Введение

1) Enlightenment of the Romans by faith The Apostle Paul writes to the Romans without having seen them. For it was not he who enlightened them with faith: she came to them besides him - she came and formed from them a glorious Christian society, the glory of which, by the time the Epistle was written, was proclaimed “throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8). How did this happen? There are no specific instructions on how this was done. But we can make very probable assumptions about this. Clement’s Recognitiones (Clemens Romanus. Recognitiones. 1:6) says that even during the Lord’s sojourn apparently on earth, news about Him and His deeds reached the Romans and aroused not only surprise in Him, but also faith in Him. This legend cannot be doubted. In Rome, from the time of the subjugation of Judea by Pompey (63 BC), many Jews began to live, for whom a special quarter beyond the Tiber was later allocated. But while living here, they did not alienate themselves from their fatherland, especially from Jerusalem, and were there on holidays, and especially on the main thing - Easter. Those who were in Jerusalem could not only hear about the Lord, but also see Him and believe in Him; then, returning to Rome, tell others about Him and arouse in some the desire to see Him for themselves, so that they can believe for themselves, and in others - outright faith. New visitors to Jerusalem could return as new believers and bring new faith-stimulating messages. Thus, even before death on the cross and resurrection, the Lord could have many admirers among the Jews living in Rome. On the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, among other witnesses to this event were the Romans (Acts 2:10). Three thousand believers were baptized on this day. It is very unlikely that not a single Roman would be in such numbers, especially if there were any of them who had been prepared before. This one who believed and was baptized, if he was one, or several of them, if not one, returned to Rome, could baptize all those previously prepared and add new believers to them. Baptism was then accompanied by marvelous changes in the baptized and served as an undoubted sign of the truth of the faith of those baptized. And this could not help but attract to the Lord those who were destined to be from His court. Having admitted this, we will have to agree that since kvass is included in the mixing of flour, it could not remain inactive. The community of believers had to grow, attracting new worshipers of the Lord not only from Jews, but also from proselytes (a proselyte is a pagan converted to Judaism), and through them from other pagans. This effect could be aggravated if we accept that from among the new visitors to Jerusalem, others returned as believers and baptized; which is not very surprising. In addition, many people always flocked to Rome from different localities, some of whom remained there, either on their own business, or even to live entirely. Among these could be believers, Jews and pagans, who could not be there without connection with the community of believers. According to all these probabilities, how many believers could have been formed in Rome during the twenty-five years of the existence of the Church of Christ on earth, before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans? Here is a society of believers, whose faith was proclaimed throughout the world! But in this way it is only possible to explain how such a multitude of believers and baptized people were formed in Rome; and the organization of the Church from them, in its full order and composition, cannot be explained in this way. Anyone could baptize, and baptism immediately revealed all its power and was obvious to everyone; but the acceptance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was impossible otherwise than through the laying on of hands of the holy Apostles or their ordained primates - bishops (now Confirmation). Meanwhile, Saint Paul, writing the rules of life for the Romans in his Epistle, remembers various grace-filled gifts that acted in them - prophecy, teaching, presiding over or presiding over the church (Rom. 12:6-8). This means that there the Church was in its full structure. How could this happen? Either one of the Apostles was there and personally established the Church there, or one of the Apostles ordained another, worthy and trusted, and entrusted him with organizing it and governing it. It is completely organized and preserves the order and order common to all Churches. What to take? The tradition of the Roman Church says that Saint Peter was in Rome and established the Church of Christ there - that he arrived there after a miraculous release from prison in which he was imprisoned by Herod (Acts 12:3-11), in the year 43 after the Nativity of Christ, and from that time he served as bishop in Rome for twenty-five years. That Saint Peter could be in Rome cannot be rejected on the grounds that he is the Apostle of the Jews: for even in this capacity he should have acted not in Jerusalem alone and not in Judea alone, but in all other places where Jews lived in large numbers. This cannot be rejected on the grounds that, according to the instructions of the Acts, Saint Peter, after being released from prison, was in Jerusalem during the Apostolic Council, then soon in Antioch, and then in Babylon, whether it is considered an Egyptian city or recognized as ancient Babylon. From these instructions it is only clear that Saint Peter did not sit permanently in Rome; but on the basis of them it cannot be considered impossible that Saint Peter was in Rome and established the Church there. He could have been there and, having done his work, departed for other places, as his apostolic duty required. Five years passed between the release of Saint Peter from prison and the Council; and to visit Rome from Palestine and arrange the necessary things there, one year is enough. With all this, the existence of Saint Peter in Rome and his personal action in the structure of the Church there cannot be considered undoubted. That Saint Peter was not in Rome when Saint Paul wrote the Epistle, there is nothing to say about this. And Saint Paul would not have written it if Saint Peter had been there; or, even if he had decided to write for some important reason, he could not have written directly to the society of Christians, without any relation to St. Peter, with whom he was in sincere relations. But the fact that the establishment of the Church there did not originate with Saint Peter is also clear from the Epistle. For Saint Paul would have hinted about this in some way, according to customary practices among people. It must be added that he should have done this, if it were really, for the honor of faith and the Apostleship of Christ. For what kind of Apostles are these when they don’t even want to know the work of those who are their own, and what kind of faith comes from such teachers? The Apostle praises their faith: what praise could be higher for them in this regard, as an indication that it was planted among them by the supreme Apostle and that through this their very fidelity to their faith receives special weight? If there is nothing of the kind in the Epistle, then we must accept that Saint Peter had not previously acted personally in Rome. Moreover, if writing an Epistle and teaching means building, the Apostle Paul did not have the custom of building on someone else’s foundation; it is difficult to allow him to decide to write the Epistle, unless on the instructions of St. Peter himself. If he writes, and - on his own behalf, it means that the Apostolic foot has not yet been in Rome. Thus, we must probably assume that St. Peter was not in Rome before St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He was not there even before the end of the first bonds of Saint Paul: for otherwise he would have mentioned this in one of his Epistles, and if he writes something about himself, he always says that it is impossible to assume that there was another Apostle in Rome at that time. If Saint Peter was in Rome, then it was after the first bonds of Saint Paul there. - So, who powerfully organized the Roman Church? One of the authorized Apostolic. You can be content with this without searching for a more precise definition of who exactly. That the gifts of the Holy Spirit and primacy in the Church could only appear in Rome through succession from the Apostles is certain; but how exactly this happened, due to the lack of evidence, it is impossible to say. – You can guess, and that’s exactly it: the persons to whom Saint Paul sends his kisses were obviously very close and known to him. Where was he and how did he get to know them and become close? There and in the same way he became acquainted and became close, he is with Priscilla and Aquila, who stand at the head of the greeted persons. That is, they are all exiles from Rome, scattered throughout Greece, Macedonia and Asia, where they met with Saint Paul, and some were enlightened by him in the faith, others were more confirmed in the faith, and some joined him as collaborators in the work of evangelism. After the death of Claudius, under Nero, they have now all returned to Rome, and Saint Paul sends them his well-wishes. So they were in Rome before; Meanwhile, some of them are called chosen ones, workers for the Lord and skilled in His work. Andronicus and Junia are directly called deliberate “apostles” (Rom. 16:7), having believed in the Lord before Saint Paul himself. Here are the organizers of the Roman Church, under the authority of the Apostles, although this matter cannot definitely be attributed to this or that. At the same time, the following assumption comes to mind regarding the formation of the tradition, as if the Church of Rome was personally founded by Saint Peter. If we accept that the first believers in Rome were from among those converted and baptized on the day of Pentecost, when Saint Peter appears to be active primarily, the other believers there were either converted by these, or learned the faith like them on other feasts in Jerusalem; then it was absolutely right for the believers in Rome to venerate Saint Peter as their spiritual father and to derive their faith from him. All subsequent believers, no matter how many of them were attached, were grafted into this root, and the idea of ​​​​the origin of the faith of Christ in Rome from St. Peter could be common among Christians. When Saint Peter later suffered a martyr's death in Rome, tradition, merging the end with the beginning, began to derive the very origin of the Roman faith from the personal action of Saint Peter in Rome. So this was later included in historical monuments: the Eusebius Chronicle under the year 43, Jerome’s book “De viris illustribus” (cap. 1), Orosian history (7, 6). It seems to some that the Roman Church consisted primarily of Jews, to others that it was composed of pagans. It would be more accurate to say that at first there were more Jews, and then there were more pagans - and this is even by the time the Epistle was written. This is what brings this idea to mind! As soon as the Jews appeared in Rome, they began to attract proselytes, full or incomplete. Pagan superstitions and bad morals made it difficult for noble souls. The truth hidden in the Jewish confession of faith breathed a calming breath on their spirits, and they began to bow before it. This business went so successfully that it could not help but be noticed; and Seneca, looking at this, said that the vanquished give laws of faith to the victors, and Juvenal laughed at the Judaizing Romans and especially Roman women. But if Judaism so attracted excited souls, how much more could Christianity do this? Christianity did not give only truth, but along with it it also imparted a new, grace-filled life. It was tangible for everyone. Could such a tactile advantage remain without any special effect on those who were looking for something better?! And we see that Jewish proselytes everywhere almost immediately switched to the Gospel as soon as it touched their ears, and became Christians. This is both because Christianity gave complete satisfaction to their spirit, and because, by becoming Christians, they became full members of the believing society, while Jewish proselytism kept them as if behind the gates of the house of God, in which the Jews imagined themselves living. As happened everywhere, so it was in Rome. From the very beginning there were more Jewish believers, but not an overwhelming number. There were quite a few of them from the pagans. Why were the Jews expelled from Rome by Claudius? Because, as Suetonius noted, all the troubles arose among them because of Christ. This gives the idea that faith in Christ the Lord acted victoriously among the Jews and greatly irritated the restless zealots of Judaism. If we remember what happened with Archdeacon Stephen or then with the Apostle Paul in Philippi and Thessaloniki, in Corinth and Ephesus; then we can imagine what happened in Rome from the Jews - confusion after confusion. Now there is noise and screaming, tomorrow too. The government kept calm and calmed down, and decided to expel them all from Rome so as not to disturb the general peace. It did not go deeply into the matter; I only heard that the troublemakers were shouting the name of Christ, and were left with the thought that it was He who somehow excited them. They would scatter to different places, it believed, and would not be able to form such violent parties as they formed in Rome; but Rome will remain alone without them. From this circumstance it cannot be concluded that the first Christians were only Jews and that troubles arose among them, now fathers against sons, now sons against fathers, now neighbors against neighbors, and the like, because of their deviation from the faith of their fathers. There could have been quite a few cases when confusion arose due to the loss of proselytes or proselytes, as is implied by the troubles against St. Paul that took place in Philippi, Thessaloniki and other places. In this case, the confusion from their quarter should have spread to the city itself. This, perhaps, especially prompted the government to take strict measures. - From here this is what comes out: since the expulsion of the Jews was not for faith, but for unrest, this punishment should not have affected the pagan believers. They remained in Rome and began to become Christians alone, developing both internally, in spirit, and externally, in numbers: for the grace of God does not fit in with external, constraining measures and does not look at faces. Shepherds—leaders—could remain among them, and society could mature and grow fat. - This is the circumstance that gave the pagan believers an advantage in Rome over the Jewish believers. For although some of the exiled Jews could believe in the Lord in exile and return to Rome as believers, others, of those who believed before the exile, could find a resting place for themselves somewhere during the exile and remain there forever. Thus, the Jewish believers could not increase in number; while the pagan believers, quietly remaining in place, could not help but attract other believers and grow in number. This same circumstance also served as the reason for the fact that Christian society completely separated itself from the Jews. The pagan believers themselves could not gravitate towards them, and now, after several years of living and acting separately from them, it was impossible to force them to enter into any communication with them. But the Jewish believers, in exile, having more freedom to live on their own, in the spirit of the new faith, became accustomed to being separated from other Jews, and especially those who retired to areas that were part of the circle of action of St. Paul. Here they met everywhere communities of Christians, separated from the Jews, and from them they learned how to lead this kind of religious life. – With such preparation, the believing Jews, returning to Rome, had no difficulty and were not confused by any perplexity regarding how to relate to the Jews. They directly separated from them and entered into fellowship with the pagan believers, thus forming a single whole with them. From the greetings of St. Paul to some of these returnees, it is clear that they entered there into the rank of leaders and managers of the affairs of religious life. Aquila and Priscilla already have a home church; others are greeted not alone, but with the brethren who are with them, or all the saints who are with them, which also indicates their home churches. - From this we must conclude that the Jewish believers, having returned to Rome completely cleansed of Judaism, merged with the pagan believers. The Roman Church became a Church completely in the spirit of St. Paul, that is, as a true Christian Church should be. This separation of believers from the Jews became sharply apparent when Saint Paul entered Rome, two years after the Epistle. The believers come out to meet him as far as the Appian market and the three taverns; none of the other Jews. And then three whole days passed, and none of them came to greet him: so Saint Paul himself was forced to invite them to himself in order to give them accurate information about himself - that it was not through any fault that he was in bonds, but “for the sake of the hope of Israel, he is surrounded by these chains” (Acts 28:20). He did this so that the infidels would not spread bad rumors about him and would not prevent those who wanted to hear the word of the gospel from coming to him. The first-timers were invited; and with what coldness they answered Saint Paul: they have not heard about you and have not received letters! This is falsely said. And in the words that follow: “Let us hear... even as you are wise: for we know this heresy, because everywhere it is contrary to what is said” (Acts 28:22) - one can hear an already unconcealed disgust for the Gospel gospel. But not everyone was like that; for when, on the appointed day, Saint Paul talked with the Jews who had gathered in large numbers, many believed (Acts 28:24), and many came to listen to him after and, of course, were also added to the believers. This limits all information about the Roman Church; but they are also enough to form a correct view of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 3) When and where was the Message written? Even before writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Saint Paul decided “to go through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, saying that because I had been there, it was fitting for me to see Rome” (Acts 19:21). Then, writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says: “I will come to you when I pass through Macedonia” (1 Cor. 16:5). Writing the Epistle to the Romans, he says: “Now I am coming to Jerusalem, serving the saints, for it has pleased Macedonia and Achaia to create some kind of fellowship with the poor saints living in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25, 26). This means that Macedonia and Achaia have been passed, the Apostle is in Corinth and is going to Jerusalem with alms collected in those places. This is where and when the book of Romans was written! In Corinth, during the last three-month stay of Saint Paul there, about which it is written in the book of Acts that Saint Paul, in fulfillment of the plan outlined before, passed through Macedonia, arrived in Hellas (Achaia) and stayed there for three months (Acts 20:1-3). That the words of the Epistle to the Romans: “Now I am coming to Jerusalem” do not mean that the Epistle was written somewhere on the road to Jerusalem, but only say that the Apostle was just about to set out on this journey, is evident from the fact that he recommends to the Romans Thebes, the deaconess of Cenchrea, with whom the Epistle was sent; Cenchrea is a suburb of Corinth. According to the probable placement of the acts of St. Paul by year, the Epistle to the Romans should be placed under the same year as both Epistles to the Corinthians, that is, under the 58th or 59th. 4) Reason, motivation and purpose of writing When the Apostle Paul was in Corinth, Thebe, the Cenchrean deaconess, a person who had rendered considerable services to the cause of faith and the Church, was about to go to Rome. She had business in Rome; and the Apostle Paul, knowing how she herself “was an intercessor for many” and for himself (Rom. 16:2), considered it his duty to recommend her to the local Christians and ask them to assist her in her affairs. – This recommendation could be depicted briefly; but Saint Paul, on this occasion, decided to write a whole Epistle, larger in volume and more significant in content than all other Epistles. What prompted him to do this? The Spirit of God, who tangibly guided Saint Paul in everything, inspired him to do this. - The pagan peoples all made up the area entrusted to Saint Paul: he considered himself obliged to proclaim the gospel of Christ to both the Greeks and the barbarians (Rom. 1:14). Hearing that faith was seeded in Rome and a society of believers was formed, he sincerely rejoiced at this; but at the same time he could not rid himself of the anxious thought - whether things were going there as it was destined from above for him to lead it among the tongues. Hence the desire to visit Rome as soon as possible to make sure with my own eyes that everything is fine with them. This is what he writes about; How many times, he says, have I tried to come to you. For what? Not to enlighten them with faith, but to confirm them in it; “Be comforted,” he says, “by your common faith and mine” (Rom. 1:12). In other words, this can be retold this way: in order to, in a conversation with you, go through your belief point by point and bring it into full agreement with my faith, or, what is the same, with the norm of faith that was given to me from above by the Lord Himself. Just as natural is such a desire, just as natural is the anxiety in St. Paul, that the time of visiting them seems to be getting further and further away. Finally the time has come. All he had to do was visit Jerusalem, and from there go to Rome. It seems, why bother writing?! But only the Apostle assumes this closeness; in fact, she moved away for another two and a half years. The Apostle did not see such a distance. But the Spirit of God, guiding the Apostle, saw him and inspired him to write an Epistle so that it would temporarily replace his personal visit. This suggestion could be expressed by the Apostle as an irresistible desire to write, “that there may be some fruit in them as well as in the whole world” (Rom. 1:13), outlining the path of salvation for them. He wrote, fulfilling his desire and satisfying his Apostolic duty. If he had not written at this time, how much would the bonds that awaited him have become heavier?! The Lord, who watches over and rests His servants, disposed him to do in writing what he intended to do in person. What makes one think so is that it is not clear from the Epistle that the impetus for its writing was served by anything on the part of the Roman believers. The message is completely general in nature and does not dwell on any random particulars. It is in vain to think that the disputes and discord between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers prompted St. Paul to write a pacifying Epistle, bringing both of them under the same level in the matter of salvation, that is, stating that neither one nor the other has within themselves the strength for salvation, but that it is given through the grace of Christ Jesus the Lord. But not a single line gives a hint that exactly such differences of opinion, extending to disputes, actually existed in Rome among the believers. It is definitely written about this; but in general terms. Whoever begins to talk about the matter of salvation would say nothing else than what St. Paul wrote then. We are sinners and irresponsible before God. Judgment awaits us, and there is no salvation for us. But the merciful God arranged for our salvation Himself, in the Lord Jesus Christ. Cling to Him by faith and you will be saved. There is no other way to salvation. This is the main content of the Message. The difference in the behavior of pagans and Jews regarding the consumption of food, which the Apostle tries to soften and smooth out in the 14th and at the beginning of the 15th chapter, does not concern the foundations of faith. Thus, the motivation to write the Epistle was all in St. Paul himself. If something came here from the Romans, then perhaps it was the fact that not too long ago, perhaps only a few months before, the pagan believers in Rome again met with the Jewish believers who had returned there. That this definitely happened recently can be concluded from the fact that, writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Saint Paul greeted the Corinthians on behalf of Aquila and Priscilla: this means that they were in Ephesus, and writing the Epistle to the Romans, he greets Aquila and Priscilla, who were already in Rome. The time period was six months or about a year. So, Aquila and Priscilla recently returned to Rome. If everyone to whom the Apostle writes greetings were from exiles who came into contact with Saint Paul in their exile, then it is likely that they all returned to Rome also recently, during the same period of time. Saint Paul could not have expected any clash at this meeting. For of the returned believing Jews, deliberate persons (Deliberate - here: famous, respected), as it seems, in the Church, how many sincere disciples of St. Paul were, unanimous with him and like-minded, already accustomed to a way of life and action, in word and deed, in complete renunciation of Judaism! See what he calls them? My beloved, my companions, my captives, who have labored much for the Lord. The Apostle could fully rely on such people that not only would they not arouse discord and dispute, but on the contrary, even if something like this were to resurface, they would be able to pacify everyone and bring them into agreement. If in this regard anything was required on the part of the Apostle, then perhaps only that, just in case, to give greater power to their word with his Apostolic authority. His disciples would have interpreted the matter of salvation in Rome, of course, according to the standard that Saint Paul received from above, as they learned from him. But their word might lack authoritative force. To give it, he writes an Epistle, outlining in it a general program of Christian teaching. He writes not to them, but to the entire community of Christians. They are supposed to be only the most faithful interpreters of the teaching presented, if it seemed somewhat obscure in some places, for which the greetings to them at the end of the Epistle seemed to authorize them. And through this, every word they said was given weight, obliging them to attention and obedience. Yet all this together contributed to uniting the whole society with unanimity - this high good, which St. Paul valued most of all. St. Paul may have had the desire to send such an outline of Christian teaching to Rome more than once before; but he then lacked a point of contact with the Romans. He himself was unknown to them and did not know any of them. Now, as soon as the road has opened, he does not hesitate to write. His disciples there had already told everything about him and prepared a good reception for his Message. An opportunity presented itself - the departure of Thebes, and he writes. He writes about what his soul has always been full of, about salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. One can only ask why a special treatise on the providential significance of the Jewish people was included in the Epistle (Rom. 9–11)? That's why, I think. The Jewish believers, the disciples of St. Paul, could not help but come into conflict with the unbelievers. They knew what to say to justify themselves who believed, and to denounce those who did not believe. Regarding this, they could be guided by the Epistle to the Galatians or the positions of St. Paul expressed in it, heard from him himself. But such an explanation could lead to embarrassing bewilderments: how did this happen? God's promises to Israel were so decisive, and yet how many unbelieving Jews are there! The Apostle explains that even in the present state of affairs, the unbelief of the Jews does not make the promises of God untrue, and even more so such a thought is inappropriate if we apply it to this, which is still to come, that is, that the blindness of Israel was partially accomplished. They deviated a little from the right path to give room to tongues; but when these enter, those too will return, and salvation will become universal. His disciples might not have known the last provisions: for this is announced according to a new special revelation. Meanwhile, how much instruction there is in such truths for the Jews! Could they not see from this that, despite their unbelief, they are still in the attention of God? Could the feeling of God's mercy fail to soften their hardened hearts? Having realized everything that was written down, they had to see themselves among two stimulants, equally sensitive: there is the fear of decisive rejection if they remain in unbelief, and here is the readiness to enter again into the full mercy of God if they abandon unbelief. This presentation of the matter paved the way for the conversion of the still unconverted Jews. These are the motives for the writing of the Epistle to the Romans; their purpose also corresponds to them. He wrote so that they might have some fruit in them too, brightly depicting the face of faith with a clear image of the work of our salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby bringing everyone to like-mindedness, so that he could give authority to his special disciples, persons apparently influential in the society there, and give guidance for conducting conversations both in the society of believers, and, when it happens, among infidel Jews. A third thing can be added to this - to give believers a preventative measure in case Judaizing false teachers penetrated them. These crowded in everywhere and everywhere, out of unreasonable jealousy, disturbed the peace of the believers. What wonder if they reach Rome? But it is not visible that they were already there. The Apostle expressed a brief warning against them at the end of the Epistle (Rom. 16:17–20). Let’s also add a fourth thing - so that before a personal visit to Rome, I would introduce myself to the believers there, whom I hoped to soon see face to face. The epistle did not contain only an image of the teaching entrusted to Paul from above, but depicted the character, spirit and heart of himself. In the Message, they could not help but see him himself and confess with him in absentia, as some of them did in person. Thus, by sending the Message, he meant to prepare a reception for himself in Rome and together to adapt his actions there for the good of the faith. For he had no idea of ​​staying long in Rome, but of going there in passing, on his way to Spain. So that he would not have to work hard with them, attuning their minds to the proper views, he sent them ahead, so that, during a personal meeting, they could enjoy only the common faith and explain it if anything remained unclear. 5) Content and division The main subject is the only way of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, both for the pagan and for the Jew. Its presentation occupies most of the Epistle. Eleven chapters. To this are then attached general instructions about Christian life. But, as in all Epistles, everything is preceded by a preface, which consists of an inscription and a greeting with a decent beginning, and at the end of everything there follows a corresponding afterword with certain kisses and so on. So, the Message is arranged as follows: 1) after the preface (Rom. 1:1-17), consisting of: a) an inscription, a greeting (Rom. 1:1-7) and: b) a decent beginning of the Epistle (Rom. 1:8-17), follows - 2) the doctrinal part – about salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:18–11, 36). Then - 3) the moralizing part (Rom. 12: 1–15, 13). And – 4) finally, an afterword (Rom. 15: 14–16, 24). A more detailed division will be assumed during the Interpretation itself. We do not raise the question of the authenticity of the Epistle, finding it finally resolved by the fact that the Church gives it to us as the Epistle of St. Paul. This solution is stronger and more reassuring than any other. We hear the mother’s voice and do not disturb ourselves with any perplexities. The Interpretation was guided exclusively by ancient interpreters: St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret, Augustine, Ambrosiastes (Augustine in “Contra duas epistolas pelagianorum” [lib. 4, cap. 4, 7] cites one passage from this interpretation under the name of St. Hilary), St. Damascus, Ecumenius, Theophylact. You might be interested in: