Беседа 15

Phil.4:10–14. I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that you have already begun to take care of me again; you cared before, but circumstances were not favorable to you. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content with what I have. I know how to live in poverty, I know how to live in abundance; I learned everything and in everything, to be satisfied and to suffer hunger, to be both in abundance and in shortage. I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me. However, you did well by taking part in my grief. Alms were introduced not for those who receive, but for those who give. - Humility of the Ap. Pavel. - The benefits of grief. - Troubles of kings. 1. I have often said that alms were introduced not for those who receive, but for those who give, since the latter gain the greatest benefit. This is exactly what Paul shows here. How? The Philippians, after a long time, sent him something, entrusting it to Epaphroditus. Therefore (the apostle), intending to send him back with this message, see how he praises them and shows that what was sent did not benefit those who receive, but those who give. He does this so that those who do good do not become arrogant, and are more zealous in doing good, since through this they bring more benefit to themselves, and those who receive (good deeds) would not rush to accept without fear, so as not to be condemned, as it is said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). So, what does he show by saying: “I rejoiced greatly in the Lord”? I rejoiced, he says, not in what people rejoice in the world and in this life, but “in the Lord”; (I rejoiced) not because I calmed down, but because you succeeded - and this is what my peace of mind consists of. That’s why he also said, “very,” because his joy was not carnal, and he did not rejoice over his own peace, but over their prosperity. And look how he, having reproached them a little for the past time, immediately covered it up, teaching them to constantly and always remain in charity. “What are you doing again,” he says. With the expression: “already again” - he shows a long time. “began” (άνεδάλετε, blossomed) – speaks as if of trees that sprouted, then withered, and again sprouted. And this shows that they first, having flourished, withered, then, having withered, they again sprouted shoots; therefore, the word “began” contains both reproach and praise, since it is an important matter for the faded to prosper. By this he shows that everything happened to them from negligence. “Take care of me; you cared before.” Here he explains that they were usually distinguished by their generosity in similar cases before, which is why he added: “Take care of me; you cared before.” And lest you think that their former great zeal has faded in other respects, but only in this one (in relation to charity), - for this, see how he warns, saying: “That you have already begun to care about me again”; as if he said this: I say “already again” in relation to this only because in other respects you are not like that. Perhaps someone here will ask: how is it that the one who says: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), and: “These hands have ministered to my needs and the needs of those who were with me” (Acts 20:34), and who again wrote to the Corinthians: “For it is better for me to die than for anyone to destroy my praise” (1 Cor. 9:15), - (how does he) now not see that destroys his own praise? How? Having accepted (what was sent). After all, if praise consisted in not accepting anything, then how does he accept now? What should it say? There he rightly did not accept because of the false apostles. “So that in what they boast,” he says, “they may be the same as we are” (2 Cor. 11:12). The Apostle did not say “the essence (unselfish), but “they boast,” showing through this that they took only secretly. That is why he said: “in what they boast.” And he accepted, although not there. That is why he said: “This praise will not be taken away from me” (2 Cor. 11:10) And he did not just say: “it will not be taken away”, but what? “in the countries of Achaia”; and also: “I caused expenses to other churches, receiving support from them to serve you” (2 Cor. 11:8). However, Paul, if he accepted anywhere, accepted correctly, having such an important matter; But how can those who do nothing take it? But you say, I pray? This is not yet a matter: you can pray and do the work. But am I fasting? And that's not the point. Look how this blessed one preaches and works in many places. “But for you,” he says, “circumstances were not favorable.” What does it mean: “But circumstances were not favorable for you?” This depended, he says, not on your negligence, but on necessity; you had nothing in your hands, you yourself were not rich. This is what the words mean: “But circumstances were not favorable to you.” This is borrowed from general custom; this is what most people say when the needs of life flow to them not abundantly, but “I say this not because I am in need,” that is, I said: “already again,” and with this I reproached (you) not out of desire for my own benefit, and not complaining about poverty, as if I were poor, - since this is not what I was looking for, Paul, that you are not vain? you understand" (2 Cor. 1:13). And he would not have spoken to the Philippians in such a way, lest he be convicted (of a lie). I would not have said this if I had been vainglorious, because I spoke to those who knew (him), and it would have been more shameful to hear accusations (of lies) from them. “For I,” he says, “have learned to be content with what I have.” This means that this is a matter of learning, exercise and effort; it is not easy, on the contrary, it is very difficult and very tiring. “I am content with what I have,” he says, “I know how to live in poverty, I know how to live in abundance; I have learned everything and in everything,” that is, I know how to use little, and endure hunger and poverty. “Live in poverty, and live in abundance." Yes, they will say; but "living in abundance" is not an art, nor is it even a virtue, just like "living in poverty." 2. Many, having become rich, often became more careless and did not know how to be happy. For many, wealth served as a reason for idleness. But Paul acted differently: receiving, he spent on others, spent on others. And this is what skill consists of – to use property well. He did not have fun and did not rejoice over his abundance, but he was the same both in poverty and in abundance - he was not ashamed of the former, and was not arrogant in the latter. “I know how to be satisfied,” he says, “and to endure hunger, to be both in abundance and in shortage.” Many do not know how to “be satisfied,” like the Israelites, who “grew fat and rejected” (Deut. 32:15). But I, (says the apostle), always remain in the same frame of mind. This shows that he was not happy now, and was not sad before; if he grieved, it was not for himself, but for them; he himself was always the same. “I learned,” he says, “everything and in everything,” that is, for such a long time I experienced everything, and in all this I improved. But since the speech (of the apostle) could seem exaggerated, see how he immediately makes an amendment and says: “I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.” This, he says, is not my perfection, but that of Him who gave strength. But on the other hand, since benefactors, seeing in the recipient not a good disposition, but a disdain for alms, become more negligent (since they then give generously when they evoke gratitude and bring reassurance), so that this does not happen, and lest anyone say - Paul neglects reassurance, therefore they, of necessity, became more careless - see how he prevents this too. With the previous words he destroyed their dreams, and with the next he arouses their zeal, saying: “However, you did well by taking part in my sorrow.” Do you see how he separated himself and united himself again? This is a sign of sincere, spiritual friendship. Don’t think, he says, that I don’t need your benefits because I don’t tolerate need; I endure need for our sake. How were they participants in his sorrows? So that he, even being a prisoner, said: “All of you, as my partners in grace” (Phil. 1:7), - because to suffer for Christ is grace, as he himself says in another place: “For it has been given to you for Christ’s sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him” (Phil. 1:29). These words, spoken separately, could sadden (the Philippians); therefore (the apostle) consoles them, accepts them, and again praises them, albeit in moderation. Specifically, he did not say - having given, but - “because it has been given to you for the sake of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him,” to show that they also received the benefit because they became participants in the rewards. He didn’t say “easing my sorrows,” but “taking part in my sorrow,” which is more important. Do you see Pavlovo's humility? Do you see his nobility? After he had shown that he had no need for their alms, he fearlessly uttered the words of humiliation, which are also used by the poor: as you usually give. He does not refuse anything, neither deeds nor words, just to accomplish what he wants. What does this mean? Don’t think, he says, that my reproach and the words “we’ve already started again” come from shamelessness and from my need. No, I’m not saying this out of necessity, but why? There is a special hope for you, and you yourself are the originators of this hope. Do you see how he cares about them, and how he says to them: you are the culprits, you are the ones who started this work before others, and you gave us the courage to remind you of this? Notice the importance of (the apostle): (the Philippians) do not send, he does not reproach them, so that it does not seem that he cares about himself; and when they sent him, then he reproached him for the past time, and they endured (the reproach), since it was no longer possible to think that he cared about himself. “You know,” he says, “the Philippians, that at the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, not a single church helped me with alms and acceptance, except you alone.” ), showed so much zeal for this saint that, having no example at all, they themselves were the first to begin such fruit-bearing. And it cannot be said that they did this because Paul was with them, or because they received some kind of benefit from him. What does “acceptance” mean? And what does “participation” mean? Why didn’t he say that not a single church gave me, but “participation through alms and acceptance”? Because that is precisely what communication consists of. “If we have sown spiritual things in you,” he says, “is it great if we reap bodily things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:11)? And again: “Today your abundance will make up for their lack” (2 Cor. 8:14). Do you see how they had fellowship - giving physical things and receiving spiritual things? As sellers and buyers have mutual communication, receiving from each other and giving to each other; – this is communication, and so it is here. And no, there is nothing more useful than this purchase and this bargaining; it is produced on earth and ends in heaven. Those who buy are on earth, but they buy and enter into a condition about heavenly things, assuming an earthly price. 3. However, do not be embarrassed: heavenly blessings are not sold for money, they are not bought with money, but through the free decision of the one giving the money, through wisdom, elevation above worldly things, love of mankind and almsgiving. If they were bought with silver, then the wife who put in two mites would receive a little; but since it was not silver, but a good intention that had power, she, having shown all her readiness, received everything. So, we should not say that the kingdom (of heaven) is bought with money: not with money, but with the free decision revealed through money. However, you need money, you say? It's not money that's needed, but a solution. Having this last, you can buy heaven for two mites; and without it, even for a thousand gold talents you cannot buy what you can buy for two mites. Why? Because when you gave less from a lot, although you gave alms, it was not like the widow; you didn’t give with the same zeal as she did; she deprived herself of everything, or better yet, she did not deprive herself, but gave herself everything. God promised the kingdom not for talents of gold, but for a cup of cold water, for zeal, not for death, which is not something great, but for intention. What does it really mean to give one soul? One person is given; and one person is not equal to a kingdom. “You also sent to Thessalonica once or twice for my needs” (Phil. 4:16). Again, great praise - because he, being in the main city, received support from the small city. And look: so that, always presenting himself as completely satisfied, he would not make them, as I said before, carefree, he repeatedly showed that he did not tolerate need, and here he expressed it in just one word: “To the need,” without even adding to mine, but simply (to the demand), maintaining his importance; and not only here, but also in the following words. Since (the apostle) found this expression very humiliating, he makes a correction afterwards, saying: “Not because I sought giving” (Phil. 4:17). With these words he expresses the same thing as the above: “I’m not saying this because I’m in need” - although the first (expression) is stronger than the last. It’s another thing to not look for something when you’re poor, and another thing to not even consider yourself poor when you’re in poverty. “Not because,” he says, “I seek giving; but I seek the fruit that multiplies for your benefit,” not for mine. Do you see that the fruit grows for them? Not for myself, he says, I say this, but for you, for your salvation. By accepting from you, I gain nothing; grace belongs to those who give; the giver retains the reward there, but the giving is squandered here to those who receive. Again, speaking about the need, he praises them and expresses his sympathy. Since he said, “not because I sought,” then, so as not to make them carefree again, he says: “I have received everything, and I have abundance” (Phil. 4:18), i.e. Through this giving, you also made up for previous omissions, which especially aroused jealousy in them. After all, it is known that the kinder those who do charity are, the more they desire gratitude from those who benefited. “I have received everything, and I am abundant,” that is, you not only made up for what was omitted in the past tense, but you also did more. Then, so that this does not seem like an accusation, see how he confirms (the previous words). Since he said: “not because I was looking for giving,” and: “already again,” and showed that it was an obligation (this does not mean “received”), he again shows that they did more than what they were obliged to do, and says: “received.” I’m not saying this simply, and not out of partiality, but what? “having received from Epaphroditus what you sent as fragrant incense, a sacrifice acceptable, acceptable to God.” Oh, how he exalted their gift! It was not I, he says, who accepted, not I, but God through me. Therefore, although I do not tolerate need, you, however, do not look at it; and God had no need, yet He accepted, so that Divine Scripture does not shy away from saying: “And the Lord smelled a pleasant aroma” (Gen. 8:21), which means that it was pleasant to Him. You know, you know well, into what disposition our soul is brought, how much it rejoices, and how much it delights in fragrances. So, Scripture did not shy away from speaking about God in human terms and in such a derogatory way as to show people that their gifts were pleasant: it was not the smell or the smoke that made them pleasant, according to the intention of those who brought them. Otherwise, Cain's gifts would have been pleasant. Therefore (the apostle) said that God delights, and how he delights; without this people would not understand. So, He, who has no need, says that He delights so much (in gifts) so that people do not become careless when they learn that He has no need. When they subsequently neglected another virtue, relying only on sacrifices, then see how He again corrects them, saying: “Do I eat the meat of oxen and drink the blood of goats?” (Ps. 49:13). Likewise, Paul says: “Not because I sought giving.” “My God will supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19). 4. See how he prays like beggars. If Paul prays for those who give, then much more should we, when we receive (good deeds), not be ashamed to do so. We should not accept as if we ourselves were in need, nor should we rejoice in ourselves, but in those who give. Thus, if we rejoice over them, we will receive a reward even when we receive them. Likewise, let us not be indignant when they do not give, but rather let us grieve for them. In this way, let us make them more diligent, making them understand that we are not doing this for ourselves. “My God,” he says, “may he supply all your need,” or all grace, or all joy. But if he understands all grace, then he speaks not only about this earthly alms, but about every good deed; if he understands every demand (and this is more, in my opinion, what is said), then he wants to explain the following: since before he said: “But circumstances were not favorable to you,” then here he adds that the same as in the letter to the Corinthians, saying: “Whoever gives seed to the sower and bread for food will give abundance to what you sow and will multiply the fruits of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:10). He prays for them that they may have abundance and have something to sow—and he prays not just to have abundance, but “according to the riches” of God. Therefore, he did this in relation (to their condition). If they were like (Paul), as much wise, and as much crucified (to the world), then he would not have done this. But since they were craftsmen, poor, had wives, raised children, managed houses, and gave him little, and at the same time still had some attachment to real things, he prays, condescending (to their condition). There is nothing indecent to pray that people who have enjoyed (wealth) in this way will have contentment and abundance. So, look at what he prays for: he did not say - (God) make you rich and very rich - but what? “Let him supply all your needs,” so that you will not be in need, but have everything you need. Christ commanded to ask for this in the prayer He gave, He taught us: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). "According to His riches". What does it mean? By generosity, i.e. because it is convenient and possible for Him to do, and soon. And since he said “Need,” so that they would not think that he intended to limit them, he added: “According to His riches in glory, by Christ Jesus.” You will, he says, abound in everything as much as you use for His glory. So, he says either that you will not need anything (“And great grace,” it is said, “was on them all. There was no one in need among them”) (Acts 4:33, 34), or he encourages them to do everything for His glory, as if saying: use your wealth for His glory. “To our God and Father be the glory forever and ever! Amen” (Phil.4:20). And this glory belongs not only to the Son, but also to the Father. When the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified. And since he said that this happens for the glory of Christ, so that anyone would not imagine (the glory) of Him alone, he added: “To God and our Father is the glory,” that is, the same that is given to the Son. “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:21). This is also important: greeting them through messages is a sign of great love. “The brethren who are with me greet you.” But you said: “For I have no one equally zealous who would so sincerely care about you”: how can you now say: “The brethren who are with me”? He either speaks about the brothers who were with him, showing that not one of them was like-minded, without touching those who were in the city (and what need did they have to take on the apostolic affairs?), or he does not refuse to call them brothers. “All the saints greet you, especially from Caesar’s house. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all” (Phil.4:23). He encouraged and inspired them, showing that the sermon had reached the royal house. If those in the royal palace despised everything for the King of Heaven, then it was much more appropriate for them to do this. And this was proof of Pavlova’s love that he told and said many important things about them, which aroused in the courtiers a desire to welcome them, although they had never seen them. The love between the believers was great, especially due to the fact that they were then under oppression. How? So that those who lived at a distance from each other were mutually connected, and being at a distance, as if living close, they greeted each other and each was disposed to the others as if they were their own members. The poor were disposed towards the rich, just as the rich were towards the poor; and there was no advantage, because they were still hated and persecuted for the same thing. Just as some captives who came out from different cities, gathered in one city, become close friends with each other, because a common disaster unites them, so too the believers at the time when they were united by common suffering and sorrow had great love for each other. 5. Grief is some kind of inextricable connection, an intensification of love, a condition of contrition (heartfelt) and good thoughts. Listen to what David says: “It is good for me that I suffered in order to learn Your statutes” (Ps. 119:71); and another prophet says: “It is good for a man when he bears the yoke in his youth” (Lam. 3:27); and again: “Blessed is the man whom You admonish, O Lord” (Ps. 93:12); and someone else says: “Do not reject the discipline of the Lord” (Prov. 3:11); and in another place: “If you begin to serve the Lord God, then prepare your soul for temptation” (Sir. 2:1). Christ also said to His disciples: “In the world you will have tribulation; but take heart” (John 16:33); and again: “You will mourn and lament, but the world will rejoice” (John 16:20); and again: “strait is the gate and narrow is the way” (Matthew 7:14). Do you see that sorrow is everywhere praised, everywhere it seems necessary for us? Indeed, if even in external achievements no one receives a crown without it - without strengthening himself with labors, renunciation of food, rules of abstinence, vigils and countless other means - then even more so here. Whom do you want (to introduce)? Is it the king? But he does not lead a carefree life, on the contrary, it is full of many sorrows and worries. You look not at the Diadem, but at the storm of worries from which confusion is born for him, not at the purple, but at his soul, clouded more than this purple. It is not so much the crown that covers the head, but rather the anxiety that surrounds the soul. Look not at the multitude of bodyguards, but at the multitude of sorrows - you cannot find a single private house that would be filled with such worries as the royal palaces. Various kinds of death are expected there every day from their own people, and blood is seen both before meals and before drinks. And at night, how often they jump up and jump, disturbed by dreams - this cannot be said! And this happens in peacetime; and if war comes, then worries increase even more. So, what could be more pitiful than this life? And how much concern does there come from your own – I mean, subordinates? It is also true that the royal platform is always nourished with kindred blood. If you like, I’ll tell you something, and you will immediately find out that this (really) happens. In particular, I will talk about (events) of the ancients, however, well preserved in memory, and about some that happened in our times. Someone, they say, suspecting his wife of adultery, tied her naked to the mountains and handed her over to the beasts, while she was already the mother of many kings. What kind of life do you think he led? If he had not been exhausted from strong passion, he would not have used such punishment. He himself killed his son; Moreover, his brother killed himself and his children. And they say that he also killed his brother. Another - one took his own life, being captured by a tyrant, and the other killed his nephew, who had shared with him in the kingdom, which he himself had given him. Another saw his wife die from drugs: she did not give birth, and some unfortunate and poor woman (truly unhappy and poor, because with her art she hoped to deliver the gift of God), having given medicine, she killed both the queen and herself died together. The other was again killed with poisonous drugs, and the cup was no longer a drink for him, but death. His son, who had not committed any crime, out of fear of the future, had his eye gouged out. It’s not even good for someone else to say how pitifully he ended his life! And of those who came after, one, no matter how poor and unfortunate, was burned with horses, houses and all other things, but his wife remained a widow. It is impossible to express what life sorrows he was forced to endure at the time he took up arms. And has this ruler now, since the time he was adorned with the diadem, been in labor, danger, sorrow, sorrow, misfortune, and among intrigues? But the kingdom of heaven is not like that: with its acquisition comes peace, life, joy and gladness. And (here) life, as I said, cannot be comfortable. If the royal state, the most blissful in everyday relations, is filled with such misfortunes, then what can be said about private states? And how many other evils it is impossible to recount. How many fables have come from this? Almost all the tragedies presented on the stage are taken from the kings, as well as myths, in which a large part is also borrowed from what actually happened, which is why they give pleasure, such as, for example, the Fiesta feasts, and (the myth about) how this whole house perished from misfortunes. 6. But we know this from secular writings. If you want, we will also tell you from Scripture. Saul was the first to reign, but you know how he also perished, having experienced countless disasters. After him, David, Solomon, Abijah, Hezegaiah, Hosea - also, because it is impossible to go through real life without sorrow, without labor and without sadness. But we do not grieve for what kings do, but for what we receive great benefit from. “For Godly sorrow produces repentance unfailingly leading to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10). One must be sad about this, grieve about this, lament about this. So Paul lamented for those who sinned, he wept for them: “Out of great sorrow,” he says, “and a troubled heart, I wrote to you with many tears” (2 Cor. 2:4). Since he had no reason to grieve for his own sins, he grieved for those of others, and grieved so much that he considered them his own. Others were tempted, and he was inflamed; others were weak, and he sympathized with their weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:29). Such sadness is good, it is better than any worldly joy. Whoever complains in this way, I prefer him to all people; even the Lord himself pleases these weeping, compassionate ones. I am not so much surprised at Paul, who was exposed to dangers, or better yet, I am no less surprised at him because of the disasters from which he died daily, than how much I admire him (i.e., that he grieved for others). This came from a God-loving and loving soul, from the love that Christ himself desired, from brotherly and paternal compassion, or even much more than both (compassion). This is how one should be in such a mood, one should cry; such tears are filled with great joy; such weeping is a condition for joy. And don’t tell me: what use are my tears to those for whom I cry? Although we will not help those mourned in the least, we will undoubtedly benefit ourselves. He who grieves so much for the (sins) of others will grieve all the more for his own; whoever mourns strangers in this way will not leave his own sins without tears, or rather, he will not even sin soon. But, what is most terrible of all, we, who are commanded to cry in this way for those who sin, do not show any repentance for our own (sins); on the contrary, perishing (in lawlessness), we do not reveal the slightest sorrow, and we care about everything more, we think about everything more than about our sins. That is why we rejoice in useless worldly joy, which soon disappears and gives rise to countless sorrows. So, let us mourn with sorrow that gives birth to joy; Let us not enjoy the joy that gives rise to sorrow. Let us shed tears that sow great pleasure, and let us not laugh with laughter that gives rise to gnashing of teeth for us. Let us grieve with sorrow, from which comes joy, and let us not seek amusements, from which great sorrow and illness are born. Let us work a little on earth in order to enjoy continuous joy in heaven. Let us expose ourselves to sorrow in this corruptible life in order to receive peace in eternity. Let us not rejoice in this short time, so as not to groan in eternity. Or don’t you see how many here grieve over the things of this life? Think that you are one of those, and endure sorrow and illness, strengthened by hope for future (goods). You are no better than Paul, no better than Peter, who never had peace, but spent their whole lives in hunger, thirst and nakedness. If you want to get what they get, then why are you going the opposite way? If you want to reach the city that they were honored with, then follow the path that leads there. And the path leads there not to joy, but to sorrow; the first is spacious, the last is narrow. Let us go by these last, so that we may receive eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: