Беседа 9

Phil.2:19–21. I hope in the Lord Jesus to soon send Timothy to you, so that I too, having learned about your circumstances, may be comforted in spirit. For I have no one equally zealous who would so sincerely care about you, because everyone is looking for their own, and not what is pleasing to Jesus Christ. Those who served Pavel. - Must serve the saints. - An exhortation to give alms. 1. (The Apostle) said: “I desire, brethren, that you know that my circumstances contributed to the greater success of the gospel, so that my bonds in Christ became known to the whole praetorium and to everyone else”; and again: “But even if I am made a sacrifice for the sacrifice and service of your faith” (Phil. 1:12–13, 2:17), this confirmed them (the Philippians). Perhaps they would think that the former was said for consolation. What does he do, and how does he reject such a thought? He says: I am sending Timothy to you, because they really wanted to hear about everything about him. Why didn’t he say: so that you know about my circumstances, but so that I know about yours? (Because) Epaphroditus could have announced his circumstances before Timothy. Therefore, he further says: “However, I considered it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you” (Phil. 2:25). I want to know, he says, about your circumstances. Probably (Epaphroditus) spent a long time with Paul due to physical illness, which is why he says that I definitely want to know about your circumstances. Look how everything refers to Christ, even the departure of Timothy, saying: “I hope in the Lord Jesus,” i.e. I am sure that God will help me in this, “so that I, having learned about your circumstances, may be comforted in spirit.” Just as, he says, I encouraged you with the news of what you prayed for regarding me - that the gospel is prospering, that (the enemies) are put to shame, that they brought (me) joy by the very thing with which they thought to harm - so I want to know about your circumstances, “so that I, having learned about your circumstances, may be comforted in spirit.” Here he shows that they should rejoice over his bonds, and follow him in this: but indeed (the bonds) brought him great consolation. The words: “so that I too may be comforted in spirit” mean: just as you (are content). Oh, what necessary love he had for Macedonia! And he expresses the same to the Thessalonians when he says: “We... were separated from you for a short time” (1 Thess. 2:17). And here he says: “I hope Timothy comes to you” so that I know about your circumstances. This is a sign of the greatest care. When he himself could not come, he sent his disciples, unable to bear even for a short time to remain ignorant of what was happening with them: after all, he did not learn everything from the spirit. This is how it should be. If the disciples were sure of this, they would become shameless; and now, in the desire to hide, they corrected themselves more conveniently. With the words: “So that I too may be comforted in spirit,” he made them more attentive to themselves and more diligent, so that if Timothy had not come, he would have found someone else who would have informed him. (Once) the apostle himself used this method, postponing his coming so that the Corinthians could correct themselves. That’s why he wrote: “To spare you, I have not come to Corinth until now” (2 Cor. 1:23). Love is discovered not only through being informed of one's circumstances, but also through trying to learn about their circumstances. This is the property of a caring soul, a caring and always worried soul. And at the same time he does them an honor by sending Timofey. What are you saying? Are you sending Timofey? Why? Yes, he says: “For I have no one equally diligent,” that is, caring like me, “who would so sincerely care about you.” So, he didn’t have anyone equally zealous with him? No one. What does this mean? The same as - like me, caring and caring for you. Others, he says, would not so easily decide for this reason to make such a long journey. Α Timofey loves you as much as I do. We could send others, but there is no one like that. Therefore, to be equally zealous means to love students like him. “Who,” he says, “would so sincerely care about you,” that is, in a fatherly way. “Because everyone seeks their own, and not what is pleasing to Jesus Christ,” that is, their own peace and security. He says the same thing in the letter to Timothy. Why does he grieve about this? In the intention of teaching those who listen - not to be such, to teach those who listen - not to seek idleness. He who seeks idleness seeks “not what is pleasing.” Jesus Christ”, but “everyone is looking for his own”; and we must be ready for all labor, for all burdensome things. “And his faithfulness,” he says, “is known to you, because he, like a son to his father, served me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22). It is not without reason that I say this; you yourself know that he, like a son to his father, served me in the gospel. Here he rightly praises Timothy so that they receive him with great honor. He does this in his letter to the Corinthians, saying: “See to it that he is safe with you; for he is doing the Lord’s work, just as I am” (1 Cor. 16:10) - he cares not about him, but about those who receive him, so that they receive a great reward for it. “So,” he says, “I hope to send him as soon as I find out what will happen to me” (Phil. 2:23), that is, when I see what state I will be in and what the end will be of my affairs. “I am confident in the Lord that I myself will soon come to you” (Phil. 2:24). I am not sending him (Timothy) because I will not come myself, but so that I may be encouraged by knowing about your circumstances, and so as not to be in the dark during this period of time, “I am confident in the Lord,” he says, that is, if God wills. 2. See how he attributes everything to God and says nothing from his own mind. “However, I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and companion” (Phil. 2:25). And he is sent again with the same praises as Timothy. In this last he indicates the following two qualities: that he loves them, with the words: “Who would so sincerely care for you,” and that he has earned praise in the gospel. And he praised Epaphroditus for the same thing, and for the same purpose as Timothy. How? To say: “brother and co-worker”, and not stop there, but add also: “and companion”, means to show his great participation in troubles and testify about him the same as about himself. “Associate” means more than “collaborator”. Another could be a collaborator in light matters, but not in battles and troubles; and in the word: “companion” (the apostle) showed this last thing too. “And I will send you,” he says, “your messenger and servant in my need,” that is, I give you ours. Or in other words: yours, or the one who teaches us, I send to you. Then he adds a lot about his love, saying: “Because he really wanted to see all of you and grieved deeply that rumors of his illness reached you. For he was sick at the point of death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him, but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow added to sorrow” (Phil. 2:26-27). Here (the apostle) also suggests something else, that is, that he (Epaphroditus) knows very well that you love him. And this is no small incentive to love. How? He was sick, he says, and you were sick; he recovered, and he delivered you from the sorrow that you had due to his illness. However, he himself was not without sadness; but I grieved that, having recovered, I did not see you. Here he also suggests something else - he justifies himself in the fact that he sends to them after quite some time: not out of carelessness, he says, but because he kept Timothy because he had no one ("For I have no one," he says, "equally diligent"), but Epaphroditus - due to illness. Then, showing that his illness was long and exhausted (him) for a long time, he says: “For he was sick at the point of death.” Видишь ли, сколько Павел заботится о том, чтобы отклонить от души учеников всякую мысль о беспечности и небрежении, и чтобы они не подумали, будто он пренебрегает ими, и потому не пришел? Ничто не способно так привлечь ученика, как убеждение, что учитель и печется, и скорбит о нем. This is a sign of extreme love. “You have heard a rumor,” he says, “about his illness. For he was sick at the point of death." And what I say without pretending, listen: “But God had mercy on him.” What do you say, heretic? Здесь (апостол) называет милостью Божьей то, что Он сохранил человека близкого к смерти, и возвратил его к жизни. But if the world is evil, then leaving in evil is not mercy. However, it is easy to talk to a heretic; What shall we say to a Christian? After all, he, too, may doubt and say: if “to be resolved and to be with Christ, because this is incomparably better” (Phil. 1:23), then why does he say that (God) had mercy on him? And I ask: why does he say: “But it is more necessary for you to remain in the flesh” (Phil. 1:24)? This was as necessary for the apostle as it was for Epaphroditus, who had to go to God with great wealth and with great boldness. And although this did not happen now, it could have happened later; and it is no longer possible to gain souls by going there. Paul also says a lot in relation to the ordinary concept of those listening, and does not everywhere speak of philosophy, since his word was to worldly people who were still afraid of death. Then he shows what kind of opinion Epaphroditus has in him, and through this makes him venerable, calling his salvation so useful for himself that he himself was pardoned through him. However, besides this, real life is good; and if not good, then why does (the apostle) include premature death among the punishments? For example, he says: “That is why many of you are weak and sick, and many are dying” (1 Cor. 11:30). The future life is not better for an evil person, because it is not good, but for a good person it is better. “Lest,” he says, “I should add sorrow to sorrow”—sorrow of death to sorrow of illness. This shows how much he honors Epaphroditus. “Therefore I sent him quickly” (Phil. 2:28). What does “quickly” mean? It means without delay, without delay, with great haste, ordering to leave everything and come to you to free you from sorrow. We rejoice not so much when we hear that our loved ones (we) are healthy, as long as we see them as such, and especially if this happens beyond expectation, as happened then with Epaphroditus. “Therefore, I sent him quickly, so that when you saw him again, you would rejoice, and I would be less sad.” So, if you rejoice, then I rejoice, and he rejoices with the same joy. sad.” He did not say: carefree, but “less sad,” showing that his soul was never without sadness. When, in fact, was it without sorrow that he said: “Who is weary, with whom would I not be weary? Who is tempted, for whom would I not be inflamed?” (2 Cor. 11:29)? As I would say: I put this sadness aside. “Receive him therefore in the Lord with all joy” (Phil. 2:29). “In the Lord” is the same as spiritually, that is, with great diligence; or better yet, “in the Lord”—meaning according to the will of God. Receive as saints should, and as saints should be received: “With all joy,” he says. 3. All this is done for themselves, and not for those sent, because there is more benefit to the one who does good than to whom it is done. “And have such in respect,” that is, accept him as you should receive saints. “For for the cause of Christ he came near to death, endangering his life, that he might make up for the deficiency of your services to me” (Phil. 2:30). Epaphroditus was sent by the Philippians on behalf of the entire city to minister to Paul, or perhaps came to him to deliver something. And that he also brought money, the apostle indicates this at the end of the letter, saying: “Having received from Epaphroditus what was sent to you” (Phil. 4:18). Probably, having come to the city of Rome, he found Paul in such great and grave trouble that even those close to him were unable to come to him safely, but they also came with caution. This usually happens, especially in great troubles, and in cases of extreme royal anger. When someone, having offended the king, is imprisoned and is under strong guard, then even his family is forbidden to come to him - which probably happened then with Paul; and Epaphroditus, like a undaunted man, neglected all danger, just to come and serve (Paul) and do everything that was necessary. So, (the apostle) presents him as worthy of honor for two reasons: firstly, he says, he was in mortal danger for me; and secondly, he suffered this while being the representative of the city, so that the reward for his danger was imputed to those who sent him - because the city sent him in the form of an envoy. Therefore, to accept him with respect and thank him for his services means to become a special participant in what he dared to do. And he did not say: for me, but, for the purpose of greater assurance, he says: “for the work” of God. Not for me, but for God he was “close to death.” So what? Although he did not die, according to God’s dispensation, he was nevertheless exposed to danger and betrayed himself in such a way that he would not renounce serving me, no matter what he had to endure. If he gave himself up to death to serve Paul, much more would he have done it to preach; or better yet, dying for Paul was the same as preaching. Not only for refusing to make a sacrifice (to idols) can you receive a martyr's crown, but such cases also make you a martyr; and if anything should be called surprising, it is rather the latter cases than the former. Whoever decides to die for a lesser matter will (decide) all the more for a greater one. Therefore, when we see the saints in trouble, we will not spare ourselves. The indecisive can never do anything noble; whoever cares about safety here will necessarily be deprived of it in the future. “In order to make up for,” he says, “the lack of your services to me.” What does it mean? The city was not with me, but did me every service through it by sending it. Therefore, he made up for the lack of your service. And therefore he has the right to receive great honor, since he alone did for you what should have been done by everyone. (The Apostle) also points to the first service that was rendered to the needy by those who were safe. The words: “lack of your services” indicate precisely this. Do you see the high feeling of the apostle? It does not come from pride, but from great concern for them. He calls their work service and deprivation, so that they do not become proud, but are humble; so that they do not think that they have done something great, but humble themselves. Therefore, we will not get too high-minded when we give something to the saints, and we will not think that in this case we are giving them. We are obliged to do this to the saints, and we do not give them anything. Just as those who are in the army and are waging war, those who remain in a peaceful situation and do not participate in the war are obliged to provide maintenance - because they stand for them - so it is here. If Paul had not taught, then who would have thrown him into prison? Therefore one must serve the saints. If the one who fights for the king of the earth should be provided with everything, both clothing and food, not only to the extent of need, but also in abundance, then how can one not provide even the most necessary things to the one who fights for the King of heaven, and who fights with more terrible enemies, about whom it is said: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12)? What lack of appreciation! What ingratitude! What stinginess! 4. But, as you can see, human fear affects us more than (the fear of) Gehenna and future torment. That is why everything has been distorted - civil affairs are carried out every day with great diligence and there is no omission, but there is no thought anywhere about spiritual matters. What is demanded with coercion and extortion, as from slaves and captives, is done with great readiness, and what is left to our good will and freedom is left. I am not speaking against everyone, but against those who refuse alms. Surely God cannot make this a necessary duty? But He does not want: He spares you more than those who feed on you. Therefore, He wants you to do this not under compulsion, since there is no reward for it. However, many of those here are inferior to the Jews. Think how much the Jews gave - tithes, firstfruits, more tithes, and other tithes, and even more tithes and shekels - and no one said that (the priests) took much. The more they would receive, the greater the reward (to those who give). (The Jews) did not say: they take a lot, they overeat, which is now what I hear some saying. Both those who build houses and those who buy fields imagine themselves as having nothing; and if one of the priests puts on lighter clothes, or has enough necessary food, or has servants so as not to be forced to do the indecent (sanu) himself, then this is considered wealth. Truly, this is why we are rich - they themselves admit it against their will - although we have little, we are rich; and they, although they own everything, are poor. How long will we act unreasonably? Or is it not enough for you to be punished for doing nothing - should you also apply punishment for slander? Even if you yourself gave him what he has, you would lose the reward when you reproach him with what you gave: in general, if you gave, then why do you reproach him? Saying that you gave him what he has, by this, first of all, you testify to his poverty: why do you reproach him? There was no need to give when you intended to reproach. But do you say that when someone else gives? The sin is even more serious because, having not given anything yourself, you reproach someone else for doing good. What do you think is the reward for those who listen to these reproaches? The one that they endure it for God. How and why? They could, if they wanted, engage in petty trade, although they did not inherit (this) from their ancestors. Also, when we say that such and such is poor, I hear many shamelessly say: if he wanted, he could be rich; then they add sarcastically: his grandfather and great-grandfather and so-and-so were such and such; and this is what he dressed up in. Well? Tell me, was it really necessary for him to walk naked? You tell something very diligently about this: be careful that your words do not turn against you. Listen to Christ’s admonition: “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1). He could, if he wanted, engage in trade and merchant business, and of course he would not tolerate shortages; but didn't want to. What benefit does this have for him, tell me? Wears silk clothes? Accompanied by a crowd, proudly walking around the market? Riding on a horse? Or builds houses, having somewhere to live? If he does this, then I condemn him and do not spare him, even recognizing him as unworthy of the priesthood. How can he really convince others not to engage in these excesses when he cannot convince himself? If he sins because he has the necessary food in abundance, then should he really go around the world and beg for alms? And wouldn’t you, his student, be ashamed, tell me? If the father of the flesh did this, you would consider it dishonorable; and if the (spiritual) father is forced to do this, aren’t you ashamed? Wouldn't you consider it better to hide? “And the shame of the children,” it is said, “the mother is in disgrace” (Sir. 3:11). So what? Or should he die of hunger? But this is also uncharacteristic of a pious person, because it is displeasing to God. However, when we tell them this, they immediately offer their speculations. It is written, they say: “Take with you neither gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, nor scrip for the journey, nor two coats, nor sandals, nor a staff” (Matthew 10:9, 10); and they have three and four clothes each, and their beds are made. I had to sigh bitterly now; and if it were not indecent, he would have cried. Why? Because we so carefully notice the knots in others, but we ourselves, having logs in our eyes, do not feel it. Tell me why don't you say this about yourself? Because, they say, this is only commanded for teachers. Therefore, when Paul says: “Having food and clothing, let us be content with these things” (1 Tim. 6:8), is he speaking to some teachers? No, to all people. This will be clear if we read this passage, starting at the top. The Apostle, having said: “It is a great gain to be godly and content” (1 Tim. 6:6), then: “For we have brought nothing into the world; It is clear that we cannot take anything out of it" (1 Tim. 6:7), immediately added: “But those who desire to get rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts, which plunge people into disaster and destruction” (1 Tim. 6:9). 5. Do you see that the speech applies to everyone? Well, when he says again: “Do not turn cares for the flesh into lusts” (Rom. 13:14), isn’t he speaking to everyone? Well, when he says: “Food is for the belly, and the belly is for food; but God will destroy both” (1 Cor. 6:13)? What, then, when, talking about a widow, he says: “But the woman who loved pleasure died alive” (1 Tim. 5:6)? Is it really possible that a widow is also a teacher? Didn’t he himself say: “But I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to have authority over her husband” (1 Tim. 2:12)? If, however, a widow who, due to her advanced years (and old age requires great care), and by nature itself (and the female sex, being weaker, requires greater reassurance), - if she, both by age and by nature, deserves indulgence, (the apostle) does not allow her to eat generously, but says that she “died alive” (after all, he did not just say: do not eat generously, but “but the voluptuous one died alive”, and thus excluded her from among the living, because the deceased has already been excluded), then how can one forgive a husband for what an elderly wife is being punished for? But no one thinks about this, no one talks about it. And now I am forced to say this, not with the intention of saving the priests from reproaches, but out of concern for you. They do not suffer any harm from you, although they deservedly and rightly hear reproaches as collectors of wealth; but whether you speak or do not speak, they will give an answer to the Judge there, and therefore your words do not harm them in the least. If your words are also false, then they, being slandered by you in vain, receive benefit from it, and you harm yourself. In relation to you, it is not so: whether you speak the truth about them or a lie, you still harm yourself by speaking badly about them. Why? If you tell the truth, then in this case you harm yourself, because you condemn teachers and pervert the order, since you should not judge a brother, much less a teacher; if (you speak) a lie, then (you will suffer) unbearable punishment and torment, since you will give an answer for every idle word. So, we do everything and work for you. But, as I said, no one talks about this, no one does this, no one tells themselves anything like that. Would you like me to add something else? “Whoever does not renounce,” says Christ, “all that he has” (Luke 14:33), “is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37). What does it mean when he says: “It is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:23)? Well, when he says: “Woe to you, rich people! for you have already received your consolation” (Luke 6:24)? No one delves into this, no one thinks about it, no one reasons with himself, but everyone discusses the affairs of others very strictly. But this means becoming a participant in the affairs of those condemned. And in order to free the priests for you from reproach for what you consider them guilty of, listen: after all, the confidence that they violate the law of God greatly inclines (you) to evil. So let's explore this too. Christ said: “Take with you neither gold nor silver... neither two coats, nor shoes, nor a belt, nor a staff” (Matthew 10:9, 10). Well, tell me? Did Peter break this commandment? How could it be otherwise when he had a belt, and clothes, and shoes? And that he had them - listen to the words of the angel addressed to him: “gird yourself and put on your shoes” (Acts 12:8); although such shoes were not really needed - at that time one could be shoeless, and shoes are especially needed in winter - nevertheless, he had them. What about Pavel? In his letter to Timothy he says: “Try to come before winter” (2 Tim. 4:21); then he commands and says: “When you go, bring the phelonion that I left in Troas with Carpus, and books, especially leather books” (2 Tim. 4:13). That’s what he said about the phelonion; but it cannot be said that he did not have another one that he wore. If he had not worn it at all, then it would be unnecessary to order that one to be brought; and if it was impossible not to wear clothes, then obviously he had another (felonion). And what of the fact that he remained on his own for two whole years (Acts 28:30) Did he really disobey Christ, he is this chosen vessel who says: “And it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), about which Christ testified, saying: “For he is mine.” chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15). Such bewilderment should have been left to you, and no solution to the question given, subjecting you to this punishment for not paying attention to the Scriptures. Indeed, this is where it comes from. That’s why we are strict judges of other people’s sins, but don’t pay any attention to our own, because we don’t know the Scriptures, because we don’t study the Divine laws. So, you should be subjected to this punishment. But what should I do? I'm a father. And fathers please their children a lot and beyond what is due, because their parental heart burns with love for them; if they see a child sad and dejected, they themselves hurt him more, and do not calm down until they destroy the cause of grief. However, even if this happened, even if you grieved for what you did not understand (before), if only (now) you understood well. 6. What should it say? No, (the apostles) did not resist, but they followed the commandments of Christ with precision, and those commandments were given for a time, and not forever. And I say this not by guesswork, but according to Divine Scripture. How? Luke narrates that Christ said to the disciples: “When I sent you without bag and without scrip and without belt and without sandals, did you lack anything? They answered: “Nothing” (Luke 22:35). So, now buy it already. But what should (have been done), tell me? Have one tunic? So what? If it was necessary to wash him, was it really necessary to sit at home naked? Or, if necessary, go naked and violate decency? Think about what it would have been like for Paul, who went around the world for such important matters, to sit at home for lack of clothes, and to encounter obstacles in so many things? Well, if there was a severe cold, and it rained heavily, or it froze, how could you dry yourself? Did you have to sit naked again? What if the cold upset the body, you would have to waste away and not preach? And that they were not given adamantine bodies - listen to what was said to Timothy: “Drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23); and also regarding another: “However, I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and co-worker and companion, and your envoy and servant in my need, because he strongly desired to see all of you and was deeply grieved that rumors of his illness had reached you. For he was sick at the point of death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him” (Phil. 2:25–27). Consequently, they too were susceptible to all sorts of diseases. So what? Did you have to die? No way. Why then did (Christ) command so? In order to show His power, that He could have done this later, but did not? Why didn't he do it? The apostles were much more important than the Israelites, who had neither shoes nor clothes worn out, although they walked through a desert where the sun's rays were so hot that they could destroy even the stones. Why did he do this? For you. Since you could not (always) be healthy, but could be sick, then (God) gave you a way to heal. And this is obvious from the following. Tell me, couldn’t He himself saturate them? If He gave (everything you need) to you, the offender, then wouldn’t He give it all the more to Paul? Who gave to the Israelites - the murmurers, the fornicators, the idolaters - would he not have given all the more to Peter, who left everything for Him? Whoever allowed the wicked to have what they needed, would he not have given much more to John, who left even his father for Him? But He didn't want to; but feeds them through you, so that you may be sanctified. And notice the excess of philanthropy. He deigned to make His disciples humble, so that you might be somewhat inspired. But if He had given them everything they needed, they would say, they would have been much more honorable, much more glorious. But in this case, your salvation would be harmed. Therefore He did not want them to be glorious, but rather to be humble, so that you might be saved; and suffered them to be humiliated, that you might be saved. The teacher who takes is not so venerable as the teacher who does not take; but the student does not benefit, but is deprived of the fruit. Do you see the wisdom of the humane God? Just as He himself did not seek His glory, and did not have His in mind, but, being in glory, wanted to be in dishonor for you, so it is in relation to teachers. Having the power to make them famous, it pleased you that they should be despised for you, so that you might benefit, so that you might become rich. He lacks in worldly things so that you have abundance in spiritual things. And that He could give them everything they needed, there is a lot of evidence for this; it is equally proven that He allowed them to be in poverty for you. So, knowing this, let us turn not to condemnation, but to charity; Let us not sort out the sins of others, but discuss our own; Let us notice virtues in others, but find sins in ourselves, and in this way we will thank God. He who looks at both the sins of others and his own virtues doubly harms himself: from these (virtues) he becomes puffed up with pride, and from those (sins) he falls into negligence. When he imagines that such and such has sinned, he himself will easily fall into sin, and when he imagines that he himself has done good, he will easily become proud. And whoever, consigning his virtues to oblivion, looks at some (his) sins, and notices in others not sins, but virtues, he receives much benefit. How - listen. When he sees that such and such is acting virtuously, he is aroused to equal jealousy; and when he sees that he himself has sinned, he is imbued with humility and modesty. If we do this and arrange our affairs in this way, then we will be able to achieve the promised benefits, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: