live in the flesh cannot please God” (“But those who are in the flesh cannot please God”) (Rom. 8:8). So what? Should the flesh be killed? But whoever said this was not himself clothed with flesh? Such suggestions are not the work of the flesh, but of the devil, since “he was a murderer from the beginning” (“he was a murderer from the beginning”) (John 8:44). What, then, is (the apostle) talking about? Here he calls flesh the earthly thought, frivolous and careless, and in the latter it is not the body that is to blame, but the careless soul. After all, the body is only a tool, and no one turns away from a tool or hates it, but they turn away from the one who uses this tool for evil. We hate and punish not the sword, but the murderer. “But,” someone will say, “to call the sins of the soul by the name of the flesh precisely means blaming the body.” I admit that although the flesh is lower than the soul, it is also beautiful. In fact, that which is lower than good is itself good, while what is bad is not lower than good, but is completely opposite to it. If you can really point out the evil that comes from the body, then blame the flesh; but if you want to blame the flesh on the basis of the name alone, then be careful that you do not have to blame the soul, because a person devoid of truth is called a natural man (1 Cor. 2:14), and hordes of demons are called spirits of wickedness (Eph. 6:12). On the other hand, Scripture usually calls the sacraments by the name of the flesh, as well as the entire Church, calling it the body of Christ (Col. 1:18). If you want me to show you the benefits we receive through the body, then imagine that all his senses have been destroyed, and you will then see the soul deprived of all knowledge, and not having any idea of ​​what he now knows. In fact, if the power of God “from the creation of the world has been seen by looking at the creatures” (Rom. 1:20), then how could we know it without eyes? If also “faith comes by hearing” (Rom. 10:17), then how can we hear about it without ears? But one can preach and go around the earth only through the tongue and feet. “How, in fact, can we preach if they are not sent?” (Rom.10:15). And writing is possible thanks to hands. Do you see how many benefits the service of the flesh brings us? If (the apostle) says: “the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit” (“the flesh lusts against the spirit”), then he is talking about two opposite types of thoughts - about virtue and vice, since it is they who oppose each other, and not the soul and body. If these latter were in mutual enmity, they would destroy each other, just as water destroys fire, as darkness destroys light; if the soul takes care of the body and shows great care towards it, endures a lot just not to part with it, and resists when they want to separate it from it, if, in turn, the body serves it, gives it a lot of knowledge and is itself adapted to its activity, then how can they be opposite and hostile to each other? And indeed, from their very actions I see that they are not only not opposite, but also very much agree with each other and mutually support each other. Thus, (the apostle) does not speak about the body and soul in the words “resist each other,” but points to the struggle between evil and good thoughts. To desire and not to desire is, of course, a matter of the soul. That is why he says: “They resist so that you do not allow the soul to indulge in its evil desires.” He said this like a mentor and teacher, arousing fear. 6. “If you are led by the Spirit, then you are not under the law” (“If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law”) (Gal. 5:18). What is the sequence here? The most strict and obvious. He who has the spirit, as he should, with its help extinguishes every evil desire in himself; whoever has freed himself from evil desires no longer needs the help of the law, having become much above its teachings. In fact, does anyone who is not angry really need to hear - Thou shalt not kill? Who does not look with lustful eyes, does he really need instruction not to commit adultery? Who will talk about the consequences of evil to someone who has plucked out the very root of evil in himself? And the root of murder, without a doubt, is anger, and adultery is the lustful gaze of the eyes. That is why he says: “If you are led by the Spirit, then you are not under the law” (“if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law”). Here, it seems to me, he expressed great and amazing praise for the law. “If the law,” he says, “before the coming of the spirit, replaced the spirit, according to its strength, then even therefore there is no need to remain under the mentor now. Then, of course, we were rightly under the law, so that, prompted by fear, we should withhold our wishes, since the spirit had not yet appeared; and now, after we have been given grace, which not only commands us to abstain from them, but also dries them up and raises a person to the most perfect life, what need is there for the law? Whoever, out of his own impulse, does more, what need does he have to nurture? The philosopher, of course, has no need for a grammar teacher. So, why do you humiliate yourself by now listening to the words of the law, after you initially expressed your readiness to serve the spirit? “The works of the flesh are known; they are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, quarrels, envy, anger, strife, disagreements, (temptations), heresies, hatred, murder, drunkenness, disorderly conduct and the like. I warn you, as I also warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God." cry, and something similar to this: I will say this to you, just as I also told you, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Now you, the accuser of your flesh, tell me, if you think that this is said about the struggle and its enmity (even if adultery and fornication, in your opinion, depend on the flesh), - like enmity, quarrels, envy, strife, heresies and magic (and all this, like everything else, of course depends on the will, only a corrupted one), how can they depend on the flesh? Do you see that (the apostle) is speaking here not about the flesh, but about earthly and base thoughts? Therefore, he also arouses fear, saying: “those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (“those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God”). And if this depended on evil nature, and not on a corrupted will, then he should rather say not “they create”, but “they endure.” But why, in this case, are they deprived of their kingdom? After all, both crowns and punishments follow not for what is done by nature, but for what is done by will. That's why Paul threatened like that. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace” (“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace”) (Gal. 5:22). He didn’t say “work,” but “fruit” of the spirit. Well, isn't it a superfluous soul? If we are talking only about flesh and spirit, then where is the soul? Or is he talking about beings without souls? In fact, when evil is attributed to the flesh, and good to the spirit, then there is no longer a place for the soul. But this is absolutely not true, because abstinence of passions is a matter of the soul and belongs to it; and if she, being in the midst of virtue and vice, uses the body as it should, then she makes it spiritual, and if she moves away from the spirit and indulges in evil desires, then she herself becomes more earthly. Do you see from all this that he is speaking here not about the being of the flesh, but about evil and good will? Why does he call (good deeds) the “fruit” of the spirit? Since evil deeds come only from us, that’s why he calls them deeds, while good ones require not only our efforts, but also God’s love for mankind. Then, listing good deeds, he puts their root first, saying: “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, mercy, faith, meekness, self-control. Against such there is no law” (“love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control: against such there is no law”) (Gal. 5:22–23). Indeed, what can you teach someone who has everything within himself, and whose most perfect teacher of wisdom is love? Just as gentle horses, which do everything on their own, have no need for a scourge, so a soul that advances in virtue through the action of the spirit has no need for the precepts of the law. So, (the apostle) here too with amazing wisdom rejected the law, not because it was bad, but because it was lower than the wisdom bestowed by the Spirit. “But those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (“And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”) (Gal. 5:24). So as not to ask: “Who are they?” - from the very deeds he points out those who do this, again calling here evil deeds of the flesh. After all, such, of course, did not kill their flesh - otherwise how could they begin to live - the crucified, no doubt, is dead and inactive - but speaks of the perfection of their wisdom. Although passions annoy them, they rebel against them completely without success. So, if such is the strength of the spirit, then we will live by it, we will only be content with it. Pointing to this, he (the apostle) himself added: “So let us live by the Spirit, and let us walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), living according to its laws.” This is exactly what it means - “let us do” (“let us walk”), that is: “let us be content with the strength of the spirit and will not seek additions to the law.” Then, wanting to show that those who introduce circumcision do it out of ambition, he says: “Let us not be conceited about what is the cause of all evil, let us not irritate each other, let us not envy each other” (Gal. 5:26). After all, from vanity comes envy, and from envy come all those countless types of evil. Gal.6:1. Brethren! If a person falls into any sin, you who are spiritual correct him in the spirit of meekness, each one watching himself, so as not to be tempted. . Responsibility of the teacher. – Paul dictated epistles and wrote others, with the exception of Galatians. - The power of the cross. 1. Since (the Galatians), under the pretext of reproof, took revenge on others for their passions and deluded themselves that they were doing this to correct the sins of others, while in fact they wanted to establish their own lust, then (the apostle) says: “Brothers! Even if a person falls into some sin." He didn’t say “if he does,” but “if he falls into trouble,” that is, “if he gets carried away.” “You who are spiritual, correct such a one” (“You who are spiritual, correct such a one”) (Gal.6:1). Again he did not say “punish” or condemn,” but “correct.” And he doesn’t even stop there, but, wanting to show that they need to be extremely lenient towards those involved in sin, he added: “in the spirit of meekness” (“spirit of meekness”). He did not simply say “with meekness,” but “in the spirit of meekness” (“spirit of meekness”), showing that this is pleasing to the Spirit, and that the ability to correct sinners with meekness is a spiritual gift. Then, so that the one who corrects another does not become proud, he frightens him with the danger of a similar fall, saying: “everyone watching himself, so as not to be tempted” (“watch out for yourself, lest you also be tempted”). Just as the rich give alms to the poor, so that if they themselves have to fall into poverty, they can also receive from others, so we should do the same. Therefore, he also presents a necessary reason, saying: “each one watching himself, so as not to be tempted” (“keep yourselves in check, lest you also be tempted”). At the same time, he also protects the sinner, firstly, with the words: “even if he falls,” which indicates the great weakness of the soul, and secondly, with the words: “so as not to be tempted” (“lest you also be tempted”), blaming demonic temptation rather than the negligence of the soul. “Bear one another’s burdens” (“Bear one another’s burdens”) (Gal.6:2). Since it is impossible, as a person, to be free from shortcomings, then (the apostle) urges not to be strict judges of the faults of others, but to patiently endure the shortcomings of others, so that others will also bear their own shortcomings. Just as when constructing a building, not all stones receive the same purpose, but one is suitable for a corner, and not for a foundation, another for a foundation, and not for a corner, so, without a doubt, it is the same in the body of the Church. Likewise, in our body, everyone can see the same thing, however, one member tolerates another, and we do not demand everything from each of them, because both the body and the building are made up of a variety of things. “And thus fulfill the law of Christ” (“And thus fulfill the law of Christ”). He did not say “fulfill” 7, but “make up for” 8, that is: “fulfill everything together with your combined strength, enduring each other’s shortcomings.” So, for example, he is hot-tempered, and you are sleepy: in this case, bear with his violent impulses, so that he, too, can bear your lethargy. Thus, he will not sin when he meets with condescension on your part, and you will not sin either, since your brother tolerates in you what is difficult for him. So, giving each other a helping hand when the danger of falling threatens, fulfill the law with common strength, each making up for the shortcomings of his neighbor with his patience. If you do not do this, and everyone begins to judge the affairs of his neighbor, then you will never achieve what you should achieve. Just as in relation to the body, if someone begins to demand equal service from all its members, the body will in no case be able to stand, so great enmity will occur between the brethren if we demand everything from everyone. “For whoever thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, deceives himself” (“If anyone thinks he is something, he is nothing, and flatters himself with his mind”) (Gal.6:3). Pay attention to pride again here. Whoever considers himself to be something is nothing, and the first proof of his insignificance is precisely such frivolity. “Let each one test his own work” (“Let every one test his own work”) (Gal.6:4). Here he shows that we need to be judges of our own lives, and not lightly, but carefully examine what we have done. For example, have you done any good? See if you did it out of vanity, or out of need, or out of hatred, or out of hypocrisy, or out of some other human impulse. In fact, just as gold, although it seems shiny before it is put into the crucible, is completely recognized after it is exposed to the action of fire and every impurity is separated from pure gold, in the same way, our deeds will only then be revealed in their true form, when we carefully examine them, then we will see that we ourselves are guilty of much condemnation. “And then he will have praise only in himself, and not in others” (“and then he will have praise only in himself, and not in others”). With these words (the apostle) does not prescribe a rule, but only shows condescension, saying something like this: “To boast, of course, is crazy, but if you want to boast, then not to your neighbor, like the Pharisee.” And whoever learns not to boast before his neighbor will, without a doubt, soon stop boasting in himself. That is why he gave them this indulgence, in order to little by little destroy all the evil in them. Indeed, one who is accustomed to boasting only in himself, and not in front of others, will soon correct this shortcoming, because whoever does not consider himself better than others (this is what the words mean - “not in another”), but boasts only of himself, considering himself alone, will finally stop doing this too. And so that you can be convinced that (the apostle) has in mind the achievement of precisely this, see how he humbles such a one with fear, saying above: “Let him test his own work” (“let him tempt his own work”), and here adding: “For every one will bear his own burden” (“Let every one bear his own burden”) (Gal. 6:5). He pretends to give a commandment forbidding boasting in front of another, and meanwhile he corrects the boaster so that he does not think much about himself, bringing him to the consciousness of his own sins and striking his conscience with the names of burdens and bearing burdens. 2. “If you are taught by the word, share every good thing with those who teach” (“Let the teacher communicate in every good word”) (Gal.6:6). Here (the apostle) already speaks of teachers, so that those being taught diligently serve them in content. But why did Christ establish such a law? And in the new (testament) there really is this law, so that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14); and in the Old Testament, in the same way, the Levites received large offerings from their subordinates (Numbers 31:47). So why did He institute this? First of all, in order to give an incentive to humility and love. Since the dignity of a teacher often puffs up those who have it, Christ, wanting to humble the arrogance of the teacher, made it necessary for him to need the help of those taught by him, and on the other hand, he provided the latter with the opportunity to be more accessible to favor, teaching them, through obliging teachers, to be more favorable to others, and through this arousing considerable love in both. And if there had not been, as I said, this (intention), then why did He, who fed the ungrateful Jews with manna, put the apostles in the state of beggars? Is it not obvious that through this He wanted to teach (the latter) great virtues - humility and love, as well as so that those being taught would not be ashamed to be under the leadership of people who are apparently despicable? Asking is considered shameful; but it could no longer seem so after the teachers did the same completely freely; and thus, from here too, the disciples received no little benefit, learning from the example of their teachers to despise all glory. That is why (the apostle) says: “If you are taught by the word, share every good thing with the one who teaches” (“let the teacher communicate in every good word”). This means that he must show complete generosity towards him, since, pointing to this, he said: “share all good things” (“in all good things”). “The student,” he says, “should not consider anything his property, but he should have everything in common with the teacher. After all, he receives more than he gives, and as much more as the heavenly is higher than the earthly.” Pointing to this, he said in another place: “If we have sown spiritual things in you, is it great if we reap bodily things from you?” ("If we sow spiritual seed to you, how great is it if we reap your bodily seed") (1 Cor. 9:11). That is why he calls this work communication, showing that it does not remain without reward, and thanks to this, love becomes more ardent and stronger. So, if a teacher asks for what is necessary for life, then when he receives it, he retains his dignity. In fact, the teacher is praised even when he is so zealous in preaching that he needs the help of others, endures extreme poverty and despises everything worldly. And if he exceeds the measure of what is necessary, then he loses his dignity, but not because he takes, but because he takes beyond measure. So that the unseemly life of the teacher does not weaken the student’s zeal for him, and so that the latter, during the teacher’s poverty, does not begin to neglect him for his dishonest actions, (the apostle) below says: “Let us not grow weary in doing good” (“Let us not grow weary in doing good”) (Gal. 6:9); here he shows the difference between communication and addiction to earthly goods, saying this: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap: he who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, and he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" ("do not be flattered: God is not mocked. For if a man sows, he will also reap: as he sows to his flesh, from the flesh he will reap corruption: but he who sows to the Spirit, from the Spirit he will reap life eternal") (Gal.6:7–8). Just as in sowing - the one who sows peas cannot reap the wheat, because the harvest is necessarily uniform with what is sown - the same thing happens in business - whoever fills his flesh with pleasures, drunkenness, unbridled desires, will reap what usually grows from this. What is this? Punishment, revenge, shame, reproach, corruption. After all, luxurious dinners and feasts have no other consequence than decay, since they themselves decay, and along with them they decay the body. On the contrary, spiritual works are not like this, but are completely opposite (carnal). Look, in fact: you have sown alms, heavenly treasures and eternal glory await you; If you sow chastity, honor and reward await you, greetings from the angels and crowns from the Hero of Labor. “Let us not become weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we do not give up. So, as long as there is time, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are our own in faith" ("Let us not be discouraged when we do good; for in our season we will reap without failing. And therefore, until the time of the imams, let us do what is good to everyone, especially to those who are close to us in the faith") (Gal. 6:9-10). Lest anyone think that only teachers should be cared for and nourished, while others need not be cared for, (the apostle) concludes his word with a general instruction, and opens the door of generosity to everyone, and extends it to the point that he commands that alms be given even to Jews and pagans, although in due order, but still to be given to everyone. What order is this? Have greater care for the faithful. And as he usually does in other epistles, he does the same here, saying not only that one must give alms, but also give willingly and constantly; This is precisely what he points out with the words “sow” and “should not lose heart.” But since he demanded a lot from them, he places a reward for them at the door, pointing to some new and unusual harvest. 3. “In agricultural labor, not only the sower, but also the reaper undergoes great fatigue, struggling with heat, dust and the great burden of labor; then,” he says, “nothing like this will happen,” as can be seen from what he said: “for in our time we will reap, if we do not faint” (“in our time we will reap without weakening”). And with these words he convinces and attracts them, and with the subsequent ones he encourages and compels them, saying: “So, while there is time, let us do good to everyone” (“the same time, until the time of imams, let us do good to everyone”). Just as it is not always in our power to sow crops, in the same way we are not always able to give alms. When we leave this world, even if we wanted to do alms a thousand times, we will not be able to do anything. This is evidenced to us by those virgins who, although they came with a sincere desire, but without abundant alms, were excommunicated from the bridal chamber (Matthew 25), as well as the rich man who despised Lazarus, since he, because he was deprived of her help, did not receive mercy either from the patriarch or from anyone else, despite tears and strong requests, but remained forever in fiery torment, without any indulgences (Luke 16). That’s why he says: “So, as long as there is time, we will do it, and that to everyone.” With these words he especially warns them against the stinginess of the Jews. Among the latter, all acts of love for mankind were limited only to fellow tribesmen, while the teaching of grace invites both the sea and the earth to the table of beneficence, although it reveals greater concern for its own. “You see how much I wrote to you with my own hand. Those who want to boast according to the flesh force you to be circumcised" ("You see, I wrote to you in number of books with my hand. Those who want to boast according to the flesh, these force you to be circumcised") (Gal. 6:11-12). Think what great sorrow engulfs this blessed soul. Just as those struck by some kind of sorrow, or those who have lost one of their relatives, or those who have suffered some unexpected misfortune have no rest, either day or night, because of the grief depressing their souls, so blessed Paul, having said a little about morality, again returns to the previous thing, which most of all outraged his soul, and says this: “You see how much I have written to you with my own hand” (“you see, in the number of books I wrote to you with my hand." Here he only points out that he himself wrote this entire message, and this served as evidence of his great closeness. Other epistles he himself only dictated, and someone else wrote them, as can be seen from the Epistle to the Romans, at the end of which it is said: “I greet you... and I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle” (“I kiss you and I Tertius, who wrote this epistle”) (Rom. 16:22); in the present case, I wrote the entire message myself. Now he did this out of necessity, not only out of love for them, but also to ward off evil suspicion. Since he was accused of matters in which he did not take any part, and they said that he preached circumcision and only pretended not to preach, then in view of this he was forced to write this letter with his own hand in order to provide written evidence about himself. With the word “many” (“in quantity”), in my opinion, he does not indicate the vastness of the message, but the insufficient beauty of the handwriting, as if saying: “Although I do not know how to write beautifully, however, I am forced to write this message with my own hand in order to stop the mouths of slanderers.” “Those who want to boast in the flesh force you to be circumcised only in order not to be persecuted because of the cross of Christ, for even those who are circumcised do not keep the law, but want you to be circumcised so that they can boast in your flesh.” They themselves keep the law, but they want to be circumcised for you, so that they may boast in your flesh” (Gal. 6:12–13). Here (the apostle), showing that they did not fall into this error of their own accord, but under compulsion, thereby presents them with an opportunity to leave it, and, almost justifying them, thereby convinces them to quickly abandon the false teachers. But what does it mean to “boast in the flesh”? Earn praise from people. “Since (the false teachers) themselves suffered reproach from the Jews for abandoning their fatherly customs, in order to avoid this reproach,” he says, “they want to seduce you in order to justify themselves before them through your flesh.” He said this in order to show that the false teachers did not do this for God, saying, as it were: “This does not come from piety, but everything is done out of human ambition alone, for the sake of pleasing the unbelievers - by the fact that the faithful are circumcised and prefer to offend God, just to please people.” This is exactly what the words mean: “to boast in the flesh.” Then, wanting to show that false teachers, on the other hand, are unworthy of forgiveness, he also denounces them for the fact that they command circumcision not only to please others, but also for their own vanity. That’s why he added: “so that they may boast in your flesh” (“that they may boast in your flesh”) - as if they really had disciples, and they themselves were teachers. But where can you see this? “For they themselves... do not keep the law” (“Neither do they themselves keep the law”), he says. However, even if they did comply, they would still be worthy of the greatest condemnation, but now their very intention is criminal. “But I do not want to boast,” he says, “except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (“Let me not boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”) (Gal.6:14). Of course, this is considered shameful, but only in the world and among the unbelievers, and in heaven and among the faithful it is the greatest glory. Likewise, poverty is shameful for others, but for us it is praise; and to endure abuse seems ridiculous to many, but we boast about it. In the same way, the cross is our praise. And he did not say: “I don’t boast,” or: “I don’t want to boast,” but “let it not happen to me,” as if turning away from something as foolish, and asking God for help so that he could avoid it. What is the praise of the cross? The fact is that Christ, for my sake, took on the form of a slave, and for my sake endured suffering - for the sake of me, who was a slave, an enemy and an ungrateful one, and loved me so much that he gave Himself up (to death). What else can you find equal to this? If slaves, receiving only praise from their masters, who, moreover, being of the same nature as them, boast about this, then how can we not boast when the Master, the true God, was not ashamed to suffer death on the cross for us? Therefore, we will not be ashamed of His inexpressible mercy towards us. He was not ashamed to be crucified for you, but are you ashamed to confess His infinite mercy? In this case, you are like that prisoner who was not ashamed of his king before, but when the latter, having come to him in prison, removed his shackles with his own hands, he became ashamed of him because of this. This would be extreme madness, since this is something we especially need to boast about. 4. “By whom the world was crucified to me, and I to the world” (“By whom the world was crucified to me, and I to the world”). Here he calls the world not heaven and earth, but everyday affairs - praise from people, honor, fame, wealth and everything like that that usually seems brilliant. “All this,” he says, “has become dead to me.” This is how a Christian should be, and he should constantly have these words on his lips. But (the apostle) was not yet satisfied with only the first type of mortification, but added another, saying: “and I for the world” (“and I to the world”), indicating this double mortification, and as if saying: “and this is dead for me, and I, on the other hand, am dead for this; this cannot take possession of me or captivate me, because it has died for me once and for all; and I cannot be obsessed with the desire for it, since I am also dead for “There is nothing more blessed than such mortification, since it serves as the basis of a blessed life. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but there is a new creation. To those who walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and on the Israel of God” (“Neither is circumcision able to do anything, nor is circumcision not, but a new creation. And the little ones live by this rule; peace and mercy are upon them, and on the Israel of God”) (Gal. 6:15–16). Do you see to what height the power of the cross raised (the apostle)? She not only made everything worldly dead to him, but also placed him incomparably higher than his former life. What force can be equal to this force (of the cross)? In fact, whoever was previously subjected to death and put others to death for circumcision, the cross taught him, counting circumcision on an equal basis with uncircumcision, to seek new, wondrous and above-heavenly works. He calls our life a new creation, both in relation to what has been accomplished and in relation to what is yet to be accomplished. In relation to what has happened - because our soul, which had grown old in sin, was suddenly renewed through baptism, as if created again, which is why a new and heavenly way of life is also required of us; in relation to the future - because heaven, and earth, and finally all creation, together with our bodies, must pass into a state of incorruption. “So, do not talk to me,” says (the apostle), “about circumcision, which now has no power; and how, in fact, can it remain now when everything has changed so much? Seek new works of grace. Only those who strive for these things will enjoy the peace and mercy of God and can be called in the proper sense Israel, while those who think contrary to this, even if they were born of Israel and bore his name, have lost all this, and their affinity with him, and the name itself. Only those who fulfill this rule, leaving behind the ancient and following the teachings of grace, can be called true Israelites.” “Nevertheless, let no one burden me” (“Other than that, let no one give me labor”) (Gal.6:17). Here he does not say this as if he were tired or desperate. How, in fact, could the one who decided to do and endure everything for the sake of the disciples become weakened or lose heart - who says: “persist in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2), and also: “will not God give them repentance to the knowledge of the truth, so that they will be freed from the snare of the devil” (“food as God will give them the knowledge of the truth, and they will arise from the devil’s network") (2 Timothy 2:25–26)? Why is he saying this? In order to excite their inactive minds, to bring them into greater fear, to confirm the rules prescribed to them, and to warn them in future from such turmoil. “For I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus on my body” (“For I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ on my body”). He didn’t say “I have,” but “I wear,” like someone proud of his trophies or royal insignia. Although wearing ulcers is also considered a sign of dishonor, he boasts of ulcers; and just as the soldiers who bear banners rejoice, so he who bears the plagues rejoices. But why does he say this? “Because,” he says, “these ulcers justify me better than any word, better than any voice. They raise a voice louder than any trumpet against those who oppose me and say that I teach feignedly and sometimes speak to please people. If someone saw a warrior, bloodied and covered with countless wounds, out of ranks, he, of course, could not accuse him of cowardice and betrayal, since he wears proof of his courage on his very body. “The same,” he says, “should be judged about me.” And if anyone wants to hear my justification and know my way of thinking, let him look at my wounds, which provide proof stronger than these words and this scripture.” At the beginning of the message, he clearly proved his non-pretense by his sudden conversion, but at the end he proves this with his suffering. And so that someone does not say that he converted with a sincere heart, but later did not resist in the same disposition, for this he cites his labors, sufferings and ulcers as witnesses to the fact that he also resisted. Finally, having been sufficiently justified in all respects, and assured that he did not say anything out of anger or dislike, but has unfailing love for them, he again confirms the same thing, concluding his word with a prayer filled with countless blessings, and saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen" (Gal.6:18). With these last words he put a seal on everything that had been said before. In fact, he did not simply say “with you,” as he says in other epistles, but “with your spirit,” turning them away from carnal things, and everywhere pointing to the good deeds of God, and reminding them of the grace that they received and which was sufficient to deliver them from all Jewish error. Just as the reception of the Spirit depended not on the weak law, but on justification through faith, so the retention of it after reception depended not on circumcision, but on grace. Therefore, he concluded the exhortation with prayer, reminded them of grace and spirit and called them brothers, and, calling on God to constantly enjoy these gifts, he fenced them with a double fence, since what he said was both a prayer and at the same time a complete instruction, and therefore serves for them instead of a double wall. In fact, the instruction, reminding them of what blessings they were awarded, could very strongly keep them in the dogmas of the Church, and the prayer, calling on grace and imploring it to continually abide in them, did not allow the spirit to depart from them. When (the Spirit) dwells in them, then all false teaching will disappear like dust about Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. Εβάσκανεν – jinxed; deceived, motivated by envy. You might be interested in: