Правило в руководство

It is entrusted to him not to allow empty and vain rumors and teachings to circulate among believers, but to pay all attention to the creation and strengthening of believers in a holy, full of love, life in the spirit of faith. Now private instructions are given on what exactly the power of the word and pastoral power should be exerted on, acting in this direction. This serves as the content of the entire Epistle, in which the following parts can be distinguished: 2) what orders should be established and maintained among the flock (1 Tim. 2:1-15, 3:1-13); 3) how to act on them and lead them (1 Tim. 3:14–6:19); 1) both according to the spirit of the faith of Christ (1 Tim. 1:8–20). How this latter - “the spirit of the faith of Christ” - obviously should serve as the guiding principle in this; then faith in Christ the Lord is mentioned more than once throughout the Epistle, as a confirming and revitalizing beginning for the prescribed rules. At the very beginning, a special section is dedicated to her - all the remaining verses of the 1st chapter. So, the first instructions are: 1) About faith in the Lord Jesus This section can be considered a continuation of the previous words; at least it is attached to them by the flow of speech. He said that those who, leaving the main thing - love in the spirit of faith, attempt to expose the meaning of the law, do not themselves understand what they are saying. Now he explains this by saying: a) the time of the law has already passed (1 Tim. 1:8-10); b) the time has come for the Gospel, which was entrusted to me (1 Tim. 1:11–14); c) why - if you want to be saved, believe in the Lord (1 Tim. 1:15-17); and: d) concludes: these are the main things I command you to teach (1 Tim. 1:18–20). a) The time of the law has already passed (1 Tim. 1:8–10) Such a thought is not expressed literally, but constitutes the inner meaning of these verses, without which it is impossible to understand them. 1 Tim. 1:8. We know that the law [is] good, even if someone does it lawfully. The Apostle seems to soften the previous reproach to those who point out the meaning of the law, that they do not know what they are doing: I concede that: “the law is good.” But he immediately adds a condition that greatly takes away any boldness from those who speak out about the power of the law: “whoever creates it lawfully,” χρηται, uses it lawfully, that is, in the spirit of the law itself, according to its inner meaning and significance. I know he says that the law is good; but you do not teach well about him. You set its value unconditionally, but it is subject to the condition: “if”. Now analyze this condition and you will find that fulfilling it should lead to seeing the cessation of the law. The law is a nurturer in Christ - it is a shadow, but the body is Christ. Follow this guide, walk along this shadow, and you will reach Christ, the promised Savior. Until Christ came, you were all under nurturing, walking in the shadows; and when Christ has come, nurturing is ended, and the shadow must be left behind. And you keep repeating: the law, the law. Consequently, you are using it illegally, using it not according to its meaning and spirit; why don't you know what you are saying? Due to the special significance of this place, we write out what the Holy Fathers and teachers said when discussing it. Blessed Theodoret writes: “I do not condemn the law, but the bad teachers of the law. For I know that the law is beneficial to those who are determined to keep the purpose of the law. This is what the words mean: “if anyone does it lawfully,” that is, if someone follows the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is to lead us to the Lord Christ, and after His coming the law no longer has force. The Apostle also said this in the Epistle to the Galatians: “I... died by the law, that I might live by God” (Gal. 2:19). For in obeying the law, he says, I do not keep the law.” We read the same thing in Ambrosiastes: “The Apostle does not deny that the law given through Moses is good, so, however, that we recognize its meaning and that for which it was given is acceptable. But he knows the law and why it was given, who, hearing the sermon about Christ, leaves the law. He legitimately uses the law who knows how to distinguish in it what is given for a time from what is incessant and recognizes that what in it relates to the sacrament of Christ should no longer (after the coming of Christ) be observed for the future; for this would mean believing that He who has already come has yet to come.” And from Blessed Theophylact: “He who is brought to Christ by it uses the law lawfully. The law, not having the power to justify, conveys (the seeker of righteousness) to Christ - and this is its goal: so that he who prefers Christ to the law uses the law lawfully - that is, as the law itself commands. This is taken from Saint Chrysostom, who says: “If you use the law properly, it will lead you to Christ. For since the purpose of the law is to justify man, and yet he is not able (to do this); then he leads to the One who can (do this).” 1 Tim. 1:9, 10. Knowing this, for the law does not lie with the righteous, but with the lawless and disobedient, with the ungodly and sinful, with the unrighteous and nasty, with the father and mother, the murderer of husbands, the fornicator, the sodomite, the robber, the deceitful, the perjurer, and anything else that is contrary to sound teaching. The words: “he knows this, because the law does not lie with the righteous” - explain who correctly uses the law or treats it correctly, indicating that this is the one who holds the conviction that the law does not lie with the righteous, that he is already free from it. Here a righteous person should be understood as a Christian man who, having believed in Christ, received justification, that is, received remission of sins and grace-filled renewal, which is a holy life. For this, of course, the law is not needed as an indicator of what is due; it is guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the highest law. “The law does not lie with the righteous,” says St. Chrysostom, “because he does not wait for the law to teach him what to do, having within himself the grace of the Holy Spirit instructing him; someone who does not lack a teacher does not need instruction.” Since he is brought to this, that is, faith in Christ and His grace, by the law, for such is its goal; it follows that the one who, having achieved the goal of the law, lays off his yoke, out of full conviction that it no longer lies on him, uses the law legitimately. In other words, “he who properly uses the law knows that he has no need for it,” as St. Chrysostom says. On the contrary, on those who have not yet begun to be justified by faith and grace and remain in sins, he places the full weight of his yoke - obligation, condemnation and fear, so that, through the impact of the burden of such a yoke on them, he will induce them to seek relief and freedom, which are offered to them by the gospel of the Gospel. It can be assumed that Saint Paul, making a reservation about the goodness of the law under the said condition, had in mind the Jews who believed, who, however, had not yet managed to renounce the law. He says to them, as it were: nothing; This will not serve you to your detriment if you treat the law legally, that is, you hold the conviction that it is not the law that saves and quickens you to righteousness, but grace through faith, which is something external to you, something external. Only such an attitude towards the law is correct, legal, and held within the meaning of the law itself. Those who present the meaning of the law unconditionally do not know what they are doing; don't listen to them. But we can accept that the Apostle expresses the general position under what conditions the law is good. This is the purpose of the law, so that those who, by its guidance, come to where it leads, leave it, out of the conviction that it no longer lies with him. Ecumenius writes: “he who knows that he does not need it for a righteous life uses the law lawfully.” Who are these kinds of people? Ambrosiastes responds to this: “these are those who, having received remission of sins, became righteous, so as not to live under the law, from which they were freed by the grace of God through faith in Christ, but, fulfilling in their hearts what was written by the Creator (and now restored and revived by grace), to look forward to the day of judgment, when the righteous will receive a righteous reward.” Ambrosiast immediately explains that initially the image of a righteous life was inscribed in human nature, so that by living according to it, people would be righteous and pleasing to God. Then, when people, having given themselves over to passions, began to trample on that law of nature, God gave the written law for guidance through Moses, so that if the law of nature were in force, the written law would have no place. Why is it that at the present time, when grace through faith restores in power what was written by the Creator in nature, the law that came due to the disorder of this mark is no longer needed by those in whom it is restored by grace through faith. Ecumenius writes something similar to this: “the law of transgressions was added” (Gal. 3:19); so for the righteous, who lives rightly out of love for virtue, and not out of fear of the law, it is not needed, but is needed by those who are not drawn to virtue from themselves, but if they do this, then only fearing the threat of the law.” The law does not lie on the righteous person, he says, because, having believed in the Lord and received grace, he carries the law within himself; but it lies on the unrighteous, who still have to fulfill the purpose of the law. Having said this, the Apostle further indicates who these unrighteous people are, using for this purpose first general names, and then moving on to particulars. But even in general names there is a noticeable movement from the more general to the less general. "Lawless and disobedient". A lawless person is one who fearlessly violates the moral law; and the disobedient, ανυποτακοις, is the one who does not obey the established order, civil and common. Such people live according to their own will, being a law unto themselves. In this respect they are similar to the righteous; for these too are a law unto themselves. Only these are their own law for all good, and those are for all evil, driven by self-indulgence and passions. “The wicked and sinners” can be distinguished as follows: The first are the violators of the commandments in relation to God, who do not have the fear of God and do not honor anything sacred; and the latter are violators of all other commandments - in relation to themselves and their neighbors. These latter violate all truth in relation to others, and create every kind of pleasure for themselves through lust and thereby defile themselves. The Apostle calls them unrighteous and nasty. The following lists of lawless people in particular are distributed among these two types. The first includes: father and mother molesters, husband killers, robbers, slanderers, liars, perjurers; and to the second: fornicators, homosexuals, bestialists. What kind of people these are is clear from their name. Some names, however, will be more clearly understood if you indicate the roots of the corresponding Greek words. “Annoyance of father and mother”, πατρολωαις, μητρολωαις, - such persons who firmly beat father and mother, just as threshers firmly beat the ground bread. ´Αλοαις – from: αλοαω – milk. “Robber”, ανδραποδισταις, - such persons who are forced into slavery by force or cunning. “And if anything else is contrary to sound teaching.” Sound doctrine gives the idea of ​​a more theoretical doctrine, in which there is nothing false, such that it should be recognized as an error. Lies and delusions are diseases of teaching. They are alien to sound doctrine. The Christian teaching preached by the Apostles is sound in all its composition. – But the Christian teaching, although it proceeds from theoretical dogmas, is primarily aimed at establishing a good, holy and righteous life. Therefore, if we understand Christian teaching by sound teaching, we can understand it as a teaching that sets out the rules of a holy and righteous life with indications of ways to succeed in it. That which is contrary to pure, holy morality will be contrary to sound teaching. The Apostle uses this word (sound doctrine) in other places (2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 2:1), but all either in reproof of bad morals, or as a guide to pointing out good ones. In this place, having renamed several lawless people on whom the law rests, he finally sets out the general position (Blessed Theophylact): and in general, the law rests on all those who in any respect live contrary to sound teaching or the sound rules of a holy and righteous life. Those who follow sound doctrine have sound souls; and those who live contrary to him are characterized by “the disease of a corrupt soul” (St. Chrysostom). For such people, a doctor and healing are needed. The law then rests on them, so that, by denouncing, threatening and crushing, it brings them to the consciousness of their illness and the danger from it, and thereby induces them to turn to the one Doctor and His healing. When they do this, then the law will become unnecessary for them too: for then in them too it will achieve its goal and give way to another ruler and leader. b) The time for the Gospel has come (1 Tim. 1:11–14) And the Apostle does not express this word for word, but makes it clear by the whole structure of his speech. For he says: the law is not laid down for the righteous according to the gospel: aa) because of the gospel, which is now preached and accepted everywhere (verse 11). That this is done according to God’s dispensation: bb) make sure from my life. I was on your side and pushed the Gospel. God transformed me in such a way that he not only made me a believer, but also entrusted me with the preaching of the Gospel (verses 12-14). From this you can clearly see that the time of the law has passed and the time of the Gospel has come. This is the will of God. aa) The law does not lie with the righteous - according to the gospel (1 Tim. 1:11) 1 Tim. 1:11. According to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, the hedgehog has been entrusted to me. “According to the gospel” refers to the entire previous speech, especially to the fact that the law does not lie with the righteous. The law has ceased because the gospel is now preached. The gospel of the Gospel was not limited to one word, but immediately among those who believed, it introduced new orders of life, according to God’s command. It is obvious now that God is introducing a new dispensation of salvation. Because of this, the law does not lie with the righteous, that is, with the one who receives justification and righteousness in the faith of the Gospel. ““According to the gospel,” says Saint Chrysostom, “means that for those who believe in it, the law is no longer needed.” “According to the gospel of glory” is the same as according to the glorious gospel; It is glorious both because it bears the stamp of Divinity, and because, more than anything else, it proclaims the glory of God’s boundless mercy towards us, and because it clothes those who receive it here with spiritual glory, and in the next century it promises to clothe those who receive it with wondrous visible glory. Why, of all the qualities of the Gospel, the Apostle mentioned primarily its glory, the reason for this is that he wanted to divert the attention of those who had to read his Epistle from the external ungloriousness of the Gospel, as well as those who believe in it, and direct it to the vision of the glory of both - internal, essential, unceasing. This was necessary in contrast to the law, which still continued to enjoy glory, so that those leaving it would not consider themselves covered with shame because of believing the Gospel, as if they were passing from the glorious to the unglorious. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle called the Gospel the gospel of glory for no other reason than for the sake of those who are ashamed of persecution and Christ’s suffering. And for this reason he calls the Gospel the gospel of glory, because he wanted to show that the suffering of Christ the Lord constitutes His glory, or even he hints at the future. For, although our present is full of shame and reproach, the future is not like that at all.” This is also why the Apostle called God “blessed,” thereby pointing to the source and goal of the Gospel economy. The all-blessed God in Himself was pleased to create rational creatures to participate in this bliss; and when they foolishly deviated from this purpose of their creation, he deigned to return them to this purpose in a certain wondrous way, which is proclaimed by the Gospel. Evangelical faith is the path to the communion of Divine all-bliss. Why can’t it be better to exalt it than by calling it the work of the blessed and all-pleasing God. The words: “I have been entrusted with fast” serve as a transition to the second moment of this separation. By them Saint Paul suggests that when he says that the Gospel has now come, he speaks as one who knows the matter. For if he is entrusted with the Gospel, then he knows its power and, giving it the meaning shown, exposes it as it is in its essence. This suggestion should seem all the more convincing because the Gospel did not have its beginning from himself, but it was entrusted to him, and entrusted from above, because it is God’s. bb) Make sure that this is done according to God’s arrangement, from my life (1 Tim. 1:12–14) 1 Tim. 1:12. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who strengthens me, because Nepshcheva was faithful in putting [me] into service. Thanking God for his calling to the Apostleship and for his strengthening in the labors of the gospel, the Apostle shows that if the end of the law and its replacement with the Gospel had not been according to God’s good will and dispensation, then God would not have torn him, a zealot of the law, from the law which he defended with such zeal, would not have entrusted him with the preaching of the Gospel and would not have strengthened him in the labors of this matter. For the Apostle himself, this served as an inspiring conviction that the new Gospel dispensation, replacing the old, comes directly from God. But it could not help but make the same impression on others; why does Saint Paul remember him everywhere for the purpose of providing visual proof that if the Gospel economy is now being introduced instead of the law, then this is not from man, but from God, that God is at work here, and people serve only as His instruments. Saint Timothy knew all this, and there would be no point in telling him about it; but although the Epistle was written to him, it was not intended for him alone. “I thank him who strengthens me,” ενδυναμωσαντι, - who strengthened, gave strength or strengthened, gave strength. The first will point to the conversion of Saint Paul, how the Lord gave him the strength to believe, and the second - to the labors in preaching the Gospel, in which the Lord strengthened him: for they were beyond human strength. The first thought is expressed by Ambrosiast: “every unbeliever suffers from weakness of spirit, being bound by the carnal mind, let him not believe in spiritual things. Why does the Apostle here express his gratitude to Christ the Lord, who, by the manifestation of His Divine greatness to him, gave his weak mind the strength to believe; because until now he considered it incredible what was preached about the Divinity of the Lord, His double birth, and resurrection, and about hopes from Him.” The second thought is expressed by all our other interpreters. Blessed Theodoret puts the following words into the mouth of Saint Paul: “Not acting by my own power, I offer this teaching to people, but confirmed and strengthened by Him who saved me, Who made him who dared to rage against Him a faithful servant of the Gospel.” Saint Chrysostom sees in the words of the Apostle a confession of great help from above. “For judge how difficult it was to resist daily insults, reproaches, slander, dangers, disputes, reproaches, deaths, and not become despondent, not lose heart, not waver, and, despite the fact that thousands of arrows were thrown at him from everywhere every day, to stand with a firm, fearless look. It was beyond human strength." "Christ Jesus our Lord". In the consciousness of Christians, the first thing that is seen is the Face of Christ the Lord, the incarnate Son of God, and behind the veil of His flesh is contemplated the Trinitarian God, who willed to be incarnated as one of His Persons. This is imprinted in the consciousness by faith, but then life gives us the experience of confirming that everything in us is from Christ the Lord. No one who pays attention is deprived of such certificates. Saint Paul constantly felt the nearness of the Lord strengthening Him; why, as before, he enthusiastically confessed: “I can do all things through [Jesus] Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13), - so here he thanks Him, “the strengthener.” He thanks the Lord, who strengthened him, and therefore attributes all successes to Him. But how to strengthen worthily only the one who acts and uses his own efforts, at the same time it conveys the idea that with faith in the All-Strengthening One, one also had one’s own all kinds of efforts. Looking at the matter from these sides, Saint Chrysostom sees in the words of the Apostle, on the one hand, evidence of his humility, on the other, confirmation that in life according to the Spirit of faith, not everything is from the Lord, but that the participation of one’s own will is required. He says: “The apostle said that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the glory of God, and since he exalted himself and praised himself loudly, he then humbles himself, so that you would not think that he was saying this out of pride. “I give thanks,” he says, “to the Lord who strengthens me.” You see how he always hides his merits and attributes everything to God - however, in such a way that through this he does not destroy free will! For an unbeliever could probably say: if everything belongs to God and we bring nothing of ourselves, but God, like trees and stones, turns us from vice to wisdom, then why did He make Paul this way, but not Judas? Therefore, see with what prudence, preventing this objection, the Apostle expresses himself. He says: “I give thanks to Christ Jesus who strengthens me” - this refers to God; then he points out what belongs to him: “as Nepshcheva is faithful to me,” - of course, because he himself had to contribute to this.” “Like Nepshcheva is faithful to me.” He thanks that God considered him worthy of trust, foreseeing that he would be faithful to Him. And that this was so, the proof of this is that God entrusted him with the service of the gospel of the Gospel: having put me in the service, he assigned me to serve the Gospel. For what kind of owner would entrust the management of his house to a person whose loyalty he has not verified? So the Lord entrusted Saint Paul with the gospel, knowing by foreknowledge that he would be faithful. “And in order to be convinced that God chose him, foreseeing what he would be like, listen to what God Himself says even before the Apostle began to preach: “You have chosen a vessel for Me, to bring My name before the tongues” (Acts 9:15)” (St. Chrysostom). Realizing this in the Lord’s providential orders for himself, the Apostle thanks Him. With this thanksgiving, he does not so much express the joy of recognizing himself as faithful, but magnifies the service entrusted to him to the Gospel; and this is because the gospel dispensation itself is excessively great. Because of his greatness, it is great to be considered worthy of entrusting service to him, and to be trusted in this matter. Thus, the Apostle sets forth the predominant height of the Gospel, not to mention the letter. Ambrosiastes writes: “The Apostle was considered worthy to be entrusted with the administration of the matter of the sacrament of the Lord (that is, the Gospel), so that through the law he would confirm the truth of what he had previously, out of love for the law, considered incredible.” He confirmed this not only by his teaching, but also by the very act of his election to serve the Gospel. Anyone else would not have confirmed this as much as Paul, a zealot of the law, transformed into an even more zealous servant of the Gospel. But let us focus on the very trust in St. Paul and his election. For Saint Paul, as a persecutor of the Church, it would have been great if he had been brought only to faith; but he was not only brought to the faith, but also made its servant and its disseminator: just as if some guilty servant were not only received into the house again, but also made a steward of the house. The apostle sees in this the excessiveness of mercy towards himself and thanks. Saint Chrysostom puts the following words into the mouth of Saint Paul: “I thank the Lord that He has honored me with this service; because this constitutes a sign that He considers me faithful. For just as in a house the steward is not only grateful to the master for his trust, but also uses it as a sign that the master considers him more worthy of trust than others: so it was in a similar way here.” Saint Chrysostom, with the words: “Nepscheva is faithful to me,” also connects the thought that “he did not betray the Lord in anything, he said that everything belongs to Him, he even called his own God’s, without appropriating the glory of God to himself.” In this he was like a good steward, who, forgetting himself, cares only about the master's good and attributes everything successful to the master's wisdom. “It belonged to Saint Paul only that he was fit for preaching, but in order to accomplish in deed what he was found fit for, he received power from above, without which he could not have succeeded in anything” (Blessed Theophylact). This is what St. Paul confesses, both here and in many other places. “For listen to what he says: “Men, why are you looking at us? We are men who serve you” (Acts 14:15). And again: “I labored more than all of them, not I, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). And again: “God... is at work in us, both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13). This is what it means: “Nepscheva is faithful to me” (Saint Chrysostom), that is, he foresaw that he would not appropriate anything to himself, but would attribute everything to the Lord, as a source of admonition and strength. Ambrosiastes feels in these words of the Apostle his joy in suffering for the Lord, against Whom he had previously gone. This is said at the end of the field of entrusted service, passed through among sorrows, deprivations and persecutions. The Lord foresaw that despite all this, he would be faithful. Seeing this justified, the Apostle thanks the Lord. “The Apostle showed such devoted fidelity to the Lord, from Whom he had previously denied, that he rejoiced more in his suffering for preaching faith in Him than he had previously admired his persecution of the faithful.” 1 Tim. 1:13. I was... sometimes a blasphemer and a persecutor and a troublemaker: but I would have received mercy, because I had done something unknown in unbelief. He calls himself a “blasphemer” because he blasphemed Jesus Christ the Lord and was truly a blasphemer; “persecutor” - because he persecuted believers in the Lord and upset their societies and churches; “annoyer” - because he scolded and vilified in every possible way both the faith and the believers. How mercilessly he exposes his former badness! But this is so that in a brighter light the mercy of God towards him can be shown - then, despite this, he was pardoned. “Look,” says Saint Chrysostom, “how he, describing his former life, extols the mercy and love of God: “I was before,” he says, “a blasphemer and a persecutor and an annoyer.” Do you see his humility, how unselfish he is, what a humble soul he has? He is not content with calling himself a blasphemer and a persecutor; but he also shows that he did this with particular bitterness. For, he says, I not only harbored evil within myself and was not content with being a blasphemer myself, but also persecuted those who wanted to live piously. I brought blasphemy to the greatest fury. “For this I was worthy of any punishment, but I was not punished, because I was pardoned.” And he was pardoned because “the ignorant created in unbelief.” I did not know that, by persecuting Christians, I rebelled against God and ruined His work: for I did not believe that Jesus Christ is God and the Gospel economy, which replaced the law, is the work of God. “I was blind, I did not see the light; not driven by hatred, I began to fight, but striving for the law” (Blessed Theodoret). “He confesses to ignorance, which came from unbelief” (St. Chrysostom). “He acted this way not out of malice, but out of mistake, for which forgiveness is conveniently given as soon as repentance comes. And whoever knows that what he rejects is true, acts not by mistake, but by evil will, and such a wound is inhealable. For he, driven by hatred, calls false what he knows to be true” (Ambrosiastes). The heart of Saint Paul was not corrupted or damaged by any passion. He was so actively zealous for the law because in the glory of the law he saw the glory of God, who gave the law. Why was it only necessary to change his conviction that now the glory of God is not in the glory of the law, but in the glory of the Gospel, in order to change his course of action and from a persecutor to make him an even more zealous disseminator of the Gospel that he persecuted. This was accomplished by the appearance of the Lord to him. 1 Tim. 1:14. May the grace of our Lord [Jesus Christ] abound with faith and love in Christ Jesus. “Grace abounded”—exceedingly great grace was shown to me, which surpassed all measure, every expectation—it was “grace upon grace” (John 1:16). The Apostle wants to say that not only was he not punished for his blasphemies and persecution, but was pardoned, but, moreover, he was also abundantly blessed; by which we can understand all the spiritual benefits given to every believer, such as: rebirth, power acting for salvation, sanctification, sonship and the Kingdom of Heaven, and the special grace of the Apostleship. That the latter should not be excluded from the circle of gifts of grace that increased to Saint Paul is evident from the fact that these words are in direct connection with the previous speech, where the Apostle expresses gratitude to the Lord for trusting him and entrusting him with the service of the Gospel economy, which is the Apostleship. Our interpreters primarily focus on the gifts of grace common to all Christians. Saint Chrysostom says: “I have had mercy,” he says, “bych.” But did this only (you received), did mercy (extend) only to the point that you did not suffer punishment? No, (it extended to the fact that you received) many other and great (benefits). For God not only freed us from the punishment that threatened us, but also made us righteous, and sons, and brothers, and friends, and heirs, and joint heirs. That’s why he says: “grace abounds,” expressing the idea that these gifts have surpassed the limits of mercy. For it is not only characteristic of someone who is merciful to act in this way, but also of someone who is loving and completely devoted.” Grace multiplied, he says, “with faith and love.” He who was called believed, having believed, he loved; faith and love attracted abundant grace; they made the heart into a spacious vessel to contain abundant grace. “With these words the Apostle showed that he added from himself to what he received. For, having received grace from above, he brought faith and love; I believed sincerely, loved with all ardor and did not cease to burn with this love.” – Saint Chrysostom, here too, as above, makes a point about the participation of free will in the matter of salvation. He says: “Having said a lot about God’s love for mankind, that (God) had mercy on him - although he was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and an oppressor - and not only did not limit himself to this, but also honored him with great other (good deeds), the Apostle again confirms what (was said) against the unbelievers, that is, that it should not be said that free will does not exist, - adding the following words: “with the lie and love, even in Christ Jesus." From our eons, he says, all we have brought is that we believed that He could save us (and loved Him). For we need not only faith, but also love. (I add this) because today there are many who believe that Christ is God, but do not love Him and do not act as those who love Him should.” “About Christ Jesus” refers to both love and faith, and means that those - faith and love - were in the spirit of Christ, according to the Gospel economy, Christian. According to Saint Chrysostom, “in Christ” is the same as: “through Christ”; but: “through Christ” - he understands how: according to the economy of Christ. “What does through Christ mean? - asks - and answers: - That He was the author of this for us, and not the law,” that is, so that with faith and love grace would increase for everyone: for such is the economy of Christ. Why does Saint Chrysostom further conclude: “You see what good Christ was the author of for us and what law? Let us add to this: therefore, it was worthy for the Apostle to pour out his gratitude to the Lord, who made him not only a Christian, but also an Apostle of Christianity, and with the outpouring of such gratitude to inspire everyone that now no one should turn to the impoverished source of the law, but hasten to the abundant source of grace in Christ Jesus. c) Why, if you want to be saved, believe in the Lord (1 Tim. 1:15–17) Believe; for: aa) Christ the Lord came then to save sinners, and there is no other way to salvation (verse 15), bb) I am the example of your salvation in this way, who then received mercy, so that everyone could see where those who want to be saved should go, and hasten there with full hope (1 Tim. 1:16). Remembering this simple and effective method of salvation: c) I cannot resist crying out: “honor and glory to the all-wise God!” (1 Tim. 1:17). Blessed Theodoret expresses the content of these verses as follows: “The Apostle, having discovered what happened to himself, proves that this grace is offered to everyone.” aa) Christ the Lord came then to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) 1 Tim. 1:15. The word is true and worthy of all acceptance, for Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. The Apostle does not say in letters: if you want to be saved, believe; but only indicates the most reliable means of salvation. Anyone who desires salvation will naturally rush to it. “The word is faithful and worthy of all acceptance” - the word about the salvation of sinners in the Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself testified: “He departed from the Father and came into the world” (John 16:28). For what? “Do not require the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:13). The sermon went: “Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15), and all the brokenhearted and humble flocked to this voice. They flowed and were saved. The salvation proclaimed by the word of the Gospel is fulfilled in them by deed. Not a single one who truly believed and sincerely sought was deceived by hope. Everyone is saved. And whoever wants to approach the Lord will be saved. I certify this with my own example. I am the first of sinners and saved. What other sinner after me might not be saved? That’s why I certify that “the word about this is true and worthy of all acceptance.” “True” - “that is, not false and true” (Blessed Theodoret). “Worthy of all acceptance” - worthy of acceptance with an open heart, without the slightest shadow of doubt or hesitation. “Because it seemed incredible that a person, despite the fact that he spent his entire previous life (without bringing any) benefit and spent it in vain on evil deeds, could then be saved through faith alone: ​​that’s why he says: “the word is true.” - And as proof of this he cites himself: God had mercy on me, a blasphemer and persecutor, and not only had mercy on me, but also made me a believer. Not only is he not ashamed, calling himself a sinner, but he is especially happy about it; since through this he could best demonstrate the great miracle of God’s care (for sinners)” (St. Chrysostom). The apostle calls himself the chief of sinners. This is due to a feeling of contrition and repentance for having previously blasphemed the Lord and persecuted His Church. Although there was some excuse for ignorance here; but a contrite heart does not like to present circumstances mitigating guilt, but resorts to mercy alone, unrequitedly considering itself guilty, and, having received pardon, attributes it entirely to mercy, as to a single source. In this alone the Apostle is a true example for all who repent; but even more so is that he talks about himself this way and feels this way, after so much work for the glory of God and after so many of God’s mercies towards him. The heart never ceases to ache if it recognizes itself as having offended its beloved, although he was offended before he was loved. Blessed Theodoret writes that “The Apostle, calling himself the first of all sinners, reaches beyond the very limit of humility.” But others offer a different reasoning for this. Saint Chrysostom says: “how does the Apostle, having said in another place that he is “in truth and more than blameless in the law” (Phil. 3:6), here says that he is a sinner and the first of sinners? This is because in comparison with the righteousness of which God has made us partakers (in Christ Jesus) and which truly must be sought, even those who were righteous in the law are sinners: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, he did not just say: according to the truth, but: according to the truth, it is more legal. For just as a man who has acquired a lot of money, although in himself he seems rich, yet when he compares his acquisitions with the royal treasures, he sees himself as very poor and the first poor man: so here, comparing one (legal) righteousness with another (graceful), Saint Paul shows the insignificance of (the first). And not only does he say this, but he also recognizes as sinners those who have acquired the first kind (righteousness).” Blessed Theophylact expresses the same thought, with some special nuance. “Saint Paul places himself in the ranks of sinners, because before the righteousness that is in Christ, the truth that is according to the law, there is now sin, since its time has already passed. While there was her time, she was the truth, just as in the night both the moon and the candle are light. But when Christ appeared like the sun, he eclipsed it. So, he who uses the candle (of legal righteousness) sins and acts foolishly when the sun (of Christ’s righteousness) has risen.” bb) The example of salvation in this way is the Apostle himself (1 Tim. 1:16) 1 Tim. 1:16. But for this reason, I would have mercy, so that Jesus Christ would be the first to show me all the long-suffering, for the example of those who want to believe in Him for eternal life. What deep humility! What a crushing consciousness of one’s former guilt! I, he says, am so sinful that the Lord, being long-suffering to me, exhausted all His long-suffering on me. And He did this not because He found anything worthy in me, but because no one else made it possible for me to present a model of pardon such that every sinner, looking at my pardon, would not hesitate that he too would be pardoned, and would boldly begin to believe in the Lord in the undoubted hope that he too would receive eternal life. If I have been pardoned; who can doubt that he too will be pardoned? Saint Chrysostom depicts this at length: “Do you see how the Apostle again humbles and humiliates himself, citing something else more humiliating? For, having said that he was pardoned for the sake of his ignorance, he indicates that the pardoned one is not a very great sinner and should not be strictly condemned. But the expression that he was pardoned so that none of those who sinned would despair anymore, but would be confident that he too would receive the same, constitutes a very important and very strong (self-humiliation). So the Apostle, when he said about himself: I am the first of sinners and a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and an annoyer, and “I am not worthy to be called an Apostle” (1 Cor. 15:9), and expressed similar things to this, - and then he did not say anything so derogatory for himself. Let's illustrate this with an example. Let us imagine a populous city, all of whose inhabitants were evil people - true, some more, others less, but all are worthy of condemnation: however, among these many, one would most deserve condemnation and punishment, and there was a person who experienced all types of crimes. If, suppose, someone said that the king wanted to forgive them all, they would not so easily believe this news until they saw that the most criminal of them all had already received this. For then there would be no doubt left. Paul also says the same thing - that God, wanting to assure people that He forgives them everything, had mercy on the one who sinned the most. Because if I, he says, have received forgiveness, then let no one doubt others. And through this the Apostle shows that he did not deserve forgiveness, but for the sake of the salvation of others he was the first to receive it. Therefore, let no one, he says, doubt salvation when I am saved. And notice the humility of this blessed (husband). He did not say: let him show long-suffering in me, but: “all long-suffering,” as if saying this: God has not shown more of His long-suffering over anyone else than over me, and has not found another sinner who would need all of His mercy, all of his long-suffering, and not in part, like those who only sinned in part. “For the image,” he says, “of those who want to believe in Him for eternal life,” that is, for encouragement, for encouraging them.” Blessed Theodoret, to explain what the Apostle said, gives another comparison, in which he shows that in the Lord not only pardon and remission of sins are obtained, but also the healing of sinful wounds. “Like a doctor,” the Apostle says, when in one house, at the same time, there are many sick people and everyone despairs of recovery, taking one of the most seriously ill, and giving him healing medicine, and bringing him to perfect health, thereby instills trust in himself and in all the sick: so the Lord Christ, the physician of souls, who became human for the sake of our salvation, having brought into the midst me, all the most lawless, not only delivered from the former defilement, but also showered me with the greatest gifts, through me showing all people immeasurable long-suffering, so that none of the greatest lawless people, looking at me, would despair of salvation. But the Divine Apostle said this, having a modest way of thinking about himself. It is necessary to know that he did not recognize his (moral) life as lawless; but he said this, remembering his attempts on the Church, as he writes in the Epistle to the Corinthians: “I am not worthy to be called an Apostle, for I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9).” “Believe in Him for eternal life.” - “To eternal life” - shows that the hope of this life is an integral part of faith in the Lord the Savior. “Faith in Christ occurs in the hope of receiving eternal life” (Ecumenius). Eternal life is the crown of faith in the Lord. Faith in the Lord is the sacrament of restoring the fallen. This restoration begins immediately as soon as someone approaches the Lord by faith. But it matures and is accomplished for the most part in secret. It will appear in all its glory in a future life, where it will receive an external position and condition corresponding to itself. This aspiration inspires believers to work toward restoration, and the beginnings of restoration nourish and revive the aspiration itself. That is why the Apostle, when touching on the general features of faith, never forgets to mention eternal life. cv) Honor and glory to the all-wise God! (1 Tim. 1:17) 1 Tim. 1:17. To the King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. “Having remembered the good deeds of God, the Apostle turns his tongue to hymns” (Theodoret). It is customary for the Apostle Paul, when interpreting the work of the incarnate economy, to ascend to God in thanksgiving and glorification. So here too, having ascended to the contemplation of the ineffable wisdom and goodness of God in that after the abolition of the law He opened the vast door of salvation in the Lord Jesus for all who want to believe in Him, He glorifies God. Honor and glory to God, who is pleased to save sinners! Having remembered that God in faith opened the door of salvation to everyone with the promise of eternal life, the Apostle calls God the King of the ages, incorruptible, to show that God holds the fulfillment of such a promise in His hands. As incorruptible, having in Himself an unceasing life, not borrowed and not exhausted, He gives life to believers, as the King of ages - eternal life and, as the invisible one - such an eternal life, the like of which we will not find in anything visible. -The wisdom of God, so clearly manifested in creation, is seen most clearly in the incarnate economy. Why does the Apostle, moved to doxology by the contemplation of this economy, call God here, as elsewhere, wise. - Honor and glory, Divine worship and glorification - may there be or may it be rewarded. Our interpreters primarily pay attention to who this doxology refers to. Blessed Theodoret writes: “since the Apostle showed that the Lord Christ is the giver of so many blessings, then, wanting to teach that this was done by the good will of God the Father and the assistance of God’s Spirit, he passed from the one Person to the common nature and offered up a hymn to the Trinity and, keeping silent about the Persons, hymned God’s nature. For it is not difficult to find out that what was said belongs not only to God the Father, but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the King of the ages is not the Father alone, but also the Only Begotten Son, since He is the Creator of the ages, and also the Holy Spirit, since the Divine Apostle called Him eternal, saying: “Whom by the Holy Spirit (Greek: αιωνιου - eternal) offer unto yourself blameless to God” (Heb. 9:14). Likewise, incorruptibility and invisibility are characteristic of both the Son and the Spirit. And since this is thus made clear, then the name of God is truly the name of the One Trinity. For besides Her there is no other God by nature.” It's the same for others. Blessed Theophylact adds something to the interpretation of the words: “to the only wise one.” “This,” he says, “is said in order to show that although both Angels and people have wisdom, God alone is truly wise, as the source and author of wisdom, yet all other creatures that have wisdom become partakers of it.” Saint Chrysostom makes such an application from the words: “honor and glory.” “Honor and glory are not given in words. Therefore, since He honored us not with words, but with deeds, then we will honor Him with deeds.” Blessed Theophylact continues this application: “Glory and honor, bestowed in word, shows us only to be grateful, but rewarded in deed, makes us imitators of Him - which is much more. God requires us to glorify Him and in words, so that we love Him, listen to and obey Him, and through this we ourselves benefit; just as someone who marvels (denies) the glory of the sunlight brings benefit to himself by enjoying the light and using it in his affairs, and he who does not use it causes damage and deprivation to himself.” d) This is what I command you to teach (1 Tim. 1:18–20) 1 Tim. 1:18. I bequeath this testament to you, child Timothy, according to the previous prophecies that came upon you, so that you may fight a good army in them. “This”, ταυτην, is such, this is what a “testament” is. Which one? What is depicted in front of this is so that you yourself and others can avoid all kinds of nonsense, and focus your attention on the fact that salvation is only in the Lord Jesus Christ, for which He came into the world. “I betray you, child.” He gives a commandment, writes a law, - the action is somehow sovereign (Blessed Theophylact), burdensome and repulsive. To soften him, the Apostle says: “I betray”, παρατιθεμαι, - I offer - and adds: “child”. “He gives the commandment as to a son, as to his own, - not commandingly, not domineeringly, but paternally: “child Timothy” (St. Chrysostom). However, “I betray” is: I convey, in the sense that the Apostles received from above the pledge of faith, which they passed on to their successors. This indicates an obligation - having reverently accepted, strictly observed. Saint Chrysostom says: “the expression: “I betray” shows that what has been betrayed must be strictly preserved and that it did not come from us. For we did not invent it, but God gave it to us. But what He has given us, we must keep. He seems to say this: “It is not I who command you, but He who chose you.” By “former prophecies” the Apostle probably means either the common believers’ voice of approval of Saint Timothy in Iconium and Lystra, heard by Saint Paul as the voice of God, in connection with some inspiration to him from above, or any prophecies about Saint Timothy of the Prophets who were then in the Churches, similar to their prophecies about the bonds awaiting Saint Paul, or instructions from above to himself Former Paul, known to Timothy, one of which, perhaps, was repeated during his very appointment to replace the Apostle in Ephesus (Blessed Theodoret). One should always see in this a testimony with which the Apostle carefully chose his successors, and an indication with which this should always be done in the Church. Saint Chrysostom pays special attention to this aspect of the matter. “The title of mentor (of the faithful) and priest is very important and worthy of admiration, and truly Divine direction is required in order for a person worthy to be chosen for this. This is how it was in ancient times; This is what happens now, when we make an election without human bias, when we do not look at anything worldly, neither at friendship nor at enmity. For although we do not participate in the Spirit to such an extent, we have enough good intentions in order to attract from above an indication of someone worthy of being ordained. And the Apostles, when they elected Matthias, did not participate in the Spirit, but, leaving the organization of the matter to prayer, they numbered him among the Apostles. For they did not look at human friendship. This is how it should be done now with us. But we, having reached the extreme degree of negligence, ignore what is quite obvious. If we do not see the obvious, then how will God reveal the unknown to us? If, He says, you have not been faithful in small things, who will entrust you with great things? But at that time, since nothing was done according to human passion, we appointed a priest through prophecy. – What does it mean: through prophecy? By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For prophecy consists not only in predicting the future, but also in indicating the present. For God reveals His will to the righteous. The words: “Separate Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 13:2) were a prophecy. This is how Timothy was chosen. “But here the Apostle speaks of many prophecies, meaning, perhaps, the one by which he received him at the beginning, and this when he ordained him, as he himself writes below: “Do not neglect your gift” (1 Tim. 4:14).” The Apostle chose Saint Timothy in his place and entrusted the Church of Ephesus to him, in full confidence that he would fulfill the task entrusted to him as it should be, having been certified in this by former instructions from above. He speaks about this to Saint Timothy in order to inspire him with zeal and courage. Saint Chrysostom says: “in order to arouse him to jealousy and force him to be sober and vigilant, he reminds him of the one who chose and ordained him, saying as it were: God chose you, He entrusted the Church to you; It was not by human election that you became a servant of the faith: do not offend, do not disgrace the Divine election.” “May you fight among them as a good army.” The Apostle compares the administration of the Church, the protection of the faithful with their guidance in the matter of salvation, to waging war or dominating. For there is a continuous war with unbelief, superstition, superstition, blind hostility, a war with people and with dark forces rebelling against the truth through people. Therefore, the Apostle writes to Saint Timothy: “Let you fight,” as if saying: “You must prove yourself worthy of election, fulfill the prophecies and courageously enter into the fight against the adversaries-demons” (Blessed Theodoret). “A strong invective has been raised, against everyone in general, but especially against teachers; why we need to always keep strong weapons ready, namely sobriety, wakefulness, vigilance; we must be ready for bloody battles, we must take up arms and not have the slightest effeminacy in ourselves” (St. Chrysostom). “Let you fight against them.” - “In them” - refers to the prophecies and means: in fulfillment of them, by virtue of them, according to their spirit, - from them borrowing both inspiring motivation and admonishing guidance. “They (these prophecies) chose you for what they chose you for; listen to them, be obedient to them, perform the good service of a warrior” (St. Chrysostom). “For the sake of which (prophecies) you are accepted and because of which you are chosen, in those and through them you fight, by the power of the Holy Spirit, from Whom are the prophecies” (Ecumenius). “Let you fight a good army” - gives either the following thought: keep this war, because it is good; for what could be kinder than to contribute to the salvation of others by helping to fulfill that for which our Lord came into the world? or this: conduct warfare in a good manner, so that it is recognized as good; for even good can be done in an unkind way, when the unkind have goals and the unkind use the means. Saint Chrysostom points out in this regard what kind of unkind warfare generally occurs in the moral order. “The Apostle said: perform the good service of a warrior - good, for there is also an evil service of a warrior, about which he says: “For... you have presented your servants to uncleanness and lawlessness” (Rom. 6:19), - in weapons of sin and uncleanness. And these served as warriors, but under the authority of a tyrant, and you serve under the authority of the Tsar.” 1 Tim. 1:19. Having faith and a good conscience, having rejected nothing else, you fell away from the faith. What at the beginning he indicated as the norm for teaching and guiding his flock, he now places as a moral duty on the teacher himself. There he said: “The end of the testament is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and unfeigned faith” (1 Tim. 1:5); here he inspires: “fight a good army, having faith and a good conscience.” The main thing both in the flock and in the shepherd is faith and a good conscience. Faith embraces everything that is believed - God in the Trinity of the worshiped Creator, Almighty, Provider, Redeemer, Sanctifier and Judge - moreover, the fact that He, who desires the salvation of every sinner and created a wondrous image of salvation for everyone, will accept me, approaching Him with faith for salvation, and will save, as He Himself knows. A good conscience requires “a life adorned with chastity and truth (love and piety). Such a commendable life must also be combined with faith” (Blessed Theodoret). And this is both for those who flock, and even more so for the one who shepherds. And the Apostle here seems to be saying to Timothy, who was appointed to shepherd and teach: “Do not think to be satisfied with the mere fact that according to the prophecies you have been appointed to the priesthood; but you must have right faith, so that you have the right to distribute the word of truth, and a good conscience or a shameless life, from which there is a good conscience, so that you can preside over others beneficially” (Blessed Theophylact). “A good teacher abstains from everything contrary to the truth and thereby gives the greatest credibility to his preaching. By one example of good deeds, he attracts many to faith, causing them to rely on his word” (Ambrosiastes). “Therefore, the teacher must first teach himself. For just as a military leader, if he had not previously been an excellent warrior, he would never have been a military leader: so is the teacher. The Apostle says this in another place: “Let it not be that, preaching to others, I myself will be inaccessible” (1 Cor. 9:27)” (St. Chrysostom). “Having rejected nothing, you have fallen away from the faith.” - “South” - conscience, - “having rejected”, - pushing away, despising, trampling, they fell away from the faith. So much of the truth of faith depends on a good life. The Savior made the very belief or understanding that His teaching is from God dependent on the zealous desire to do the will of God (John 7:17). But both the beginning and the continuation of belief, or the strength and rightness of faith, depend on a good conscience. He who tramples on his conscience obviously does not value faith. Why, if he is a teacher, does he preach his teaching hypocritically (Ambrosiastes). Moreover, he who neglects a good conscience, allowing himself arbitrariness in the area of ​​life, learns to tolerate and allow arbitrariness in the area of ​​thought, which is kept in order by the believer by faith. This arbitrariness willingly accepts all sorts of assumptions that are inconsistent with faith, which, not being eliminated, soon turn into probabilities, and are finally held with conviction, contrary to faith. This especially happens in relation to those points of faith that greatly worry about an unkind life. Anyone who has reached this point has already fallen away from the faith, even though he lives among believers. Thus, “if life is unclean, then from this perverse dogmas are generated” (Blessed Theophylact). “A depraved life is often the basis of wickedness. Others, unable to bear the convictions of their conscience, rejected them and attributed God’s providence, which extends to everything, and attributed what happens to fate and fate” (Blessed Theodoret). “When life becomes worthy of condemnation, then the same teaching arises. And you can see many who, having fallen into the abyss of sins, turned into paganism. In order not to be tormented by the fear of future judgment, they try to convince themselves in their souls that those threats are false. And all this is because they indulge the mind a lot (as they indulge the heart) and, thinking, subject everything to investigation. Speculation produces shipwreck (in the soul), but faith is, in a sense, a reliable ship - and those who deviate from it inevitably suffer shipwreck - to which the Apostle provides an example” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Tim. 1:20. From them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan, so that they would not be punished for blasphemy. "From them". Consequently, there were not two of them; These two are being exposed, probably because of the uncontrollability of their tongue, which is why they spread blasphemous speeches everywhere about the economy of salvation in the Lord Jesus. For this they were subjected to a special punishment - spiritual, but visible to everyone and not terrible, namely - betrayal to Satan. This is not the first time the Apostle has used this punishment; in Corinth, an incestuous man was subjected to it (1 Cor. 5:5). But what kind of tradition is this to Satan? There are two areas, the bright area of ​​faith and virtue, living in God and lived by God, and the dark area of ​​fighting against God and sin, organized and controlled by our enemy, Satan. The first is the Church of the saints of God, the second is everything that is outside the Church. Thus, anyone who leaves the Church or is excommunicated from it inevitably falls under his power and influence. Saint Chrysostom says: “if you want to know how the Apostle handed over the guilty to Satan, listen. “To those gathered together,” he says, “you and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such one to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4, 5). Consequently, the guilty person was immediately thrown out of the general meeting, excommunicated from the herd, he remained alone and naked, and was given over to the wolf. For just as a cloud covered the Jewish camp, so the Holy Spirit covered the Church. Therefore, whoever was cast out from it was burned; and the guilty one was cast out from her according to the judgment of the Apostles. So the Lord handed Judas over to Satan. For immediately “through the bread Satan came into him” (John 13:27). But the work of punishment by tradition to Satan was not limited to this one invisible disaster that took place in the spirit. Some guilty people were punished to admonish others; therefore, the punishment had to be visible, consisting either of illnesses and bodily deprivations, or of a frenzy of the mind that occurred from time to time. And we must assume that, as in Corinth, the guilty one was handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; So they suffered something similar and were punished by the same in Ephesus. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle handed them over to the devil, as a cruel executioner. For (then usually) those excommunicated from the Church and deprived of grace were subjected to cruel blows from the enemy, falling into difficult illnesses, suffering, losses and other disasters. Satan is pleased to impose this on people, since he, according to the Prophet, is both an enemy and a local (Ps. 8:3).” To explain this, Ambrosiast adds: “That’s why the Gospel says, among other things, to a thirty-eight-year-old paralytic: “Let him not sin, let him not be worse off” (John 5:14), showing that because of sin, sometimes bodies are exposed to disease. And that the devil serves as an instrument for this, the Lord explained this, saying in one case: “But this daughter of Abraham, who was bound by Satan for the tenth year, was it not worthy for her to be released from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:16)." Saint Paul gave these two guilty men to such punishment while he was in Ephesus, personally and solemnly in the presence of all believers and, perhaps, unbelievers. Goal: “let them learn not to blaspheme.” Who? Not only these two, but also all those involved in the same guilt, although they were less daring, their blasphemy was different. “The apostle did not declare the blasphemy itself; because he wrote to someone who knew the matter” (Blessed Theodoret). But obviously, she was raised to the work of God - the economy of salvation in the Lord. To stop such blasphemy, the Apostle solemnly punished the main culprits, in order to correct them and to enlighten others. “The students, seeing the harm that comes from blasphemy, naturally changed their way of thinking” (Blessed Theodoret). Saint Chrysostom says at this: “But how does Satan teach not to blaspheme? For if he teaches others not to blaspheme, then all the more should he teach this to himself. If to this day he cannot teach himself this, then he cannot teach others either. - The Apostle did not say: let them teach them not to blaspheme, but: let them learn not to blaspheme. It is not he who does this, but it is the consequence (of his actions). In a similar way, in another place, the Apostle says about someone who has committed adultery: “deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” not with the goal of saving the body, but: “that the spirit may be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5). That is, it is said impersonally. How does this happen? Just as executioners, being themselves filled with countless crimes, admonish others, so here (the same thing is said) about the evil demon. - But why (Apostle) did you not punish them yourself, like Barius, like Cephas - Ananias, but handed them over to Satan? - In order to combine with the severity of punishment a stronger condemnation of their guilt; Moreover, it was not unimportant for the Apostle to show that he had the power to command the devil. For through this it became obvious that the devil was submitting and, against his will, was submitting to the Apostles (carrying out their sentences). Therefore, this greatly contributed to the manifestation of grace-filled gifts.” 2) What kind of order should be established and maintained among Christians? The orders that St. Paul concerns here are church orders. Two subjects occupy the Apostle here: A) instructions regarding church meetings (chapter 2) and: B) instructions regarding persons elected to the church clergy (1 Tim. 3:1-13). a) Concerning church meetings Christians gather together in churches to pray. About prayer and instruction, namely: a) for whom to pray (1 Tim. 2:1–7) and: b) what rules to follow in this regard (1 Tim. 2:8–15). These are objects that the condition of the Ephesian Christians required attention to. a) For whom should we pray in church meetings? (1 Tim. 2:1–7) The Apostle commands to pray: aa) for all people, and for the pagans, and among them especially for the authorities (verses 1-2); bb) the motivation for this prayer is: α) “let us live a quiet and silent life” (verse 2) and: β) especially that this is pleasing to God, who “wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (verses 3-7); as can be seen: αα) from the establishment by Him of a single medium between Himself and all people, not excluding the pagans (verses 5-6); and: ββ) as this is confirmed by the appointment of a special Apostle for the calling of the pagans - St. Paul himself (verse 7). aa) About all people (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) 1 Tim. 2:1, 2. I beg you, first of all, to make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings for all people, for the Tsar and for everyone who is in power. “Ubo” is an inferential particle. Above, he suggested that Saint Timothy should turn everyone away from idle talk and guide them to life in the spirit of faith with a clear conscience, assuring that by acting in this way, he would conduct his war well. Now he says: in these forms, do this and that. First of all, he asks that you take care of the proper conduct of prayers in gatherings of believers. And, demanding this, the first thing that offers attention is someone to pray for, to pray for all people, both for non-believers, and among them for the king and the authorities. - Why? Therefore, it is likely that the Ephesians needed to be reminded of this most of all: for the subject - prayer for everyone and for the authorities - although not unimportant, is not the first. Or, perhaps, this order of prayers in church meetings needed to be introduced and publicly presented to everyone, in disgust of the rumor spread about Christians by their enemies, that they are misanthropes, as can be seen from the fact that they are alien to all people and human (pagan) customs, and that, gathering separately from others, they are starting sedition. The Apostle made it a law that the Ephesians, and through them all Christians, when gathering for prayer, should first of all pray for all people and for the authorities. After this, Christians could show everyone: look at how we are commanded to pray, and judge whether we are misanthropes and seditious people. This order of prayer has been preserved to this day in the Church. Is it not according to the instructions of St. Paul? “I pray” is a humble turn of phrase, convincing, but in no way detracting from the power of the law. Through this, it is not left to one’s choice whether to pray one way or another, if someone wants to do so. A similar soft form of urgent orders is observed in social relations. “Make prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgivings.” The last one: “thanksgiving” is different from the others in subject, feeling, and word. As for the first three, they seem to be unambiguous and, perhaps, collected by St. Paul together just to express: pray in every possible way, pray with all diligence. This is what Blessed Theophylact believes: ““prayers, supplications, petitions”, as unambiguous, were collected by the Apostle to excite prayerful energy and to express, by insisting through these words on one thing, the demand to urgently act as he commands.” But the same blessed Theophylact further says: “some, however, were curious to find the difference in these sayings.” Blessed Theodoret did this first, from whom he borrows an indication of the very features of the difference. One can see in these sayings indications of different objects of prayer, and of the qualities of prayers or different states of the person praying. So “prayer”, δεησις, - from: δεω, - on the subject is “a petition for deliverance from the sorrowful” (Blessed Theodoret, Blessed Theophylact), - that which causes sorrow, keeps in cramped conditions and extremes; and according to the state of the person praying, there is a feeling of need and need for the object of prayer, from which (feelings) the prayer itself arises; the absence of which makes the person praying an indifferent speaker of prayer, and its presence determines the measure of the fervor of prayer. Anyone who wants to pray must first of all stock up on this feeling and not begin prayer without it. - “Prayer”, προσευχη, - on the subject there is “asking for benefits” (Blessed Theodoret, Blessed Theophylact); and according to the state of the person praying, there is a crying out prayer from the heart, evoking the proposal of vows and readiness for all kinds of sacrifices, in other cases accompanied by fasts, vigils and other deprivations. - “Petition”, εντευξις, (from: εντυγχανω - to speak for whom before whom), - is, in its subject matter, a cry of intercession for others with a complaint against enemies visible and invisible and asking for help against them (Blessed Theodoret, Blessed Theophylact); and according to the state of the person praying, there is, on the one hand, confident boldness before God, and on the other, persistence in prayer, also commanded by the Savior. According to Saint Climacus, an intercessory cry to God for others is appropriate to be received by the friends of God and, therefore, requires high moral perfection and great closeness to God; persistence is not obscene for anyone. But nevertheless, what all these three have in common is asking God for something beneficial, whatever its kind; from which thanksgiving is directly different, usually addressed not to the benefits sought, but to the benefits already received, tasted and savored. Basil the Great teaches us to begin every prayer with thanksgiving, assuring that thanksgiving for the benefits received, stronger than any petition, intercedes for the granting of new benefits. In the Apostle, it is placed here after petitions, perhaps so that if it were placed ahead of petitions, we would not think that for “all people” we should only ask, and not even give thanks. The Apostle demands that we give thanks for others, in the confidence that nothing so strongly testifies to our mutual love, revives it and strengthens it, as thanksgiving for the benefits received by others. That’s why I put “thanksgiving” before: “for all people.” “For all people” - for all people, not only the faithful, but also the unfaithful. Saint Chrysostom speaks with emotion at this: “those initiated into the sacraments know, as happens with us during daily worship, every day, both morning and evening, how we pray for the whole world. – The priest is, as it were, the common father of the whole universe; therefore, it is fitting for him to care for everyone, just as God, in whose service he is placed, cares for everyone. As a result, the Apostle commands to pray for everyone. – Two good consequences flow from this: on the one hand, through this, the hatred that others harbor towards outsiders (those who do not belong to the Church) is destroyed; because no one can harbor hostile feelings towards the one for whom he is praying. On the other hand, those (externals) become better, partly because prayers are offered for them (due to the invisible influence of prayer), and partly because they (hearing that they are being prayed for) put off bitterness against us. For nothing contributes so much to the success of teaching as to love and be loved. Think also of what it meant for those who plotted, beat, expelled, killed (Christians) to hear that those who endure such suffering raise diligent prayers to God for those who cause them (this suffering)! Do you see to what extent, in accordance with the desire of the Apostle, a Christian should be above everyone else? For just as (the father’s) love for small children does not diminish in the least, even if a child, taken in his arms, even hits his father in the face; so we should not at all diminish our love for outsiders, even if we endure blows from them. “I pray,” he says, “to create... and thanksgiving for all people.” Because we need to thank God for the benefits that are sent to others, for example, because He “makes the sun shine on the evil and the good, and rains on the righteous and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Do you see that He unites and binds us to each other not only through prayer, but also through thanksgiving? Because he is obliged to thank God for the blessings sent down to his neighbor, he is obliged to love him and be friendly towards him. – And if we need to give thanks for what is sent down to our neighbor, then even more so for what happens to us, both in secret, and at our request, and against our will, and for what even seems unpleasant to us; because God works out everything for our good.” “For the king and for everyone who is in power.” - “Those who are in power” are not those who are in the hands of power, those who are subject to power, but they themselves hold power over others in their own hands, rulers of various degrees; των εν υπεροχη οντων, - those who are on high, standing above others - also all, that is, of all degrees. “Even if the kings (and other powers under them) were unfaithful; however, we must pray for them: for then they were all like that” (Blessed Theophylact). “So the Jews captive in Babylon wrote to those who remained in Judea to bring prayer for Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar” (Blessed Theodoret). But why didn’t the Apostle say directly: for the king and for the authorities, but first said: for all people, and then for the king and the authorities? So that he would not be considered a flatterer, speaking not because the truth of God so demands, but out of some external respect. If he had said first: for kings or for kings alone; then, perhaps, someone would suspect him of this. This would cast a generally unfavorable shadow over his words (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). bb) Encouragement to prayer (1 Tim. 2:2–7) When praying for everyone, and especially for the authorities, what should we keep in mind, what should they wish for? α) peace and prosperity, so that in the midst of their peace we too may have peace and prosperity in godliness and purity (verse 2). But as, following this, the Apostle remembers the matter most pleasing to God, namely the salvation of all, he inspires that, praying for the external good of all, one should also pray: β) for their internal good, namely, so that everyone would know the only path of salvation and enter into it - which is most pleasing to God (1 Tim. 2:3) (verses 3-7), as can be seen: αα) from His establishment of a single mediation between Himself and all people - and the Gentiles (verses 5-6), - and how: ββ ) is confirmed by the appointment of a special Apostle for the calling of the Gentiles, St. Paul himself (verse 7). α Let us live a quiet and silent life (1 Tim. 2:2) 1 Tim. 2:2. May we live a quiet and silent life in all piety and purity. It comes out straight: pray for everyone and for the authorities, so that we feel good. But how can we feel good if everyone doesn’t feel good? Therefore, we must see in these words a prayer for the peace and prosperity of all: the authorities - so that they have strength within and have the means of protecting everyone from the outside, so that, having power within, they uphold the truth, do not allow the evildoers to proceed and multiply the ways to prosperity (Ambrosiastes); Subjects, so that, using the orders maintained by the authorities, they live calmly and happily. When everyone enjoys the world in this way, then we too will be able to live a peaceful and serene life. - Further, - since, in a world that is not ours, our world is not a necessary consequence, but an accident, more or less probable; then, placing our peace and tranquility in such a close connection with prayer for everyone and for the authorities, does not the Apostle make it clear that prayer for them should also have the following point: position, Lord, their hearts towards us, so that, treating us favorably, they do not interfere with our living peacefully and serenely. Saint Chrysostom believes that the Apostle was prompted to say such words by the desire to prevent possible embarrassment among believers at the commandment to pray for unbelievers during the celebration of the sacraments. He says: “since it was probable that the soul of a Christian, hearing this (to pray for everyone), could become perplexed and disagree with this instruction, that when performing the sacraments one should offer prayers for the pagan; then look at what he says and what benefits he offers, in order to at least in this way persuade them to accept his suggestion. “Let us live a quiet and silent life,” that is, their salvation brings peace to us; just as in the Epistle to the Romans, urging them to obey their superiors, he says: “not only for wrath, but also for conscience” (Rom. 13:5); since God has established authorities for the common good. For wouldn’t it be completely incongruous if we, when others go on a campaign and put on weapons for the purpose of keeping us safe, did not even say prayers for those who are in danger and bear the burden of military service? Therefore, this is not flattery at all, but is done at the request of justice. For if they had not avoided danger and had not been successful in wars, then, of necessity, our affairs would have fallen into confusion and disorder; Then, after they were defeated, we ourselves should go to war, or run away and wander everywhere. They constitute, he says, a kind of stronghold placed in front, which protects the peace of those within it.” Didn’t the Apostle have in mind to make the exclusive subject of prayer for everyone and for the King their conversion to faith, so that, united by him in spirit, everyone could live serenely in peace and harmony, succeeding in piety and purity? The following speech would be in perfect agreement with this thought: “This is good” and so on. However, the apparent self-interest in the motives for prayer: “let us live a quiet and silent life” is completely eliminated by turning this quiet and serene life into a means to moral success: “in all godliness and purity.” Peace and serenity are the outer side; piety and purity must reign within. The apostle desires the former for the latter. This is an example of a truly Christian society! When in it they turn their prosperity not to pleasures and all self-indulgence in lusts, but to the prosperity of a godly life in piety and purity. “Piety,” observing the right faith, directs one towards God, forces one to please God, and teaches one to turn everything to the glory of God; purity requires purity of the body from carnal lusts and purity of the soul from spiritual passions. It is designated by the Apostle with the words: σεμνοτης, which means a life that is completely abstinent, dispassionate, reasonable and sedate, attracting general respect. A peaceful and serene life, according to the Apostle, receives value only from the generalization of such virtues in society; for which reason it should be desirable and be the subject of prayer. Blessed Theophylact writes: “these words (“let us live in piety and purity”) were appended by the Apostle because for many a peaceful life, undisturbed by battles, serves as a reason for the same joys and mutual displeasure, from which wrong dogmas are born. “Let us live,” he says, not in joys and mutual insults, but: “in all godliness,” - in all, not only in the purest faith, free from all heresies, but also in life by faith (for there is wickedness, which is manifested by life, about which it is said: “They confess God, but His works are abolished” [cf. Titus 1:16 ]). In the same way: let us live in all purity, σεμνοτητι, means: let us live not only in abstinence from works of carnal lust, but also in all virtue. So, when we enjoy the outer world, we must also be at peace in our souls, living in piety and purity: for only in this case will we live a truly peaceful and serene life. There are three kinds of wars that disturb the world: from the barbarians, from the slanderers living in the same place with us, and from the passions rebelling against us within. The barbaric warfare is stopped by the cheerfulness and courage of the kings, whom we too must assist with our prayers; We ourselves must pacify the other two battles - the one that comes from those who hate us - with meek compliance and prayers, as the prophet David set an example, saying: “Be peaceable with those who hate” (Ps. 119:6); and: “I slandered me, but I prayed” (Ps. 109:4), - and that which rises within ourselves, with all the weapons of truth” (the same with Saint Chrysostom). Only when you suppress this internal warfare will external serenity receive its full price. Saint Chrysostom says: “What benefit will it bring you if the universe enjoys peace if you have a fight within with yourself? You need to have this (inner) peace. If we have it, then nothing external can harm us. If anyone, when the world reigns outside, is in turmoil inside, then he is a very unhappy person. – When our body rebels against the soul, arouses carnal passions against it, and either anger or envy arises in the soul itself; then it is impossible, without putting an end to this battle, to taste the blessings of external serenity. Therefore, the Apostle, having said: “let us live a quiet and silent life,” did not stop there, but added: “in all piety and purity”; to encourage the establishment of inner peace. For it is impossible to remain in piety and purity if this peace is not established. Because when inquisitive speculation shakes our faith, then what kind of peace can there be? When the spirit of wickedness disturbs us, then what peace can there be? β) This pleases God, who wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–7) 1 Tim. 2:3, 4. This is good and pleasant in the sight of our Savior God, Who desires for all man to be saved and to come to the understanding of truth. “Pleasant” - before God, but “good” - how? It is also possible to understand “good” in the same way as good before God; but you can see in the word “good” an indication of the inner moral goodness of the act of prayer, as evidence of love for everyone. – God is our “Savior” not only because he desires salvation, but because he created the image of salvation and saves all those who are saved in this way, actively helping them to use it. – Who desires salvation for everyone, God wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth about salvation, namely, that it is only in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is an urgent condition for salvation. The prayer of the faithful for the salvation of the unfaithful is pleasing to God, truly because it contributes to the fulfillment of this condition. The idea is more and more affirmed that the Apostle, commanding to pray for all people and with their authorities, meant prayer for their salvation. Only such a thought is fully consistent with real poems. Pray for the salvation of everyone, because this pleases God, who wants everyone to be saved. But even if we do not recognize this thought exclusively, in every possible way with the first one we should recognize it as the second most important: since the Apostle primarily focuses on it. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Divine Apostle not only for this reason (“let us live a quiet life”) commands to pray for kings, but also so that, putting aside wickedness, they learn piety.” The ecumenius continues: “for to pray for all people, even Greeks (infidels), that they may be converted, is good and pleasing to God.” “What does this mean (that is, good and pleasant)? - asks Saint Chrysostom and answers: - That which pleases God and He desires that they pray for (the salvation of) everyone. For He “desires to be saved by all mankind, and to come into the understanding of truth.” Imitate God. If He wants everyone to be saved, you want the same; and if you desire this, then pray for it; for such people tend to pray. You see how the Apostle uses all means to convince the soul that it is necessary to pray for the pagans as well. This, he says, pleases God, through this we become like Him, because we desire the same thing that He desires.” God the Savior wants everyone to be saved. Why is it that not everyone is saved and not everyone is being saved? - Because God, who wants to save everyone, does not bring about their salvation by His omnipotent power, but, having arranged and offered everyone a wondrous and unique way of salvation, wants everyone to be saved, willingly approaching this way of salvation and using it wisely. Why did the Apostle, having said: God our Savior, “wants to be saved by everyone,” added: “and to come into the mind of truth,” in the latter putting a condition on the first. “To come into the mind of truth” - that is, to come to the knowledge of truth. “What truth? It is faith in Him” (St. Chrysostom), - faith that there is no other salvation than in the Lord Jesus Christ, as it is immediately said (verse 5). The sermon went around the world. Those who hear listen, put what they hear into their hearts, comprehend the truth, reach the decision to follow it, go and are saved in the manner established by God. This entire path is the path of free, rational will, which is accompanied by grace, confirming its movements. And this is where, on the one hand, there is a reason that not everyone is saved, on the other hand, there is a place for the influence of the prayer of the faithful for the salvation of the unfaithful. Not everyone is saved, because not everyone heeds the word of truth, not everyone is inclined to it, not everyone follows it - in a word, not everyone wants to. “If God wants (everyone to be saved), then why doesn’t what God wants happen? - asks Ekumeny - answers: - Because they don’t want to; for God does nothing here by force.” We read something similar in Ambrosiastes: “If God, who is called omnipotent, wants all people to be saved, then how is His reading not fulfilled? God wants all people to be saved, but only if they come to Him. For He does not want this so that those who do not want to should be saved; but he wants to save them if they themselves want it. Just as He does not deprive anyone of salvation by His omnipotent power, so He does not save anyone with it. The doctor announces to society that he is ready to heal everyone; but, of course, if patients turn to him. So here too, those who turn to the Doctor of souls are saved. Salvation would not be true if it were given against the will. And the one who would have received it, if it were possible, could not have rejoiced at the salvation received; not to mention the fact that here a sick person in spirit cannot receive spiritual healing unless he wholeheartedly surrenders himself to its action. What happens here is not physical, but spiritual healing, which does not bring any benefit either to those who doubt it or to those who do not want it. For faith, which gives salvation, if the soul does not accept it with all its desire, will not only bring no benefit, but will also harm (serve to greater condemnation). The grace of faith has the power to infuse saving medicine only into those who wholeheartedly surrender themselves to it.” There is a place for the influence of the prayer of the faithful for the salvation of the unfaithful at all turns of the movement of free will through salvation, from the first heeding of the word of truth to the perception of salvation. It influences the first understanding of the gospel, and the understanding of what is going on, and the inclination towards it, and the decision to follow it. How? This cannot be tangibly indicated; but that it exists is suggested by the present place. God, he says, is pleased when the faithful pray for the salvation of the unfaithful, of course, because this contributes to their salvation. Since this salvation is conditioned by the knowledge of the truth or the complete acceptance of faith, which free will reaches after making several turns in its movement, it is obvious that the prayer of the faithful, which contributes to the salvation of the unfaithful, influences the successful completion of all these turns of will and, finally, the very perception of salvation. The Holy Church believes this, expressing its faith in prayer for the catechumens, who are marching toward the reception of salvation. αα) This is evident from His establishment of a single mediation between Himself and all people (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) 1 Tim. 2:5, 6. For there is one God, and one intercessor for God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for all: the testimony of His times. The particle: “bo” – connects this speech with the previous one, as a reason. What exactly does she refer to in this power? It can be attributed to what is immediately ahead: “to come to the knowledge of the truth”, - like this: God wants everyone to be saved through the knowledge of the truth, namely that salvation is in the Lord Jesus, and only in Him, because there is no other way to salvation. Just as there is one God, so there is one mediator between God and people. People, in Adam, fell away from God, in Whom their life is, - they fell away and sunk into the realm of death. It was up to them either to remain forever in this death, or to open the way to reunification with God, without Whom the power of death could not be stopped and their life could not take its true order. However, neither they themselves nor any other creature, even the highest, had the power to open and arrange this; then God’s boundless love for man interceded for them. The Council of God decided to incarnate, in order to rescue people from their extreme misfortune, the Only Begotten Son of God, without separating from the bosom of the Father, so that, having died in the flesh, destroy the power of death and, having revived human nature in himself by resurrection, become a living connector of people with God. The Son of God came to earth, became incarnate, suffered, died on the cross, was resurrected, ascended into heaven - and sits at the right hand of God the Father, with human nature, which, thus in His Person, being united with His Divinity, remains united with God the Father, with whom He never ceased to be one. Then those who believe in Him and are united with Him mysteriously become one with Him and through Him are united with God; as He Himself testified, speaking to His disciples: “I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (John 14:20). There is no other way to reunification with God, in which (reunion) is salvation. “No one will come to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6), says the Lord. “The Apostle here says as he said in another place: “There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6)” (St. Chrysostom). There is no other intermediary and there cannot be. Just as there is one God, so there is one mediator between God and people. Don’t look for anything else, and if someone offers to point him out to you, don’t follow him. Consequently, there is no other salvation - except in living union with the Lord Jesus. It is this truth that God, who wants to save everyone, wants to know, to know, to accept, and through it to achieve salvation. The intercessor, μεσιτης, is not a word of intercession speaking in defense, but in fact standing in the middle and uniting those who are mediated, is a connector, “who has united in himself what is separated” (Blessed Theodoret), and a living connector. This is His essence. Since, saying: “there is one God” - and: “one intercessor” - the Apostle only meant to show that there is no other salvation, as in the Lord Jesus - just as there is one God, so there is one mediator between God and people; then all other questions that may arise at the same time can be avoided without prejudice to the understanding of the words of the Apostle. It is permissible, however, to think with them that when it is said: “there is one God,” this is said not to the detriment of the truth of the Trinitarian God, but to show that the incarnation of the one Person of the Trinitarian God did not give rise to any division in the One nature of God. The incarnate Son did not stand outside of God, as the word “mediator” might suggest: for in the mediator between God and men there is God from God and man from man. Having become so through the incarnation, the Son did not become outside the Father; but he received, accomplished and holds the incarnate mediation, without leaving the bosom of the Father. Arranged for the sake of our salvation, this mediation did not divide God. God and with him is One. Likewise, when it is said: “there is one mediator,” it is said not to the detriment of the truth of the two natures in the mediator, but to show that the two natures in Him do not make two mediators. And with two natures He is one. As a mediator, He is God from God and man from man; but there is one Person - the Son of God incarnate. Ecumenius writes: “since he had to be a mediator between God and man, he had to be involved in both of them in order to be able to mediate between them; then the Son of God, the eternal Word, came (to us to earth) incarnate, being thus from two natures, Divinity and humanity, but after their union, thought and worshiped in one Hypostasis.” Why, when after this it is said: “the man Christ Jesus,” this does not affirm the unity of nature in Him, it does not affirm that He is only a man and not God, but it only shows how He became a mediator; He became a mediator through His incarnation. So Blessed Theodoret: “The Apostle called Christ Jesus a man; because he called him a mediator, and Christ became man as a mediator.” Therefore, the word: “man” can be understood as “one who became man,” as well as: one mediator who became man, meaning the Son of God, called Christ Jesus. Our interpreters mainly focus their words on clarifying the meaning of mediation. Blessed Theodoret writes: “just as someone who intends to reconcile any two persons bickering with each other, standing in the middle of them and holding one with his right hand and the other with his left, brings them into friendship: so Christ, having united humanity with the Divine nature, established an indestructible and indissoluble peace. And if Christ, according to the teachings of Arius and Eunomius, is not involved in the essence of the Father, then what kind of mediator is He? He will be united with us (in this case), since in humanity he is consubstantial with us; but he will not have unity with the Father if, as they teach, He is separated from God’s nature. But the Divine Apostle called Him a mediator, therefore, being in unity both with the Father in Divinity and with us in humanity.” Saint Chrysostom says: “a mediator must communicate to both parties in relation to whom he is a mediator; for it is characteristic of a mediator, having what belongs to both parties for whom there is a mediator, to bring them into mutual communication. If he has what belongs to one side, but is separated from the other, then in that case he is not a mediator at all. Consequently, if Christ Jesus is not involved in the nature of the Father, then He is not a mediator, but is separated from Him. Why do we admit that just as He became a partaker of human nature, because He came to people, so He is a partaker of the Divine nature, because He came from God. Since two natures were united through Him, He had to be close to both natures. For just as any place occupying the middle (between two localities) touches each of them; so he who unites two natures must be a partaker of both natures. Consequently, Christ Jesus, just as he became man, was also God. Being only a man, He would not have become a mediator; because He had to (Divinely) converse with God. Likewise, being only God, He would not be a mediator; because those (Ecumenius: they would not have taken Him down. Better: He could not represent the faces of those) for whom He serves as a mediator would not have accepted Him.” “Having given himself redemption for all.” – “Deliverance”, αντιλυτρον, – ransom. Mediation was not easy; It consisted not only in intercessory words, but also in deeds and required sacrifice. This is according to the condition of those for whom the intermediary has accepted the petition. The latter fell away from God through sin and were under the wrath of God for the guilt of sin; because of sin they were subject to the tyranny of Satan, and through both, to death. God has deigned to be reconciled with those who have fallen away; but in order for those who had fallen away to rise to the ability to enter into reconciliation, it was necessary to free them from all the bonds that kept them in low slavery - namely, the angry truth of God, sin, the devil, death. The mediator took it upon himself to do this, bearing without guilt what lay with the guilty intermediaries. Having become incarnate, He took upon Himself human nature, pure and sinless, and, having given Himself over to death on the cross, He thereby satisfied the truth of God; God's satisfied truth opened the gates to the outpouring of mercy and grace on the guilty - who, being accepted into mercy and sanctified by grace, crush the bonds of sin, and through this overthrow the bonds of slavery to the devil; thus they finally become sons of the resurrection, over whom death has no power. In this way, a ransom is made to all together, and the sacrament of mediation comes into force. The root and beginning of everything is that the incarnate Son of God, as a mediator, gave Himself up, gave Himself up to death on the cross. This is why the Apostle combines the whole matter of mediation in this one thing: “giving Himself deliverance.” Blessed Theodoret writes: “When everyone was under the dominion of death, Christ was not subject to death, both as God, because he had an immortal nature, and as a man, because he did not commit the sin that caused death. But He gave Himself up (to death) as a kind of redemption price, and freed everyone from the slavery of death.” Let us note here by the way: wasn’t it because the Apostle also said earlier about the mediator - that He is “the man Christ Jesus” - that he had to say after this: “who gave Himself deliverance”? For in order to make such a sacrifice, He had to take what to offer, namely humanity, and become a man. “It is necessary for Him to have what He will bring” (Heb. 8:3), says the Apostle in another place. What is this? Flesh and blood. “From now on... the children have partaken of flesh and blood, and He sincerely partook of the same, so that by death he will abolish the possessing power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver these, who are born through the fear of death... do the work of God" (Heb. 2:14, 15). "Testimony of one's times". These are subordinate words. And it is difficult to determine what thought the Apostle had in this regard. Let's put these words in relation to the previous one. The Son of God, having become incarnate to mediate between God and people, gave Himself up to death as a ransom for all - all, not only Jews, but also pagans. This work of the boundless love for us of God the Father, who betrayed the Son, and God the Son, who betrayed Himself, is evidence. What? The fact that “God wants everyone to be saved and to come to the understanding of truth” - not only for Jews, but also for pagans. Why do you, the faithful, when you pray for the unfaithful pagans, do something pleasing to God, because by doing so you contribute to the fulfillment of what God desires, that is, the salvation of everyone, including the pagans. And that this is the direct desire of God is clear from the fact that the mediation He established between Himself and people embraces all people, and that the mediator, having given Himself up to death, gave up all people for redemption without distinction or exception. St. Chrysostom sees such a train of thought in the Apostle: “giving Himself deliverance for all.” So, tell me, what about the pagans? Yes. “And, despite the fact that Christ died for the pagans, won’t you agree to pray for them?” So why, you say, did they not believe? Because they didn’t want to (I said above: because the universe has not yet reached the truth), but everything was done on His part. His suffering testifies to this, he says.” “It was destined for all, including the pagans, to be saved from time immemorial.” This is God’s eternal will; but evidence of this was given in its own time: “in its own times”, - that is, “at the appropriate or due time” (St. Chrysostom), “when people have already become capable of believing” (Ecumenius), - “at the times destined and predetermined by the blessed Trinity” (Clement in Ecumenius). This testimony, revealed in due time, is the very foundation of this salvation of all. This expresses the same thing that we read in the Epistle to the Galatians: “When the end of the year had come, God sent His Son... that He might redeem those under the law” (Gal. 4:4, 5). “It is entrusted to me to interpret and disseminate this testimony,” the Apostle further says. ββ) This is confirmed by the appointment of the Apostle himself to call the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7) 1 Tim. 2:7. I was appointed as a preacher and apostle, I speak the truth about Christ, I do not lie, a teacher of languages ​​in faith and truth. “In tenderness” - as a testimony. The testimony before this was determined as evidence that God wants everyone, including the pagans, to be saved. This testimony is given by the fact that the Son of God incarnate became a mediator between God and people - for all people - and that He gave Himself up to death for the deliverance of all people - including the pagans. I am appointed to interpret and spread this testimony everywhere, says the Apostle; deliberately placed, in which setting you should see new confirmation that God wants everyone, including the pagans, to be saved. For, having created a wondrous image of the salvation of all in the incarnate economy - in the death of the Incarnate on the cross - he did not allow him to be in the unknown, but chose a special preacher about him and sent him into the whole universe to teach the pagans to believe in this. Saint Chrysostom sees precisely this motivation in the Apostle, why he remembers his appointment. “The Apostle,” he says, “said of himself that he was chosen as a teacher of languages, hinting that grace was now spread throughout the universe.” He also puts this suggestion in connection with the commandment to pray for the pagans: “since Christ suffered for the pagans and I was chosen as a teacher of languages, why don’t you pray for them? Do you see the grace poured out abundantly? For among the Jews there were no prayers offered for them, but now grace has been extended to them also.” In the words: “preacher, apostle, teacher,” our interpreters notice a certain gradualness, although it was one thing. Blessed Theophylact writes: “I was assigned to this testimony as a preacher to preach about it, that is, about the cross and death of Christ the Lord. And he was appointed not just as a preacher to preach in one place, but also as an Apostle - a messenger - to go around preaching everywhere.” Ekumeny supplements this: “since one can preach in passing, he added: “teacher”; I, he says, was not content with just one sermon to say, but I taught relentlessly until I taught. This is how I showed God’s special care for the pagans.” Why did the Apostle insert into his speech about his appointment the words confirming this: “I speak the truth about Christ, I do not lie”? Saint Timothy was the favorite disciple of Saint Paul and knew everything; therefore, to confirm this, there was no need to say so. But the Apostle could say this with the implication: as you know; and to say for the same reason why people who live in perfect harmony sometimes retell to each other what they know and what they have already retold several times, because it is pleasant to remember and retell it. But it can also be assumed that the Apostle, writing this, had in mind the Ephesians, from whom Saint Timothy, of course, should not have hidden the Epistles. But to the Ephesians it was not superfluous to say this: for not all of them believed, and of those who believed, not all were converted by Saint Paul, but many believed after him. For such, these words placed the stamp of Divine authority: for some, on already believed truths, and for others, on those proposed for belief. – It is not superfluous to note that this certification does not refer to the fact that Saint Paul was ordained an Apostle in general, but that he was ordained to be an Apostle and teacher specifically of the pagans. This could not but be pleasant and attractive to the pagans, of whom the Church of Ephesus predominantly consisted, and could not but have a calming effect on their faith, in which, having calmed down, they could not hesitate to resist the doubts brought in from outside, from the pagan superstition widespread in Ephesus. The words: “in faith and truth” - indicate either the subject of preaching and teaching: I am a teacher of languages, appointed to teach them faith and truth (Ambrosiastes); or on the nature of the teaching: I teach not to speculate, but to believe, and I do not prove my teaching by speculating, but I offer it to faith, certifying that it is true. “I preach, not armed with syllogisms or logical proofs, and not clothing my teaching in rhetorical cunning, but I offer it to faith. But so that no one would think that there was some kind of delusion offered to believe, he added: “in truth.” Although I offer faith, what is proposed is true. Although what is taught is taught in faith, it is taught in truth. And those who are capable of faith believe: this proves the power of preaching” (from St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact, Ecumenia periphrases). Blessed Theodoret writes: “I have been appointed preacher and apostle of this sacrament (that is, the salvation of all by the death of the Lord on the cross), says Paul, and with due faith and truth I offer it to everyone; because I confirm the words by working miracles.” The idea is the same as stated above, with some nuance - that the teaching is not only correct and true, but also certifying: I also present certifying documents. b) What rules should be maintained in church meetings (1 Tim. 2:8–15) The entire word of the Apostle is addressed here to: bb) the ordering of wives (1 Tim. 2:9-15); only one text is given for: aa) a general outline of church prayers, from the outside and inside (verse 8). aa) General outline of church prayers (1 Tim. 2:8) 1 Tim. 2:8. I want men to say prayers in every place, raising their holy hands without anger or reflection. They gathered for prayer not in one place, but in several; in every such place, the Apostle commands men to say prayers or correct divine services, but let wives listen and pray in silence; but at the same time, all those praying must be blameless, have a clear conscience, not harbor displeasure against others and not harbor doubts that God will not hear. This is the general outline of church prayers. “I want it.” The Apostle wants with an Apostolic will, equivalent to a statute. “Ubo” - connects the beginning speech with the previous one, and specifically with the first verses of this chapter (1-2). There it is commanded to pray for everyone, to which it was necessary to add clarifying provisions (3-7). Now he returns again to the instructions on prayer and says: in general, perform Church prayers this way and that way. “I want, but men say prayers.” Gathering together, they sang the psalms of the prophet David and new songs, composed according to the movement of the Spirit, in honor of the Most Holy Trinity, Christ the Lord, His death and resurrection, and about other Christian sacraments. Other prayers were read aloud to everyone, mostly from those already in use, and sometimes new ones, about which, however, it should be noted that, after the unrest in the Corinthian Church, they were not allowed without the knowledge and permission of the primates of the Church. All such prayers, read and sung in the general meeting of the faithful, must, says the Apostle, be performed by men. Men, of course, not all those gathered, and not everyone in a row. For the gifts were different, and it was obligatory for those who received the gifts to use the gift received for the good of the Church (1 Pet. 4:10), but not to take on a task for which they had not received the gift. Why is it necessary to believe that the prayers in the assembly of the faithful were performed by men who received the gift for this? How were they designated? Those who were inclined to read and say prayers were noticeable to everyone. They entrusted themselves with the company of the faithful to perform prayers, and some entered into the work by prayerful consecration, and others by sacramental ordination. Both of them constituted the clergy. Saint Paul had the custom of introducing it wherever he founded the Churches of Christ (Acts 14:23). He probably also means “men”. Every meeting of the faithful in Ephesus, of course, had its own celebrant of the mysteries - a primate - and its own prayer books. The word is about them - so that they say prayers, and others do not arbitrarily interfere in this matter; Otherwise, everything in the Church cannot go well and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). What it says: “in every place” does not have much meaning in this prescription; for the Apostle’s concern is not about the place of prayer, but about “how to pray” (St. Chrysostom). These words, however, lead to some extraneous considerations. There were no churches yet; they gathered for prayer in houses that some lovers of God had dedicated to this holy cause. When one house could not accommodate all the believers in a city or village, another, a third, and so on were appointed. So in Ephesus there was more than one house. The Apostle prescribes: in every place where believers gather for prayer, “men” should say the prayer, meaning certain men, τους ανδρας. - “In every place.” Thus the prophecy of the Lord was fulfilled: “the hour is coming, when neither in this mountain” (Samaritan), “nor in Jerusalem will they worship the Father” (John 4:21) - and the prophetic vision: “in every place incense is offered to My name and the sacrifice is pure” (Mal. 1:11). The Jews had one place for worship; they were not allowed in another place to offer sacrifices to God. “The Apostle introduces regulations contrary to this and, freeing us from this necessity, says that our customs are not the same as those of the Jews. For, just as he commands to offer prayers for everyone, because Christ died for everyone, and for everyone, he says, I preach in the same way for us to pray everywhere” (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret). "Lifting the venerable hands". “It was common for the priests of the Old Testament to raise their hands and pray” (Blessed Theodoret). The Apostle commands Christian men who correct public worship to do the same. But the Apostolic tradition is, as St. Basil the Great says, for Christians, when performing prayers, to make the sign of the cross on themselves. Our worship combines both: the raising of hands and the sign of the cross, accompanied by bows from the waist and to the ground. The raising of hands lifts the mind to God, and the sign of the cross shows the path of ascent to God: for the door of approaching God is the cross of Christ. But the Apostle pays attention not so much to appearance as to the state of the soul; Why didn’t he just say: “lifting up his hands”, instead of: “venerable hands”, that is, not stained by any vice? Saint Chrysostom says: “What does “venerable” mean? Clean. What does it mean: clean? Of course, not washed with water, but clean from covetousness, murder, theft, and wounding.” Blessed Theodoret expresses the same thing this way: “The Apostle commands us to do this (raise our hands) “in a reverent way,” that is, freed from all untruth and from all lawlessness,” or “cleansing them with alms” (Ecumenius), “which would flow out of them like water flowing from a spring” (Blessed Theophylact). So this word requires us to begin prayer with a clear conscience and a pure heart. “For hands are only reverent and holy when the heart is pure” (Ambrosiastes). "Without anger and reflection". In a state of anger it is impossible to pray. “And during prayer, does anyone get angry?” (Saint Chrysostom). But you can also remember evil during prayer; because this feeling is quiet and secretive. When there is prayer at the top, resentment may be secretly lurking below. All of our interpreters mean memory malice here. “Let the soul of the one praying be pure and free from all passion, let no one approach God with enmity, let no one approach God with indignation” (St. Chrysostom). “This is how the Lord also legalized: “If you come to bring your gift to the altar and remember that one, as your brother has something for you: leave your gift before the altar and go ... humble yourself with your brother, and then come and bring your gift” (Matthew 5:23, 24)” (Blessed Theodoret). And again: “Whenever you stand praying, let go, if you have anything against anyone” (Mark 11:25) (St. Chrysostom). “So, the Apostle teaches that in prayer we must be peaceful in spirit if we want it to bear fruit” (Ambrosiastes). “Without thinking”, χωρις διαλογισμου, - without thinking, without hesitation in thoughts, whether God will hear. To those who ask for something, Saint James prayerfully instructs: “let him ask with faith, without hesitating: if you doubt, you will become like the turbulence of the sea, tossed and tossed by the winds. Let him not imagine that he will receive anything from God” (James 1:6, 7). This is what all our interpreters understand. Saint Chrysostom: “What does it mean: “without thinking”? Let's listen. This means that there is no need to doubt at all that we will be heard. For the Lord says: “If you ask... if you believe, you will receive” (Matthew 21:22).” Theodoret: “without thinking” means: without a doubt, believing that you will certainly receive what you ask.” Ecumenius: ““without thinking” - that is, without thinking, will God hear me? Is it not in vain, is it not in vain that I pray? For we must be sure that God will hear if we ask Him for what is dear to Him, pure beings.” Theophylact: The Apostle called doubt “meditation” and teaches that the one praying should pray without doubt and hesitation in thoughts whether he will receive or not receive what he asks for; If only I would ask for what is in accordance with the will of God, spiritually, and without anger and with clean hands.” “If you start this way, then in any case you will receive what you ask for. For “if you, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him” (Matthew 7:11)” (St. Chrysostom). bb) Ordering of wives (1 Tim. 2:9–15) Having made such a general outline of order in church prayers, the Apostle then deals with how women should behave in these meetings. This item probably required special attention due to some malfunctions that had crept in. And these malfunctions, of course, gave the Apostle a reason: a) to prescribe what he prescribed. Namely: αα) to pray in the same spirit as men (verse 9); ββ) appear in meetings in decent clothes (verse 9), - taking care: γγ) adorn yourself not with magnificent outfits, but with good deeds (verses 9–10); δδ) do not interfere in the matter of teaching and generally be in subordination towards men (verses 11-12). Since the last suggestion might not seem entirely pleasant, the Apostle: β) softens it: αα) setting forth the reasons why it should be this way and not otherwise (verses 13-14), and: ββ) comforting the wives that the door of salvation is open to them too (verse 15). α) Precepts (1 Tim. 2:9–12) 1 Tim. 2:9, 10. In the same way, let wives adorn themselves with molded ornaments, with shame and chastity, not with wickerwork, or gold, or beads, or costly vestments, but, as befits wives who promise piety, with good deeds. αα) Pray in the same spirit as men (1 Tim. 2:9) “In the same way” shows that the Apostle continues to teach about order in prayer meetings. Why, although he does not say that he wants wives to pray in the same way, he makes it clear that this is his desire. He wants wives to pray without anger and reflection and having a clear conscience, not stained by any vice. Saint Chrysostom says: “In the same way, he says, I want women to approach God without anger and without reflection, having holy hands, not defiled by greed and robbery, and not following their lusts.” So is Theophylact and Ecumenium. If we do not understand this desire of the Apostle here, then the speech of verses 9 and 10 will move away from the general content of this section (1 Tim. 2:8-15), it will all be only about how women dress. Whereas, recognizing that the Apostle had in mind mainly to give a lesson about prayer, the discussion about the attire of wives will only be additional, showing how women should dress when they come to meetings for prayer. ββ) Appear at meetings in decent clothing (1 Tim. 2:9) They must appear “decorated with moldings, with shame and chastity.” Saint Chrysostom, having said how women should pray like men, adds: “however, Saint Paul demands something even more from women. What exactly? So that they come to pray to God “in stucco decoration.” What does he call molded decoration? A dress that would cover them decently on all sides was decent, but not refined; for the former is decent, but the latter is not considered decent.” “Ornament”, καταστολη, is clothing that goes down to the toes, covering the entire body, and in general an outfit, but modest and humble; which is also indicated by: “sculpted”, κοσμιος, - beautiful, but in decency and decency to the person, place, surrounding, therefore, excluding any panache. The Apostle demands that women come to meetings for prayer “in decent clothes, but not ostentatious, so as to attract the eyes of those watching” (Ecumenius); “so that the very clothing shows the honesty of the soul” (Blessed Theodoret). The words: “with shame and chastity” indicate the form of clothing or cut, demanding that they do not violate the modesty characteristic of the female sex, and the chastity with which they should adorn themselves everywhere. But you can expand the meaning of these words by enclosing under them - gait, movement, expression, gaze, standing and bow; because all this can bear the stamp of modesty and chastity and, on the contrary, expose their absence, which is reproachful for wives. Ambrosiastes writes: “The Apostle exhorts women to pray, holding themselves in a humble position (and attire), and not proudly. Whoever wants to be heard must bow his head, throwing away all pomp, in order to attract God’s mercy. A proud position does not beg for what is asked and makes one think unkindly about the one asking. Which prudent person does not turn away from a woman richly and proudly adorned? Doesn’t God turn away from it all the more when he sees that the body, which He created free, is tied up and burdened with metals?” γγ) Adorn yourself with good works (1 Tim. 2:9, 10) “Let them decorate for themselves.” Having supplemented the speech after: “in this way” - with the words: “I want them to pray” - and referring to the external image of the prayer: “in molded decoration, with shame and chastity”, - if necessary, one should further read: “and let them adorn themselves.” This is a general lesson that extends beyond the walls of the prayer meeting. Women cannot avoid decorating themselves, and an obligation cannot be imposed on them: do not decorate yourself; but the tendency to decoration can be transferred from empty decorations to meaningful and essentially valuable ones. This is what the Apostle does here. Let women adorn themselves, he says, “not with braids,” not with smart braiding of hair, as St. Peter directly said (1 Pet. 3:3), not with “gold,” but with something made of gold, just as hitherto in the East women hang around themselves with gold coins, “or beads,” in earrings and necklaces, “or costly vestments,” with dresses made of expensive materials, as the Savior said of a rich man: “clothed in purple and fine linen” (Lk. 16:19), - they should not adorn themselves with anything like that, because all this is here today, but not tomorrow; but let them adorn themselves with what is indestructible and what is of great value not only before people, but also before God, not only in time, but also in eternity, namely: “good deeds,” all kinds of good deeds: almsgiving, hospitality, going after the sick, voluntary and humble service in all things, good management of household chores, prayers, fasting, reverence - and this is so constant, so that such virtues constituted their distinctive character and so that when one of the wives enters the congregation, those looking at it would think: here is a almswoman, here is a stranger, here is a compassionate one, here is a servant, here is a prayer book, here is a faster, here is a reverent woman, and the like, and not as they think when dresswomen enter: what diamonds and the like. The motivation for this is St. Paul’s vow to be pious: “the same becomes for women who promise piety.” What kind of vow is this, of course? It must be assumed that it is not a private one, as, for example, deaconesses probably imposed on themselves, but a general one, which occurs when approaching faith in the Lord and is publicly pronounced at baptism. Here an obligation is taken on those who are baptized, and a vow is given to those who are baptized: having renounced ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live otherwise godly, chaste and righteous lives (Titus 2:12). The Apostle reminds us of this, making it clear that after such a vow it is not appropriate to decorate oneself with empty decorations, and not with good deeds, as is proper. “You,” he says, “promise (in baptism) piety and virtue” (Blessed Theodoret). “It is proper for Christian wives to adorn themselves with them when they come to honor the true God” (Blessed Theophylact). “But a woman who enters the house of God with pomp does not enter it for God, but for people, so that she may be glorified by them; for which he receives nothing from God except reproach. The more brilliant it appears to people, the more despicable it becomes before God” (Ambrosiastes). Saint Chrysostom at the same time extends a strong word of reproof to the women-dressers. “You come to pray to God, but meanwhile you surround yourself with gold jewelry and headdresses. After all, you did not come to dance, nor to take part in a wedding celebration, nor to appear among the solemn procession. Gold jewelry is appropriate there, hats there, expensive dresses there. But here none of this is needed. You came to ask, to pray for your sins, to offer prayer for your sins, to beg the Lord to incline Him to mercy. Why are you decorating yourself? This outfit is not suitable for one who prays. How can you sigh? How can you cry? How can you pray hard while wearing such an outfit? Even if you cry, your tears will seem worthy of laughter to the one who sees them; because a woman who weeps should not wear gold. Her cry will be hypocrisy and pretense. And in fact, how is it not hypocrisy when the same soul from which this vain pomp in clothes was born is the same one that sheds tears? Remove this pretense from yourself: for God cannot be mocked. This is typical of actors and dancers who spend their days on stage; but all this is indecent for an honest woman. – The Apostle commands you to dress modestly, “with shame and chastity.” Therefore, do not imitate harlots who attract lovers to themselves through such attire. - Note that the Apostle, speaking about modesty in clothes, expels from them even that which serves only as a sign of wealth - gold, beads, valuable vestments. But if this is so, then should not that which serves as a sign of mere empty vanity be much more banished - rubbing, tinting the eyelids, an affected gait, an effeminate voice, a moist look and full of all sorts of fornication, the sophistication with which they throw a veil over themselves or put on a dress, a most skilfully designed belt, or elaborate shoes. He points to all this by saying: “in honest decoration,” as well as with the words: “with shame and chastity.” - Be, I beg you, lenient with me; because my word does not contain such a sharp denunciation for the purpose of hurting or saddening you, but in order to remove everything that is foreign from my flock.” δδ) Do not interfere in the matter of teaching and be submissive to men (1 Tim. 2:11, 12) 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Let a wife learn in silence with all submissiveness: but I do not command a wife to teach, lower than to rule over her husband, but to be in silence. In church meetings, teachings were combined with prayer. The Apostle forbids wives to do both in church. Pray, pray: then she came; and performing prayer is not your business. Equally study, study, but do not dare to take on this matter yourself, do not even dare to ask questions, as it is said in another Epistle (1 Cor. 14:35). Study silently - in “silence”, and do this work “with all submission”: by which we mean either submission to this law of silence in the church, or submission to the teaching that is proposed by certain men. In the first respect, it is necessary to tame the urge to talkativeness, in the second, the passion for questioning (the Apostle made an exception for this passion in the Epistle to the Corinthians, saying: let husbands be questioned at home). Both are feats; but conquer yourself. Both the way to this and the evidence of this is silence. “Blessed Paul demands great modesty from women, great sedateness. Therefore, he pays attention not only to their appearance and clothing, but also to their voice. What exactly is he saying? “Let the wife learn in silence.” What does it mean? What he says a wife should not say in church; He said the same thing in his Epistle to the Corinthians: “It is shameful... for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:35). He says that a wife should be so silent that she should not speak in church not only about everyday things, but also about spiritual things. This is decency for her, this is modesty, this can decorate her more than any clothing. If she behaves in this way, then she will be able to perform prayers with all decency” (St. Chrysostom). “I do not command a woman to teach,” ουκ επιτρεπω; more than I do not give permission, but in the same force, as we say: not commanded, absolutely forbidden, “I forbid.” It's in the church; At home, they can both question their husbands and, if necessary, teach their children, for example, unfaithful husbands and others who do not believe quite correctly. Blessed Theophylact writes: “know, however, that the Apostle does not generally forbid wives to teach, but only in the Church; and outside the church this is not forbidden to her. Thus Priscilla (together with Aquila) proclaimed the sound teaching of Apollos; so a faithful wife is not prohibited from denouncing her unfaithful husband”; “They were even commanded to teach children” (Ecumenius). - “It is lower to own a husband” - also of course here: in the church, although such a rule also has a general meaning. “Own”, αυθεντειν, - to be the mistress of a husband, to treat him as a servant, to command him. Just as by wife here we mean a woman in general, so by husband we mean a man in general, and not the husband of the one who would decide to control the teaching in the church. The Apostle’s thought is that no woman in the church should allow herself to control the teaching in the church, should not shout to those appointed to teach: don’t say this, don’t touch that, but talk about this and that and the like, much less demand: be silent, I will speak; but to be “in silence”, to sit silently and quietly, without speaking or moving. What is the reason for such a prescription? Blessed Theophylact writes: “since women have also been granted prophetic grace, then, out of necessity, he sets a law about this and does not appoint women as teachers in the church.” - This gives a hint that, probably, the learned Ephesians, like the Corinthians before, and without the gift of prophecy, but guided by learning alone, acted as teachers in the church and at the same time made mistakes in their teaching. In order to stop the harm that could result from this, the Apostle completely forbade wives to speak in church. But Saint Chrysostom gives the reason for this commandment as the Apostle’s desire to stop the talkativeness characteristic of wives: let them speak, and they will make such a noise that you will not meet in the market place. “The Apostle, wanting to take away from them any reason for conversation, said: let them not teach, but let them behave in a manner befitting students. In this way they will show submission. In general, their race is eloquent; why the Apostle is trying by all means to curb them.” β) The Apostle softens the suggestion (1 Tim. 2:13–15) Not only here, but throughout Scripture, it is said that women are to be in a subordinate relationship. This is already the order of their nature - “nature itself demands this” (Blessed Theodoret). The Apostle lays out this order of nature here as the basis for his prescription, deriving it from the history of the creation of husband and wife. But he is not content with this, but also provides guidance from the history of the fall. αα) Grounds for submission (1 Tim. 2:13, 14) 1 Tim. 2:13. Adam was created first, then Eve. Just as a wife was created after her husband, she must always be behind him. For this pre-creation shows that the husband has something superior in his nature. The wife is made from one part of the husband; why, naturally, not everything is to the same extent as the husband is. From the side of her husband was taken that from which she was created, so that she would always be near her husband, at his side, like an assistant, and not like a mistress. “The Apostle prefers the husband to the wife, because he was created first: so that the wife should be lower than the husband, because she was created after the husband and from the husband” (Ambrosiastes). “He says, as it were: the male sex is endowed with a great advantage, as previously created. And in another place he puts it even higher when he says: “The husband was not created for the sake of a woman, but the wife for the sake of a husband” (1 Cor. 11:9)” (St. Chrysostom). “Because,” he says, “in creation itself the male race was awarded primacy, and Eve was created second; then after this all secondary wives should have places after their husbands and submit to them. For the power of what was then done in relation to Adam and Eve extends to the entire male and female race” (Blessed Theophylact). 1 Tim. 2:14. And Adam was not deceived, but the wife, being deceived, was quick to commit a crime. In addition to the order of nature indicated by the image of the creation of husband and wife, the Apostle also sets forth as the basis for the wife’s subordination to her husband the fact that in the fall she was the first to be deceived and deceived Adam; for which she was awarded: “Your appeal is to your husband” (Gen. 3:16). According to creation, although she is the second, she is honored with a certain equality of honor to her husband; and in the fall she lost it. Why is the submission of a wife to her husband like a penance imposed on her for seducing the primordial matter of the forefather Adam. In Eve, the entire female race became guilty of this - and this is not by imputation alone, but because it inherited Eve’s very work - to deceive the male race; which until now he does not do by chance, but according to the urge to please and seduce that is constantly operating within him. In order to diminish the evil that results from this inclination, the wife is subordinate to her husband. Saint Chrysostom applies this to the previous speech to wives, but do not teach. “My wife took it upon herself to teach,” he says, “and she distorted everything, which clearly showed that she was unfit to be a teacher.” He says: “Why does the Apostle say this (“Adam was not deceived” and so on)? In order to give primacy to the husband for many reasons. For, he says, a man should have primacy, firstly, because he was first created, and secondly, on the basis of what happened later. A wife once taught, and overthrew everything, and made him guilty of disobedience. This is why God subjugated her because she used power or, better said, equality for evil. “Your address is to your husband,” it is said; and before this event this was not said. – Adam violated the commandment not because he was carried away by passion, but only by obeying his wife. So - my wife once taught and overthrew everything. That is why the Apostle said: let him not teach.” - But how was Adam not deceived? Hasn't he sinned? Sinned; but in a different way than the wife. The wife was seduced by the words of the serpent, or the devil, who spoke with the tongue of the serpent, and ate the forbidden fruit, and Adam ate it, obeying his wife. If the enemy had turned to him, perhaps Adam would not have been seduced by his words, but would have seen the lies and destructive deception hidden beneath them, and there would have been no fall. But the enemy easily seduced the wife, and she seduced her husband, and the fall took place. Thus she turned out to be easily seduced. “This race is easy, easy to accept, easy to deceive” (Blessed Theophylact). Why the word of the Apostle: “Adam was not deceived” can be understood as the history of the fall makes it clear: Adam was not deceived by the devil. So Ambrosiast: “the devil deceived not the husband, but the wife; The husband was driven by his wife to a crime: for which one should not give her any concessions, but should keep her in a seditious position.” Saint Chrysostom also believes that Adam is called undeceived in comparison with his wife. To the question: how was Adam not deceived? - he answers: “Listen carefully. The wife says: “The serpent deceived me” (Gen. 3:13); meanwhile, Adam does not say: the wife deceived me, but: “that mi dade and poison” (Gen. 3:12) (this is the same as in Ambrosiastes). - Moreover, it does not mean the same thing to be deceived by one of the same tribe and related to oneself and to be deceived by a beast, a slave, a subordinate: the latter, in fact, is deception. So, only in comparison with his wife does the Apostle say about him that he was not deceived; because she was deceived by a slave and a subject, and he by a free woman. Again, it is not said about Adam: “and saw that the tree was good for food” (Gen. 3:6), but about the wife: and what she ate and gave to her husband.” Blessed Theodoret interprets it this way. The Apostle said this “not to be deceived” instead: “not the first to be deceived” - and in this he followed Scripture. For the wife, when a report was demanded from her, said: “The serpent deceived me, and I was poisoned”; Adam does not say this, but: “Woman, even as you gave with me, you gave to me from the tree, and it died” (Gen. 3:12, 13). And Eve, having obeyed the serpent, has no excuse; It serves as a small excuse for Adam that, having been seduced by his wife, he did not pick the fruit from the tree himself, but the wife, who was the first to taste it, gave it to her husband. That is why the Apostle said: “Adam will not be deceived.” ββ) Comfort of women (1 Tim. 2:15) 1 Tim. 2:15. He will be saved for the sake of childbearing, if he remains in faith and love and in holiness with chastity. Having thus burdened the wife with guilt and, as a result, a subordinate position relative to her husband, the Apostle consoles her with the fact that everything said does not close the door of salvation before her: “she will be saved.” According to the grammatical structure, this speech refers to Eve; but in meaning it embraces the entire female gender. The foremother sinned and for this she fell under God's punishment. But just as it pleased the merciful God to arrange a wondrous image of salvation for the fallen, then salvation was revealed to her, and in her person to the entire female race. Every wife, says the Apostle, will be saved. How? For women - not special conditions of salvation, but the same ones that are defined for humanity in general: faith and love - “if he continues in faith and love”: “in faith” in the Lord Savior, about Whom the first wife heard the gospel, indicated in the future seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15); “in love” for God and neighbors, the parent, nourisher and supporter of all virtues. What the Apostle added to this: “and in holy places with chastity” is not any peculiarity in the conditions of salvation, but is only the outer or visible vestment of the saving female soul, believing and loving. “Holiness” - for the Apostle, means a holy and righteous life in general, and especially bodily sanctity, purity from carnal lusts and sins. In the present place, the general female holiness is already indicated in faith and love; therefore, by shrine one can only understand a special shrine - purity, in which sense it will be identical with chastity. The difference between them can only be such that shrine is taken for fidelity to the marriage bed or marital purity of body and soul, and chastity for sharing the marriage bed with the husband, not for the sake of lust, but out of obedience to the law of nature, given by God, with the intention of dedicating the fruits of this to the glory of God. Blessed Theophylact writes: “By: “holy” - the Apostle means the purity of the body. But since not everyone is a virgin, he added: “with chastity.” For chastity is not denied to those who legally enjoy marriage.” There is also pure marital chastity - when married life is spent sober, and not in lustful pleasures. The Apostle used both of these words to show more clearly how a wife saving her soul should apparently differ. This is how Blessed Theodoret indicates the conditions for the salvation of wives. “If they want,” he writes, “they will not only not suffer any harm from Eve, but will also gain very great benefit through their faith and love, preserving sanctity and chastity.” He does not touch upon the question of why the Apostle said: “for the sake of childbearing he will be saved.” What kind of salvation from childbearing is that is decided by our other interpreters. It goes without saying that childbearing in itself cannot bring salvation, like any other natural thing - food, drink, sleep. But just as food, drink and sleep can be used in such a way that they will either promote or harm salvation, so can childbearing. How can childbearing be turned into an aid to salvation? One could say this: childbearing is given to the nature of the primordial couple, and, as a matter of nature, it should happen not only easily, but also pleasantly. But the fall came and brought the nature of illness into this matter: “in sickness you give birth to children” (Gen. 3:16). Illness is a punishment, a natural penance for wives. If now a wife, suffering from the diseases of birth, endures them in this very sense, that is, as a punishment reminding of sin and calling for repentance, then her childbearing will occur in the order of salvation. – But this alone is not enough. In such dispositions, being lifted, the burden of childbearing will only not interfere with salvation; and it is necessary not only not to interfere with him, but also to promote salvation. How can it do this? If, after birth, the upbringing of children is added to it - in the fear of God for the glory of God. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle says, as it were: you, wives, do not lament that your sex has fallen under condemnation; God has given you a special means of salvation, namely raising children, so that you can earn salvation not only through yourself, but also through others.” – And a little lower: “childbirth is a matter of nature. But the wife is given not only this (depending on nature), but also what relates to raising children. “This is not a small, but a great reward for them, that they have raised warriors for Christ.” Ecumenius writes: “By procreation the Apostle means not only the birth, but also the raising of children. - Well, who will say, virgins, childless widows (who lost their husbands before the birth of children), barren wives died? It won't happen! The Apostle does not say that wives will not be saved (without childbearing) by their own virtue, but that childbearing will be an aid to salvation for them if, which goes without saying, they bring about salvation through their own virtue.” Blessed Theophylact adds something special to this: “not only to give birth, but also to educate. And this is real childbirth; otherwise it is not procreation, but child molestation. Raising children, however, contributes to the salvation of wives not without their own virtue. A virtuous wife raises her children in virtue. The virtue that exists in her passes on to her children through education. It seems to me that the Apostle, having previously forbidden wives to teach in church, now, as a consolation, gives them whom to teach. If you want to teach, teach children. - Some, however, do not know how, understood childbirth as a birth that took place from the Most Holy Theotokos. She, they say, having given birth to the Savior, saved the wives. But such an understanding is not consistent with the speech that follows.” b) Instructions regarding persons elected to the church clergy Saint Paul said that church meetings and prayers should be led by “men” (1 Tim. 2:8) - of course, not every man, but men chosen and dedicated to this. Now he shows what merits should be distinguished by persons elected to this cause, in general to the clergy. There was a need for these individuals. There were many Christians, they gathered in different places; it was necessary to determine who would look after them. Saint Paul himself did this everywhere (Acts 14:23). They were appointed by him for Ephesus, as well as for all of Asia (Acts 20:17, 19:26). But now the ones he delivered turned out to be few. Not having the time to do this personally, because the needs of the believers soon called him to Macedonia, he entrusted this to St. Timothy, as in Crete to St. Titus, and writes what character should be the persons elected for this - namely: a) bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7) - and: b) deacons and deaconesses (1 Tim. 3:8-13). a) Characteristics of those worthy of being a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1–7) The Apostle determines that the one elected to the episcopate must take up this ministry: aa) with all zeal (verse 1); bb) must be of good character and praiseworthy conduct (verses 2–3); cc) first prove your ability to govern the Church by good management of your home (verses 4–5); d) not be one of the recently baptized (verse 6); dd) to be respected even among the unbelievers (verse 7). aa) Jealousy (1 Tim. 3:1) 1 Tim. 3:1. The word is true: if anyone wants a bishopric, he desires good deeds. The words: “the word is true” - our interpreters refer to the previous speech, that is, to what is said about the salvation of wives through the good upbringing of children, while fulfilling the general conditions for salvation - that this salvation is very reliable, because, in addition to their own deeds in their salvation, the good deeds of children will also be attributed to them. Wanting to show that he says this not only to say something comforting to the wives, but that it truly is, the Apostle adds the certifying word: “the word is true.” And this is very appropriate. Meanwhile, the subsequent speech does not require any certification: instructions are written here, the justice and appropriateness of which is self-evident. Saint Chrysostom, and after him Ecumenius, and in reading these words are combined with the previous speech, and chapter 3 begins with “if anyone wants the bishopric.” Blessed Theophylact, although he begins the 3rd chapter with “the word is true,” but by interpretation relates it to the previous speech. Saint Chrysostom says: “the word is true” - refers to this (what we are talking about, that is, promoting the salvation of wives through raising children), and not to what follows: “if anyone wants the episcopate.” Since there could be confusion about this, he says: “the word is true,” that fathers and mothers can reap the fruits of the virtue of their children when they raise them well.” It’s the same with Ekumenius and Theophylact. - So you should admit it. “If anyone desires the episcopacy.” - “Wants”, ορεγεται, means such a desire as the desire for food occurs in someone whose appetite has been aroused. The work of episcopacy is difficult and dangerous. Those who approach it indifferently cannot endure it as they should. Why is a zealous desire for episcopacy required - not to be a bishop and enjoy power and honor, but the very work of episcopacy, that is, looking after those being saved and guiding them to salvation. They were elected to the bishopric. Why is it necessary to believe that the Apostle points here to such a zealous desire for election and calls it the desire for a “good work”, because its object is good - to enlighten with the truth, to purify concepts, to correct morals, to lead to the highest perfection in spiritual life, to reflect false teachings and false teachers, to console the sorrowful, to provide benefits for the poor and infirm - to be a caring and supportive father. Whoever, inflamed with zeal for all such things, desires the episcopate, desires a good deed - he does not seek the satisfaction of the unkind lust of honor and glory, but wants to work for the good of others, to be a servant of all, without sparing himself. Saint Chrysostom says: “I do not blame this,” says the Apostle. If anyone has such a desire and, moreover, seeks not only superiority and power, but the fulfillment of the duties of governing (the flock) (“wants to serve, intercede, lead” [Ecumenius]); then I do not blame him. For he desires a good deed. Whoever thus desires this, let him desire it, for the bishopric is so called because it has supervision over all (entrusted).” Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle does not blame mere desire, but covetousness, and teaches to care not about honor, but about virtue, not to desire rank, but to seek the deed required by rank.” What does the Apostle mean here by bishopric? Presbytery, answers Blessed Theodoret. The Apostle here calls the presbyter “bishop,” as we have proven by interpreting the Epistle to the Philippians. But it is not difficult to find out this from here; because after the laws the bishops write the laws relating to deacons. Then the same ones were called presbyters and bishops; sometimes those now called bishops were called intercession apostles. But, over time, the Apostolic title was left to the actual Apostles, and the episcopal title was assigned to those who were called in ancient times Apostles (secondaries). Such Apostles were Titus among the Cretans, and Timothy among the inhabitants of Asia. “However, although the Divine Apostle legitimized this for the presbyters, it is clear that the bishops should be the first to preserve these laws, as having received great honor.” bb) Good character and praiseworthy behavior (1 Tim. 3:2, 3) 1 Tim. 3:2. It is fitting for a bishop to be immaculate, a husband of one wife, sober, chaste, [reverent,] honest, hospitable, and a teacher. “Speaking about episcopacy, the Apostle shows in general what a bishop should be, not referring his admonition specifically to Timothy, but talking with him, as if with everyone, and through him instructing everyone” (St. Chrysostom). The first thing that befits him is: “to be blameless”, ανεπιλημπτον, - “immaculate, so as not to give any solid and fair reason for reproach and accusation” (Blessed Theodoret). But he cannot be like that if he is not adorned with all the virtues. “Having said: “blameless,” the Apostle named every virtue. “Thus, if someone recognizes himself as guilty of any crime, then he is doing wrong by desiring such a title from which he has removed himself by his actions. Because this should not be commanded, but obeyed. For a leader must be brighter than any lamp and lead an impeccable life, so that everyone looks at him and according to his life they arrange their own lives” (St. Chrysostom). “One wife to a husband” does not mean that he does not have two wives at a time, for this is forbidden to every Christian; but so that once he was married, he was a monogamist. Anyone who is married to a second wife should not be elected bishop. Ambrosiastes writes: “although it is not prohibited to have a second wife, one worthy of the episcopacy must abstain from what is allowed to others, due to the highness of this rank. He who desires it must be incomparably higher than everyone else.” This does not mean that he must be married. Blessed Theophylact writes: “in saying this, the Apostle does not lay down the law that a bishop must certainly be married. How could he who said this command: “I want all men to be as I am” (1 Cor. 7:7)?” As much as a bigamist is unfit for the episcopate, an unmarried person is better than a monogamist. Why, even then, as soon as there was an opportunity, unmarried people were elected not only to bishops, but also to priests, who worked in the care of everyday God. Such persons were given the rank of ascetics, born together with Christianity and the Apostles, blessed and established in the Church. But what about the bishop - and is he married? But firstly, here, as Theodoret understands, bishop means presbyter. The real bishops were the (second) Apostles, such as Titus and Timothy; and they were celibate. Probably, in other places similar persons were appointed to the present bishopric. Secondly, need forced; for at that time virginity had not yet spread so much that a virgin could be found everywhere, although a beginning had been made for it. Meanwhile, bishops were needed; why were they chosen from among those who, although married, live abstinently? Blessed Theodoret writes: “The pagans did not practice virginity; the Jews did not allow it, because they considered fertility a blessing. So, since at that time it was impossible to easily find those who observed carnal purity, the Apostle Paul orders to ordain from those who were in marriage those who honored chastity.” Saint Chrysostom even before him said: “if a person bound by marriage (inevitably) cares about worldly affairs, and a bishop should not care about worldly things, then why did the Apostle say: “one wife to a husband”? Some believe that here he refers to the bishop who would be free from marriage. And if not this (should be understood here); the fact that he, having a wife, can live as if he did not have her.” "Sober". Sobriety keenly watches everything that happens in the soul, gives a place and course to the good, and rejects and drives out the bad, and thus governs the flow of inner life with goodness, from which the outer life itself is well-ordered. Episcopal sobriety watches over everything that happens in his flock and affirms what is good and corrects what is bad; The bishop watches especially vigilantly to see if any wolves are creeping up, not sparing the flock, so that when he sees them, he can drive them away with the rod of his shepherding. He is appointed guardian of the house of God; why should I watch this house with vigor? “It is fitting for him to be alert and able to foresee how he should act” (Blessed Theodoret); “to be keen-sighted, always vigilant, attentively observant, to see everything and always be ready for any necessary task” (Blessed Theophylact). A “sober person” - that is, he must be perspicacious, have a thousand eyes on all sides - must be insightful and not darken his mental gaze with anything. For there are many such accidents that do not allow us to clearly see how to act. Why should he be vigilantly vigilant, having concern not only for his own affairs, but also for what concerns others? He must be awake, flaming in spirit and, so to speak, breathing fire, carrying out the labors and duties (of his rank) with greater zeal than as a commander who goes around the army day and night, and having care and concern for everything” (St. Chrysostom). "To the chaste." Since there was already a word about carnal chastity in the words: “one wife to a husband,” then here chastity should be understood as “spiritual prosperity” (Blessed Theodoret), namely, common sense, or prudence, both in one’s own behavior, and especially in the conduct of affairs in managing the flock. Just as neat clothing fits well on the whole body, so that everything in it is in moderation, in place, and to the face, so prudently conducted deeds gracefully adorn the face of the bishop, so that he will be beautiful; (Blessed Theophylact). “[Respectfully,] honestly.” These two words correspond to one Greek: κοσμιον, - which blessed Theophylact interpreted: σεμνοπρεπη. And probably our Slavic translation wanted to express more fully the meaning of this last word, which means: splendidly honest and shows that the face of a bishop should shine with such sacred splendor that evokes universal respect. Blessed Theodoret writes: “he should be sedate in his speech, in his appearance, in his gaze, and in his gait, so that spiritual goodness can be seen in his body.” “Loving strangers” - “who kindly receives strangers” (Blessed Theodoret). “For if he is friendly, hospitable and merciful to local residents only, then he suffers from addiction. But he needs to be even more generous towards strangers; for this more clearly testifies to his brotherly love” (Blessed Theophylact). "Teacher". “Many of the subordinates have the qualities mentioned above (“prudence, reverence and love of strangers” [Ecumenius]), for in this respect they too should be equal to their superiors. Why did the Apostle, showing the advantage of the bishop, add: “teaching.” This is no longer required of the subordinate; but it is required most of all from the one to whom this position of bishopric is entrusted” (St. Chrysostom). “By this the Apostle does not mean distinguished by eloquence, but trained in the Divine and capable of giving proper advice” (Blessed Theophylact). “Teacher”, διδακτικον, - expresses that the bishop should be so full of teaching that, as soon as the opportunity arises, teaching flows from his mouth like a river - so that he can always fulfill and fulfill what the Apostle later wrote in the Second Epistle: “preach the word, insist on timely and untimely, reprove, rebuke, entreat with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2). 1 Tim. 3:3. Not a drunkard, not a killer, not a quarrelsome one, not a money-seeker, but a meek one, [not envious,] not a lover of money. "Not a drunkard". “The Apostle himself interpreted this in his instructions to deacons: to be “not heedful of much guilt” (1 Tim. 3:8)” (Blessed Theodoret). “Not a killer”, μη πληκτην, - not a fighter, which “he who listens a lot to guilt” often turns out to be. But in relation to the performance of a managerial position, with which the punishment of faulty people is connected, this can also mean: not strictly demanding, not quick-tempered, not cruelly punitive. Blessed Theodoret writes: “What the Apostle forbids here is not to impose punishment at the right time, but to do it in an inappropriate manner. And what he commands to punish, about this, as we will soon hear, he himself will say: “Those who sin... rebuke them before everyone” (1 Tim. 5:20); and again: “reprove, rebuke” (2 Tim. 4:2). And, writing to the Galatians, he said: “O foolish Galatians” (Gal. 3:1) - and again: “Are you so foolish?” (Gal. 3:3)." “I’m not grumpy”, αμαχον. In Greek this word stands where in Slavic it stands: “[I am not envious],” which is not in Greek. This means: “I do not like to start litigation” (Blessed Theodoret) - and in general disputes and discord, - non litigiosum, - I do not scold, according to Ambrosiastes. “I am not filthy acquisitive,” μη αισχροκερδη, - Theodoret and Theophylact do not read; but Saint Chrysostom and Ecumenius are reading. Indicates one who does not use means of acquisition that are not approved by the general court, such as, for example, growth; and perhaps even someone who would never agree to cover up anything bad for the sake of profit, much less turn all his service to this goal. "But meek". “Teaches how one can be non-killer and unquarrelsome. He who is meek will not be so” (Blessed Theophylact). The meek person peacefully endures personal troubles and insults. This is what a bishop should be like. “He must be able to bear the wrongs committed against him (but only such). For to ignore what others suffer is not a sign of modesty (characteristic of a bishop). It is said: “{lead} with diligence” (Rom. 12:8)” (Blessed Theodoret). “Not for the lover of money.” “The Apostle did not say: to one who is not covetous, because he gives moderate laws, but: to one who does not love money. For it is possible to have money, but to dispose of it as it should, and not to be subservient to it, but to be its master” (Blessed Theodoret). In addition, he must also be charitable, “for which it is necessary to have, from which to do charity, but to have without attachment to what he has, so that the hand of beneficence is not shortened. “Because I said above that he should be “strange-loving”; then now he adds: “not to the lover of money,” showing that he will be a lover of money if he is not a lover of money, and at the same time teaching that under the pretext of love of money he should not collect treasures” (Blessed Theophylact). Saint Chrysostom is amazed that Saint Paul mentions here such vices that are intolerable in every Christian, and even in a non-Christian - “very gross” (Ecumenius). Why did he interpret the words: “not a drunkard, not a killer” not in their own sense, but in a figurative meaning: “not a drunkard”? The Apostle is not talking about the one who gets drunk with wine, but about the scolding and insolent one. "Don't be a killer." Here we are not talking about those who hit with their hands; but since there are people who untimely outrage the conscience of the brethren, it seems to me that he is hinting at them here.” Ecumenius and Theophylact repeat the same thing. Finally, Saint Chrysostom addresses the following speech to the Apostle: “However, what are you saying, tell me? Talking about the bishop, he said that he should not be a drunkard, while something more important should have been said. Why, for example, didn’t he say that a bishop should be an Angel, not subject to any human passion? Or why didn’t he express those great demands that Christ spoke about and which even subordinates must fulfill - that one must crucify oneself and always be ready to give one’s soul for others? “The good shepherd,” He said, “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11); also: “Whoever does not accept his cross and comes after Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:38); but he said: “not a drunkard”? You can have good hopes if you need to instruct the bishop in this! But why didn’t you say that he should renounce the earth, but didn’t even command the bishop what you commanded the laity? With this he said: “Put to death... your odors that are on the earth” (Col. 3:5) - and also: “they who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh” (Gal. 5:24). Why didn’t he tell this to the bishop? Because not many of these could be found, meanwhile many bishops were needed to preside in distant cities. Therefore, since later slander against the Church could arise, the Apostle speaks of moderate virtue, and not of this sublime and pompous one, because many people tend to be sober, honest, and chaste.” This also occupied Ambrosiastes, and he writes: “For this reason, the Apostle pointed out the lower virtues here, so that if someone turns out to have the highest, there would be no doubt that he is worthy of bishopric. If someone, driven by higher aspirations, devotes both his soul and body to God, then such a person is even more worthy.” cv) Good stewardship of one's own home (1 Tim. 3:4, 5) 1 Tim. 3:4. I rule my house well, and provide for my children in obedience with all purity {honesty}. The Church is the house of God, over which a bishop is elected to rule. Whether the chosen one is capable of this service can be judged by how he rules his home. He who rules the house well can be expected to rule the Church well. Although this matter is broader, and the subjects of management are more complex, and its goals are more lofty, management, as management, requires the same techniques. It is true that the conclusion from good housekeeping to good government of the Church does not necessarily follow, but every good steward of the house, when elected to preside over the Church, cannot but have an advantage over others, giving good hopes. “The outsiders also say the same thing, that a good steward can sooner become a good ruler of civil affairs” (St. Chrysostom). The house embraces the persons living in it, its property, and its external relations to the government and private individuals. All this is also in the Church: there are persons of all conditions and ages, there is also its own property, determined for the maintenance of the poor, the sick, the elderly, widows and orphans, in addition to meeting houses, there are also their own relationships with outsiders. Whoever has had experience in good governance in all parts of the house, when entering into the management of the Church, will not be entering into a new and completely unknown task. Why is there more likely to be a way to act in one case or another? Saint Chrysostom says: “And the Church is the same as a small house, and just as in the house there are children, a wife, servants, and the husband rises above them all with his power; so in the Church there is nothing else, but the same thing (we meet) - children, wives, servants. If the head of the Church has partners in his power, then the husband also has his wife as a partner in power. But here we must take care of the food of widows and virgins? And there, too, the husband has slaves and daughters for his livelihood.” “I have children in obedience with all {honesty}.” Of all the subjects of home management, the behavior of children especially brings to the attention of voters; not, of course, in the sense that whoever has good children is a good ruler, because here everything can depend on natural reasons, but especially in the sense that if the children are not good, then what kind of ruler is the father? “At home he must show a good example of management. For who would believe that someone who did not know how to keep his own son in obedience would force a stranger to obey him?” (Saint Chrysostom). – Of the virtues recommended for children, the Apostle points to obedience and all honesty: obedience to the parent, as the head of the house, and honesty before everyone, both in the house and outside. We can therefore say that these two traits embrace all the good behavior of children. Why does Blessed Theodoret: “I have children” with such properties, interprets: “I teach children every virtue; for which it is required that not only the disposition of the children themselves act, but also his own will.” Blessed Theophylact writes: “with all {honesty}” - that means: in word, and in deed, and in clothing, - and moreover, before everyone and at all times” - and suggests: “how can you hope that he will make strangers honest when he allows his own blood to live dishonestly?” 1 Tim. 3:5. If someone does not know how to rule his own house, how can he be diligent about the Church of God? The word: “does not know how” indicates a lack of either prudence or character, and the word: “diligence” exposes laziness, a lack of diligence for the well-being of the home. If, judging by the administration of the house, in someone there is neither zeal, nor character, nor prudence in governing the Church, then how can one expect good management of it - expect that he will take care of its welfare? From the lesser the Apostle concludes to the greater. “Who does not know how to manage small things, can he be entrusted with the care of the most important and Divine?” (Blessed Theodoret). “It’s easier to manage a house. Therefore, how can one manage church affairs who does not organize his own house well?” (Saint Chrysostom). “If he could not be a good ruler of something that is neither great nor easily definable, then how could he manage so many souls with morals and thoughts that are unthinkable?” (Blessed Theophylact). d) Not recent baptism (1 Tim. 3:6) 1 Tim. 3:6. Not newly baptized, but not arrogant, the devil will fall into judgment. A newly baptized person, no matter how inflamed in spirit he may be, is still a beginner in the matter of faith and life according to faith. Therefore, naturally, in many ways, he stands lower than others, equally burning in spirit, but who have long since embarked on the path of following the Lord, who know more and have experienced much more. Although later he may get ahead of everyone, but now he is behind many, and it is not suitable for him to become the leader and teacher of everyone. But the Apostle does not present this unfitness as the reason why a newly baptized person should not be appointed a bishop, but a moral danger for himself - that he will become proud and for this will fall under the same condemnation to which the devil was subjected, cast out of heaven for pride. A newcomer to the society of believers, “one who has not been previously trained in the Divine and, having been included in the list of disciples, has not first practiced virtue, having received the presidency, it is no wonder to give place to the passion of arrogance” (Blessed Theodoret). But what kind of judgment does the Apostle threaten him with? How and what kind of court, conviction and judgment, or punishment, will he fall into, and where? The apostle does not indicate this; Therefore, one can think that he only wanted to say that such a person would be worthy of judgment, similar to the judgment of the devil, - he would stand in this row, both before the face of God, and in the opinion of believers, without determining how such a trial and the award would be announced. The Apostle limits the bad consequence of pride to the moral state of the proud person himself - that he will fall from the height of the bright state into which the grace of the Holy Spirit placed him through the holy sacraments performed over him. For pride reveals this grace, blocks its entrances inside and puts the proud one again in that bad state of spirit in which he was before faith, or even lower than him; and then he again falls into the hands of the devil, from whose power God’s grace through faith delivered him. Some people understand this last consequence of pride as “the judgment of the devil.” “Not newly baptized”, μη νεοφυτον, - not newly planted, not newly grafted. The expression is taken from the parable speech of the Savior, where He calls Himself an olive tree, and all believers as shoots, branches and grafts of this tree. The baptized are grafted into the Lord, who through baptism are clothed in Him, filled with His life, like grafting with the sap of the tree into which they are grafted. Why is the newly planted the same as the newly baptized? But this word does not mean young age. And Saint Timothy was young, and “the Divine Paul himself, being in his youth, was worthy of a calling” (Blessed Theodoret). But this did not prevent Saint Paul from being the first Apostle, and Saint Timothy the second Apostle. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle adds: “not newly baptized,” meaning here not one who would be young in age, but a newly catechumen, just as he says in another place: “I am planted” (1 Cor. 3:6). He said this, wanting to signify this last one (the newly planted one). For what prevented you from saying: not young? In addition, he himself appointed Timothy bishop, despite the fact that he was young, as he testifies, saying to him: “Let no one take heed of your youth” (1 Tim. 4:12), (showing that youth does not interfere with this when it is worthy). The Apostle knew that Saint Timothy possessed many virtues, that he had achieved great perfection in life, that he was well-versed: “from early childhood you knew the sacred scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15), the Apostle says to him in his Epistle. And that he observed the strictest fast is evident from the following words of the Apostle: “You accepted little wine... for the sake of... your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim. 5:23). If the Apostle had not known about such high virtues, he would not have written and would not have entrusted such a high service to a student. (So, “not newly baptized” does not mean: not young). But since at that time many of the pagans (venerable) were converted and baptized, the Apostle says: do not suddenly elevate a newly baptized person, that is, a newly catechumen, to the heights of power. For if he, before he learns everything or becomes a perfect student, is suddenly appointed as a teacher, he will fall into arrogance; if, without learning to obey, he takes the place of a boss, he will become arrogant. That’s why he added: “lest the devil become proud and fall into judgment,” that is, so that he does not fall under the same condemnation to which he was subjected for his pride.” Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle here called judgment a punishment” similar to that to which the devil was subjected. So are all other interpreters. But Ambrosiast sees something else here. He writes: “truly it happens that someone inexperienced in faith becomes inflated with pride, especially if he receives initiation. For, with the news of rank and power, having dreamed a lot about himself, he begins to think that in terms of perfection he is superior to others. Moreover, seeing that in the first year of birth into a new life he was honored with such an honor, he falls into the thought that he was called not for his own success, but for others: as if he himself showed more benefits to faith than how much he received from it. But, having become proud as a result of such thoughts, he falls into the snare of the devil. For Satan, taking advantage of the opportunity of his pride, casts him into the abyss. In this sense, Solomon says: “God opposes the proud” (Prov. 3:34). And the same Apostle in another Epistle says: “If... whoever imagines himself to be something, nothing, flatters himself with his mind” (Gal. 6:3). And the Lord said: “Everyone who exalts himself will humble himself” (Luke 14:11).” dd) Respect among unbelievers (1 Tim. 3:7) 1 Tim. 3:7. It is also fitting for him to have a testimony of goodness from outsiders, lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of hostility. “He did not say: he must have a testimony, but “and have a testimony,” that is, by the way, this too, and not just this alone” (St. Chrysostom). Having said that a bishop must be impeccable (1 Tim. 3:2), and having depicted various aspects of such impeccability among believers, he now adds to all this “good testimony from outsiders,” that is, from believers who do not belong to the Church, Jews and Greeks. Having a testimony does not mean that one must obtain a formal testimony from those not one’s own and present it to one’s own, but that the one elected to the bishop should use good glory and among the unbelievers. In what respect? Of course, not by external position, but by all known good morals and everyday virtues. Saint Chrysostom, adding to this the words of the Savior: “So let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16), says: “Let his actions be bright. For just as no one will call the sun dark, even the blindest, because he is ashamed to go against the general opinion, so no one will blame the completely righteous. True, the pagans often slandered them (bishops or Christians in general) for the sake of their beliefs, but they did not condemn their righteous life, on the contrary, together with others they were surprised and amazed (looking at it). And the Apostles were slandered; but what? That they were flatterers and deceivers - that is, for the sake of their preaching - and they did this because they could not reproach their lives for anything. For why did no one say about them that they were fornicators, wicked, covetous, but flatterers, which applied only to the sermon? Is it because they led impeccable lives? Of course, that's why. Therefore, we (bishops) must live this way; and then no one will speak ill of us, even if it were our enemy or an infidel. For whoever leads a righteous life becomes worthy of respect even among the infidels: the truth stops the lips of enemies too.” Saint Chrysostom, as is obvious, here means the good testimony of others about the moral life of the chosen one; and Ambrosiast - more about his worldly good qualities: “following the word of the Lord, the Apostle says that he who wants to be a bishop must have a good testimony from outsiders; because he who is faithful in the least will also be faithful in the more. Whoever turns out to be unfaithful in lesser matters, that is, in worldly affairs and in everyday relationships, will, without a doubt, be unfaithful in relation to Divine things. On the contrary, whoever shows loyalty to people will show it all the more to God.” The good testimony of externals is based on the old behavior of the chosen one, when he himself was external, or new, when he became internal, the Apostle does not indicate. There is no point in guessing about it. There would be a good testimony from outsiders, but when and how it was formed is nothing to look at. Then many of those who converted were those who had previously lived shamefully; but, having become Christians, they began to live impeccably and, as a result, acquired a good opinion of themselves among those who had previously disdained their lives. Such people should have been chosen even more quickly: for through this the beneficial effect of the faith of Christ could be most clearly presented to everyone. “Let him not fall into reproach and into the snare of hostility.” This would be the case if they chose one who does not have a good testimony from outsiders, much less one who has an evil testimony. But what does the internal have to do with the external when they, in their conscience, recognize the one they are choosing as worthy? Outsiders may not know him well or may maliciously slander him. As if truth should be sacrificed to their untruth?! This is not why we must take into account their testimony in order to sacrifice their untruth for the right; but, keeping to yourself and for yourself the truth by the truth, that is, without changing your good opinion about someone who does not have a good testimony from outsiders, it is better not to choose it in order to avoid bad consequences from it. Saint Chrysostom says: “What if he is slandered and accidentally exposed to an unfair accusation? This may happen too. - But in this case he should not be chosen from among others; for this gives rise to great fears.” There are two dangers: “let him not fall into reproach and into the snare of disdain.” “Let him not fall into reproach.” But he is already reproached if he does not have a good testimony. What other reproach is there to fear? Perhaps the Apostle by: “let him not fall into reproach” means: let him not fall under its weight, as in: “do not lead us into temptation” (Luke 11:4) - of course: do not let us fall under its weight. While remaining a private person, he heard unkind reviews about himself and easily tolerated them, turning a deaf ear to them. And when they make him the head of the community of believers, then it is not easy for him to remain indifferent to that. They will begin to feel oppressed by either shame in front of themselves, and in front of their own people, and in front of strangers, so that they are reluctant to appear in front of people, or annoyance, anger and anger. These unpleasant movements of the heart themselves are already the essence of a “hostile net” - in Greek: του διαβολου - devilish. But they can serve as a reason for the enemy to weave an even more dangerous network. Having become weighed down and weakened, he can, under the influence of a never-sleeping enemy, abandon both the bishopric and Christianity itself and “turn to the former lawless life” (Blessed Theodoret). - Since such a danger is very possible, - the danger is great, and it is very easy to avoid it, then it is more prudent to act so as not to expose anyone to it. Or “let him not fall into reproach”: so as not to fall into even greater reproach, which could spread from him to the entire community of believers and thereby stop the successful action of the Gospel (Blessed Theophylact). Which can also be called the enemy’s network: for networks are constructed either to plunge one into sin and destruction, or to hinder the expansion of the circle of good. The temptation for the infidels to defame the bishop of the faithful is also the snare of the devil. b) Characteristics of those worthy of the diaconate (1 Tim. 3:8–13) Deacons were introduced by the Apostles from the very beginning of the founding of the Church. Initially, they were assigned to satisfy the material needs of believers; but the matter did not stop there, for we soon see Saint Stephen preaching the word of the Gospel. If the preaching of the word was allowed or entrusted to them; then, all the more, the service during the performance of the Divine sacraments could not be alien to them. From this we can assume that deacons were elected - to be assistants to presbyters and bishops in their service to the Church in all parts - and, as such, like them received special grace through ordination. Judging by this, one cannot help but see how necessary it was that worthy persons be elected for this service; especially since, having entered this degree, they entered on the path of movement to the highest degrees of service to the Church, as is indicated here. As a result of the latter circumstance, the properties required from persons elected to this ministry are similar to the properties required from those elected to bishops or presbyters. The peculiarity is visible only in a few features - namely, that they must first be tested and have the sacrament of faith in a clear conscience, inspired to good service by the aspiration to receive the highest service. This is not said about bishops, because in the first they are already tested for election, and they receive the latter. – Part of the service in the Church could more conveniently be performed by women, as, for example, when baptizing wives and caring for the sick among them; Deaconesses were appointed to perform such a ministry. The Apostle did not forget to say a word about them - short, in one verse, but embracing a lot. 1 Tim. 3:8. A deacon who is also pure, not bilingual, who does not listen to much wine, and who is not filthy acquisitive. Blessed Theodoret, as has been seen, believes that the above word: bishops refers to presbyters. But Saint Chrysostom asserts that this word means bishops, and the Apostle omitted the presbyters, allowing them to be judged by bishops. “Having spoken about bishops, and having outlined their image, and having shown what they should have and what they should avoid, the Apostle omits the rank of presbyters and moves on to deacons. Why is this so? Because the distance between presbyters and bishops is not great. And the first also received the gift of teaching and are also the primates of the Church; therefore, the same thing that he said about bishops also applies to presbyters. For the former differ from the latter only in that they perform their ordination, and in this alone lies their advantage over the elders.” Ecumenius and Theophylact are of the same opinion. – It comes to mind whether it was not so that the Apostles appointed only bishops, who alone carried out everything in the Church. The bishops elected presbyters and consecrated them to help themselves only in such cases if they themselves could not manage everything themselves. "Deacon also". “That is, they should have the same thing as bishops. What is the same thing? That is, to be immaculate, chaste, hospitable to strangers, meek, not quarrelsome, not lovers of money” (St. Chrysostom). “And let them be governed by the same laws” (Blessed Theodoret). “Pure”, σεμνους, - honest. “They must, he says, in addition to what has been said, also have honesty” (Blessed Theophylact). Σεμνος - from: στβω - I honor, reverently, in a religious order - means both one who is worthy of some kind of sacred and reverent veneration, and one who is himself reverent, filled with the fear of God - fearing God. Of course, honesty is not everyday, but moral sedateness and religious reverence. “Not double-tongued”, μη διλογους, - not two-worded, - “not telling one one thing and another another, but decorating the tongue with the truth” (Blessed Theodoret); or “not keeping one thing in mind, but saying another” (Blessed Theophylact). As this kind of speech, in addition to insincerity, also exposes a certain slyness, Saint Chrysostom says: “not double-tongued,” that is, not crafty, not cunning. For nothing makes a person more dishonest than wickedness; and nothing brings so much harm to the Church as cunning.” “I do not blame much for those who listen.” Those who like to drink listen to a lot of wine. But “those who are entrusted with service in the Church must primarily free themselves from this passion” (Blessed Theodoret). “He did not say: not to drunkards (getting drunk), because this is extremely rude and base, but: not to heavy drinkers. For, although someone does not get drunk, he drinks a lot, but still the mood of his soul becomes worthless. The ancients, entering into service in the sanctuary, completely abandoned the use of wine” (Blessed Theophylact, Ecumenius). “Not filthy acquisitive.” “The filthy acquisitive is not the one who, as was supposed, does not shy away from receiving any benefits, but who wants to collect benefits from things that are shameful and extremely indecent” (Blessed Theodoret) - or “who does not refuse any benefit, no matter where it comes from. Take here the foul acquisitive person for a stingy covetous and money-lover” (Blessed Theophylact). “Those which are carefully acquired under the guise of piety should also be called evil acquisitions” (Ambrosiastes). The latter was all the more to be feared in deacons, since their job was to appease the needy believers from the church property. 1 Tim. 3:9. Those who have the sacrament of faith in a clear conscience. The “sacrament of faith” is that about which the Apostle said below: “the great mystery of godliness is confessed: God appeared in the flesh... ascended in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16). God descended to earth in incarnation and created for us a wondrous image of salvation. This sacrament is because it is incomprehensible to us both by revelation and by the organization of the very work of salvation - incomprehensible both in how it was accomplished by God incarnate, and in how it is effectively assimilated to us and saves us. This sacrament is accepted by faith, which is undoubtedly the case, since God Himself did all this and interpreted it for us, and that the one who accepts and does everything, as defined in this image of salvation, undoubtedly receives salvation. To contain such “the sacrament of faith in a clear conscience” is to sincerely, with all one’s conscience, believe this, without hesitation or splitting of thoughts, harboring deep conviction in everything and not allowing any thoughts contrary to it. Or this: a clear conscience when someone with all his might does everything required by the commandments or fulfills every known will of God. Such a conscience sanctifies and pacifies the entire soul - and makes it a vessel suitable for containing and preserving the Divine and heavenly sacrament of faith. The Apostle inspires that the one elected to the deacon should hold the sacrament of faith in such a clear conscience, that is, believing and living purely and impeccably, both in external behavior and in internal feelings and moods. Saint Chrysostom says: “by this the Apostle shows what it means to be blameless.” Blessed Theodoret adds: “to be confirming faith by deeds. For the Apostle called good deeds a clear conscience. The doer of them is not offended by conscience.” Blessed Theophylact explains: “by maintaining the right dogma, having an immaculate life. For a pure conscience comes from an immaculate life.” 1 Tim. 3:10. And let these be tempted first, but then let them serve, being blameless. “And these things” - and being such or having been recognized as such, that is, “having the sacrament of faith in a clear conscience” - and other good qualities shown above, “let them be tempted” - let them be tested in which they would show that all the goodness visible in them lies deep in the heart, constituting the features of their established character, and not something apparent and accidental. Perhaps they were subject to this test especially in terms of their ability to correct the affairs of the diaconate - whether they are prudent, whether they are managerial, whether they are attentive: for many, having good qualities of heart, are very inexperienced in conducting external affairs. This test requirement is equivalent to what he will say below: “Do not lay your hands on anyone quickly” (1 Tim. 5:22), and what he has already said about bishops, may he not be “newly baptized.” So Saint Chrysostom: “look,” he says here too: “not newly baptized.” For the expression: “Let these also be tempted first” means the same as what he said about bishops.” Theophylact also writes the same: “Just as, he says, regarding the bishop, I demanded that he should not be newly baptized, so I demand that these too should not be allowed to serve without being tested, but after having been sufficiently worn out under the test, they will turn out to be impeccable: just as (in everyday life) no one will entrust a newly purchased slave with any administrative position before he has been rendered in time fit for it.” “Then let them serve,” διακονειτωσαν, - let them be allowed to serve or, better yet, be ordained deacons, - let them become deacons. So Blessed Theodoret: “It is necessary that their lives be tested first, and then they are granted spiritual grace.” “Be blameless” - not “if blameless,” but being in this way, or after this proving to be impeccable in all respects, having nothing in oneself that would not be approved by the conscience of anyone from the entire community of Christians. 1 Tim. 3:11. To wives who are also pure, not slanderous, [not prostitutes,] sober, faithful in everything. By “wives” here we do not mean women in general, because why insert speech about them among the speech about persons serving in the Church? - nor the deacons' wives, because then it would have been: their wives. But as we are talking about persons serving the Church, then by wives here we must mean the same female persons. Such were the deaconesses; a word about them. So Saint Chrysostom: “to wives,” that is, to deaconesses. Some believe that this is simply said about women; but it's unfair. For what could the Apostle have in mind when he inserted a few words about women into the midst of his speech? But he is talking here about such women who are endowed with the title of deaconess. It was decent to say what was said about them. For this title is very necessary, useful and worthy of respect in the Church” (St. Chrysostom). "In the same way". “What he made into law for husbands, he gives almost the same to women. Just as he called deacons “{honest},” so he also calls deaconesses honest; just as he ordered those to be “not bilingual,” so he also imposes an obligation not to be slanderous; Just as he legitimized “not to pay too much attention to wine,” so he also commanded them to be “sober” (Blessed Theodoret). “Pure” - and here, as above “{honest}”, σεμνας, - respected and reverent. “Not to the slanderous”, μη διαβολους, - not to the vandals who spread false rumors about others, “who, as usual to old women, go from house to house and whisper to her about this one” (Blessed Theophylact). “Sober”, νηφαλιυς, - attentive to oneself and cheerful. “Since this generation is easy and easy to deceive, they should not, he says, slumber, but be alert and vigilant” (Blessed Theophylact). This applies both to oneself and to the tasks assigned to them. “Faithful in everything,” “that is, steadfast both in word and in deeds” (Blessed Theophylact), those who can be relied upon in everything, that they will faithfully and accurately fulfill everything entrusted, and in the manner assigned, that they will not betray anything entrusted to them and will never break their given word in any way. 1 Tim. 3:12. Let deacones be one wife and husband, children who rule well and their own homes. "United wives and husbands". “Do you see that the Apostle demands from deacons the same virtue (as from bishops)? Although they are unequal in rank to the bishop, they must be just as blameless, just as pure” (St. Chrysostom). “This must be understood according to the previous interpretation” (Blessed Theodoret). “Children rule well and their own homes.” “He made this a law and those who are called bishops by him” (Blessed Theodoret). “Everywhere he talks about managing children, so that others have no reason to be tempted” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Tim. 3:13. For those who serve good will gain a degree of goodness and much boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. The Apostle encourages the deacon to be a good diaconate, promising good fruits from this, both external and internal, both in the Church and in the heartfelt attitude of faith towards the Lord Jesus. Before this, it’s as if one word was missing. He said that someone worthy of the diaconate must be like this and like this, and whoever turns out to be like this, having tested him, make him a deacon. It would be expected either - and inspire him to be a good deacon, or - you, deacon, be a good deacon. But this is left to be understood by ourselves, and it is only said: for those who have been good deacons will not labor without fruit. Such inspiration was considered necessary for deacons because their service is laborious and difficult, both in soul and body. “He who has served well”, διακονησαντες, - those who have become deacons, who have corrected the deacon’s office well, “will gain a degree of goodness for themselves” - it goes without saying - a degree in church service, that is, after the deaconate they will be awarded the presbytery, and then the bishopric. Saint Chrysostom says: “he seems to be saying: those who have shown themselves cheerfully zealous in the lower degrees will soon reach the other (higher) ones.” At the beginning he said that whoever desires the episcopate desires a good deed. Now he indicates what the road to this lies, namely, good service to the Church in the diaconate. And experience has shown that those who were good diaconates were later glorious in the degrees of presbytery and bishopric (Blessed Theophylact). This is the fruit of a good diaconate according to position in the Church. According to internal success, this will result in “much boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” - that is, much boldness before the Lord, by virtue of faith in Him - they will acquire “great perfection (in the spirit) and boldness in faith in Jesus Christ” (St. Chrysostom). “Who can acquire such boldness if not the one who has faith and lives righteously?” (Ecumenius). The righteous life of a deacon is a good diaconate. The church is the house of the Lord Jesus. By serving the Church, they serve the Lord Himself. But just as in everyday life, one who works faithfully and diligently as a householder has access to him, and does not hesitate to say the right word before him: so those who serve faithfully in the Church, by their very conscience, are empowered to boldly look to the Lord and express before Him the desires of their hearts - about themselves and about the believers. He who has achieved this through diligent work in the diaconate is already worthy to stand at the level of presbyter and bishop in order to boldly offer intercessory prayers to the Lord for the host of believers. 3) How to act on the flock Here Saint Paul first gives instructions: A) in general about proper shepherding - teaching, edification, leadership, especially from the side of how to prepare oneself for this as a shepherd and how to educate oneself (1 Tim. 3:14-16, 4:1-16); and then indicates: B) how to teach and lead the flock, judging by their different states (1 Tim. 5, 6:1-19). a) General – about proper shepherding We will not indicate in advance the particular divisions in this department, but we will designate them according to the flow of the Apostolic Word. a) The only leader for the teacher of truth is the holy Church (1 Tim. 3:14–16) In the first place, the holy Apostle puts the instruction that the only leader of the teacher of truth in truth is the holy Church and that the first truth of his teaching is: “God appeared in the flesh.” - But he prefaces this with some consolation for his beloved student, who was recently orphaned by him. 1 Tim. 3:14. I am writing this to you, hoping to come to you soon. “I am writing this” - not only the previous one, but also the subsequent one, I am writing this message, “hoping to come to you soon.” The last words instilled in St. Timothy the wrong idea that St. Paul was only writing something suitable for the time being until he came, and when he came, he would communicate something more important and complete. For the Epistle contains important and detailed instructions. On the contrary, they were supposed to serve as a consolation for him in the grief that this very completeness and detail of instructions could inspire. Seeing this, Saint Timothy could think: surely my dear father and beloved mentor will not return, think and begin to grieve. To prevent such thinking and such sorrow, the Apostle confirms: “I write this” - not as a farewell testament, but I hope that I will soon return to you. Saint Chrysostom says: “so that by giving him instructions regarding such subjects, the Apostle does not plunge the student into sorrow, the Apostle says: I am not writing this because I will no longer come to you; on the contrary, I will come. However, if it happens that I slow down, then, he says, don’t worry about it. Thus, he writes this to Timothy for the purpose of easing his grief; As for the others (who had to read the Epistle of Ephesians, this served to raise them up from inactivity and make them more zealous). For his presence, even if it was only promised, could do a lot.” 1 Tim. 3:15. If I slow down, let me know how to live in the house of God, since the Church of God is alive, the pillar and foundation of the truth. The fact that I give detailed instructions is in case I slow down. You need to know how to live and act among believers, as an archpastor. I am writing to you about this in detail. Although you know almost everything, having seen how you and I improved the Church of God; but you also need a reminder so that, refreshing your thoughts on how everything in the Church is good, you act more confidently accordingly, without becoming embarrassed by the interweaving of circumstances and without thereby straying from the proper path. But this is more necessary for others, so that they can see that you received the commandment to act this way and not differently, and not act according to your own will. “In the words: “I hope to come ... if I delay” - the Apostle reveals ignorance; because it is characteristic of someone who does not know to speak like that” (St. Chrysostom). Saint Paul, like all the Apostles, acted zealously and tirelessly, fulfilling the work entrusted to him: he made plans, pondered means. But at the same time, he handed over both the course of the matter and the success in it to the will of God, to everyone taking the planned step: if by the will of God, I will prosper. He surrendered everything to the guidance of God, which could give a completely different direction to his movement than what he thought to have, as he had already experienced more than once. “Why, since he was guided in everything by the Spirit and did nothing of his own free will, he said so hesitantly” (St. Chrysostom writes: “nor the Divine). The prophets, nor the godly Apostles, did not foresee everything. What was beneficial was revealed to them by the grace of the Spirit. This also means ignorance, expressed in the actual words of the Apostle. Therefore he says: I am writing this, teaching how those who are entrusted with the care of others should behave; because he called the assembly of believers “the house of God and the Church.” “How one should live”, αναστρεφεσθαι, - to behave, - to behave and to communicate with others and to act on them, - “in the house of God”, - in the Church or community of believers. The shepherd is grazing. A non-shepherd - what kind of shepherd? His job is to be among the flock and act: to teach, edify, correct, console, sober, protect - “to order the Church” (Amvrosiastes), or the flock of believers. This is where the Apostle’s instructions are now directed. What has been said before this is, as it were, a preface to the following instructions. “The House of God, the Church of God is alive” is a community of believers. God is everywhere, but in the Church He is in a special way - He is inside each of the believers, and through this in the whole host of them - also not externally, but internally, life-giving to everyone, animating and uniting them, both with each other, and everyone with Himself. God the Father promised: “I will dwell in them and walk around” (2 Cor. 6:16). God the Son certified: “Behold, I am with you all the days” (Matthew 28:20). The testimony about the Holy Spirit is given: “You are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you” (1 Cor. 3:16). The Trinitarian God, the living and creator, lives in the assembly of believers, in the body of the Church. The Savior revealed this secret, saying: “I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you” (John 14:20), - we will add from other places: by grace and the action of the Holy Spirit. “Don’t say that people gathered the Church. She is the work of God, a living and terrible God, and not a dead and weak one, like the gods of the Hellenes” (Blessed Theophylact). “It is built by God, dedicated to God, and has God living within itself” (Ecumenius). But the Church also has God living within itself in a special way - not like the material house of its owner. This one is not in union with the one living in him and does not feel how he lives. And the Church, life-giving by God living in her, is united with Him in a living union and feels Him living in itself, feels that it lives by Him - and that therefore it is even more His house. God creates for Himself a house from souls, turning them to Himself, purifying, sanctifying and filling them, and, filling everyone with Himself, unites everyone into one, both the living and the departed, and keeping everyone in living unity with each other. This Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. For there is a living Church of God, who is the God of truth, or truth itself. Why is everything in it true: true confession of faith, true sanctification by the sacraments, true grace, true life according to God, founded by God in it, true help of God, true promises that give life to those who labor in the house of God - everything is true in it; and do not look for truth anywhere else. There are similarities of certain truths outside of it; but the real truth lies only in it. Rejoice and bless God, who is true in the Church and has made you a partaker of His truth and a co-hidden of it! The words: “pillar and affirmation” express the firmness, immutability and immutability of truth. But the Church is a collection of people who are usually changeable: how is it the pillar and stronghold of truth? The Church is like this, as the house of the living God, the only true one, and as a union of deified people. The true sons of the church are men, but not like men. All people are not real people, due to the fall; and those who enter the Church are made true people by the grace of God. Truth settles into their entire being. Why should the same truth come from them? All this is done by the living and true God who lives in them. The Church is a pillar of truth, as standing firmly and unshakably in the truth and preserving it - it is an affirmation (of truth), as a calmer of minds when they are disturbed by the incoming lies. Therefore, it is imperative to consider as true what the entire Church contains, and to resolve any perplexities that arise with the voice of the Church, expressed by the council of shepherds. Our interpreters, among other things, pursue here the idea that the Holy Christian Church is the truth in relation to the Old Testament Church, in which everything was its shadow. – Blessed Theophylact writes: “The Church is the combination of truths. For everything that happens in it is true, and not hay-like (allegorically, representatively), not figuratively, which is what is in the Church under the law: instead of bells, there is a bright and brilliant sermon; instead of expensive decorations of (sacred) clothes, a glorious life, rich in internal fruits; the bishop in it is the Son of God; the great sacrifice is His Divine body” (abbreviated from St. Chrysostom and Ecumenius). 1 Tim. 3:16. And the greatness confessed is the mystery of piety: God appeared in the flesh, was justified in Dus, appeared as an Angel, was preached to the nations, believed in the world, ascended in glory. This is the truth of which the Church is the pillar and affirmation: “God has appeared in the flesh”! The Holy Church proclaims and confirms this truth by her very existence. For it is a building, the foundation of which is Christ the Lord (1 Cor. 3:11); there is a body, the head of which is He, God the Word made flesh. Just as he who sees a living body in this very thing has a certificate of the head, and he who sees a solid building has a certificate of the foundation: so he who sees the Church is convinced that undoubtedly “God has appeared in the flesh.” Remembering this, the Apostle had in mind to bring to attention that this truth is not something that hides in some unknown corner, but the truth is everywhere, proclaimed and recognized everywhere, both in heaven among the Angels, and on earth among all nations - throughout all creation it is preached, believed, glorified. This had to be imagined in order to impress on the mind of Saint Timothy an urgent demand: this is the truth that you should hold on to! Measure every teaching by it and reject everything incompatible with it. But ahead of this, he considered it necessary to point out that this, which is being proclaimed everywhere, is not something easy, not presenting any difficulty in accepting it, but on the contrary, it is a mystery, and a great mystery: with this he aroused strong attention to it, and taught to value it, and made it clear that no one could reveal or show anything else. “And the greatness confessed is the mystery of piety.” – The Apostle called our Christian faith (Ecumenius) “piety”; and the “mystery of piety” is that the essence of our faith is hidden, both because of its incomprehensibility and because of the hiddenness of its action in us. It originated in the mystery of the Trinitarian God before the ages, and was brought to fulfillment in a manner most incomprehensible to all created minds, and it is internalized or made partakers of believers, too, secretly: for as “the Spirit, where it wills, it breathes, and you hear its voice, but do not know where it comes from or where it goes: so is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). What is also secret is what ends this beginning of a new birth, namely, living communication with God through the Lord Savior through the grace of the Holy Spirit, communication in which “God is, acting all in all” (1 Cor. 12:6), without, however, violating freedom and without taking away the value and dignity of its actions. “Great is this mystery of our piety,” both in terms of the person who created it, and in terms of the forces or means used to assimilate it, and even more so in terms of the end with which its action will be completed, that is, the renewal of heaven and earth and the dawning of the blessed Kingdom of God, and great “confessed”; for, as soon as anyone learns about it and surveys with an intelligent eye everything that is proclaimed and promised it, cannot help but cry out: the great mystery! The greatness of it is unquestioningly and irresistibly confessed by all. Even the most unbelievers, although they do not recognize the truth of our faith, cannot help but admit that its content is most heavenly, sublime, higher and more majestic than anything that the greatest, angelic minds could come up with. Or - the mystery is great, like a mystery, deeply mysterious and incomprehensible - and this is “confessed”, that is, it is unquestioningly recognized by everyone as incomprehensible, unthinkable, unsearchable, “not subject to recovery,” as St. Chrysostom says. Contemplating it, how open it is, be amazed, as all the saints did who ascended to such contemplation, confessing, moreover, its greatness and impenetrable mystery. Don’t try to penetrate into its depths and don’t strain your small mind, so as not to lose it too. “God appeared in the flesh... ascended in glory.” The Apostle describes or depicts this mystery not from the side of its essence, but from the side of its manifestation - he represents the entire course of this manifestation. God moved from heaven and, descending to earth, took upon Himself human fleshly nature, performed great signs and wonders, even in death itself, forcing people to believe that He is truly God, ascended into heaven, met, accompanied, confessed and glorified by Angels, from there He sent down the Divine Spirit, by whom the enlightened, strengthened and inspired The apostles, who traveled throughout the entire earth, announced to all languages about this wonderful thing - the appearance of God in the flesh, and planted faith in the world everywhere - which planting gave birth to the Church, “which is the pillar and foundation of this truth.” In these few words the Apostle combined the entire confession of our faith. “God appeared in the flesh” - not the same phenomenon as he appeared to the forefathers, but such as in which “the Word God became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), - with people in a human way, having accepted our fleshly nature into His hypostasis, in order to complete the embodied economy of our salvation and then forever remain as God unnaked and a difficult man, so that and I will intercede for us. Blessed Theodoret writes: “the real God and the Son of God, having an invisible nature, when he became man, became visible to everyone. The Apostle clearly taught us about two natures, saying that the nature of God appeared in the flesh.” “Truly this is a “great mystery,” says Saint Chrysostom, “because man became God, God became man.” Everyone saw the man, but could not help but confess that He was God. It was so irresistibly imprinted by Him on the consciousness of everyone that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the bodily Godhead” (Col. 2:9). Why, after this, the Apostle says: “I was justified in Dus.” It was recognized that He truly, or righteously, is What He called Himself, that is, the Son of God and God. He clearly told everyone that there is a Son of God equal to God the Father. In this word of His He was “justified.” How? “In Dus” - manifestations of Divine omnipotence, omniscience and holiness - power over visible nature and over invisible spirits. The word “justified” cannot in any way be applied to God incarnate in the same sense as it is applied to people being justified. “By what truth was she “justified” - Truth, the “Sun of Truth,” according to the word of Malachi (Mal. 4:2), which means the most revealed and pure truth? As such, He is not justified, but justifies. Why did the Prophet say about Him: “Whoever commits no sin, flattery will be found in His mouth” (Is. 53:9)” (Ecumenius). - “Having been justified in Dus” means that He performed miracles by the Spirit of God, as He Himself says: “If... I in Dus... I will cast out demons” (Matthew 12:28). Miracles have proven and made clear that Christ is the true God and Son of God. So the centurion at the cross, seeing that the earth was shaking and the universe was filled with darkness, exclaimed: “Truly this Man is the Son of God” (Mark 15:39)” (Blessed Theodoret). Why does Saint John testify: “And we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). How this happened for everyone, St. Paul speaks about this in another place, certifying that he who was from the Seed of David according to the flesh was called, recognized by everyone, as the Son of God “with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, from the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). "Appearing to be an Angel". - “Showing up”, ωφθη, - he was seen. For even the Angels do not see the Divine nature as it is, but only in Its manifestations. The words of the Savior: “The angels... can always see the face of My Heavenly Father” (Matthew 18:10) - indicate an intelligent vision of God, or a vision of Him in that by which it is pleasing for Him to show them His invisible presence. But in the Lord the Savior they saw Him more tangibly. The soul is visible in the eyes. In the eyes of the God-man God can be seen to the extent that the eyes looking at Him are able to perceive the rays of the radiance of the Divine. Saint Chrysostom says: “Consequently, the Angels saw the Son of God with us, but they had not seen Him before. Truly a great secret!” “Blessed Theodoret writes the same thing: “Even the angels did not see the invisible nature of God, but they saw it incarnate.” For from the very birth of God in the flesh until the ascension, they were with Him, accompanied Him in the Ascension, and after the Ascension they surrounded His throne. Blessed Theophylact writes: “Oh, sacrament! With us, the Angels also saw the Son of God, having not seen Him before. For, says the Gospel, “behold, angels came and served Him” (Matthew 4:11). And not only here, but from birth to ascension they served Him. During the birth, the Angels sing a song to Him and preach the good news about Him to the shepherds; and during the ascension they serve Him.” Or does not Saint Paul mean here some special appearance of the Lord Savior to the angelic world after the Ascension - such a appearance in which they saw God-manhood in all His heavenly glory. That something similar probably happened in heaven, this is indicated by the words of the Apostle Paul: “When he again brings the Firstborn into the universe, he says: And let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6), - which was appropriate only after passing the state of humiliation and entering into the glory that was “before the world was not swift” (John 17:5), - and the words Apostle Peter: “He who is at the right hand of God, having ascended into heaven, was subjected to Him by the Angel and the Authorities and the Powers” (1 Pet. 3:22). – This idea is visible in Ambrosiast: “appearing to be an Angel” - no longer in a humiliated form, but in the greatness of strength and power. For until then He was seen in a humble form because of the flesh, until, having conquered death, He rose from the dead - and the greatness of Him was seen, Who, having been born as a man, was not entirely man. "Ascend in Glory". “Although this happened before the sermon; but the Apostle brought this to an end, teaching that they justly believed the sermons; because he who commanded to preach is in heaven and sits on the right hand” (Blessed Theodoret). But in what glory were you ascended? Although “the very thing - to ascend - is glorious” (Ecumenius); but we must believe that the Ascension of the Lord was accompanied by a special kind of glory, not seen by people, but seen by the Angels and sung with their praise. At the moment of the Ascension, we see the Angels present, who announced to the Apostles only about the future appearance of the Lord in glory, themselves, of course, both seeing and singing it at this very time. They were torn away for a moment from the triumph that was happening at that moment in the angelic world. And that it was, this is implied by all the passages that speak of the glorification of the Lord after the resurrection and ascension. The angelic world now received a new device and celebrated its entry into it. The Spirit of God revealed this to the Apostles, and they told us about this. Such is the great mystery of our piety and together with the power of the embodied economy, proclaimed, professed and wonderfully active throughout the entire space of the universe. She is the foundation of the Church, which, by virtue of this mystery entrusted to her, is the pillar and affirmation of the truth. She is the basis of salvation for every believer. Salvation begins with the perception of it, matures under its influence, and ends with the entry of the person being saved into its very heart. A believer should remember her more often than how often he breathes. This will illuminate his life and all things with heavenly light; hence the inspiration, hence the moral strength, hence the inspiring hope. But, as Saint Chrysostom notes, believers, not to their own praise, are not entirely faithful in this regard. “Note,” he says, “that Saint Paul everywhere calls God’s providence for us (in the incarnate economy) a mystery, and rightly so. For it was not known, not even revealed to the Angels; has already been announced to the Church. - Let us live in accordance with the dignity of this secret. Those who are entrusted with secrets are, in a sense, great people. If the king entrusted us with any secret, then tell me, would we not consider this a sign of great favor towards us? Meanwhile, now God entrusts His secret to us, and we, as if no great benefit has been done for us, remain ungrateful to the Benefactor. Let us tremble that we remain insensitive to this good deed!” The Apostle reminded Saint Timothy of this secret, showing him in it an inexhaustible subject for conversations with the faithful and at the same time a powerful tool for their moral management. But from the flow of the speech, it is also clear that he needed to remember it in order to give his deputy the standard of truth, as a yardstick for evaluating the incoming teachings, saying, as it were: everything incompatible with it, in any respect, mercilessly reject, as a lie or an admixture of lies. That this was the intention of St. Paul can be guessed by the fact that after this he predicts the false teaching that is about to appear. b) About false teaching (1 Tim. 4:1–6) Predicting this, the Apostle: aa) characterizes false teachers (1 Tim. 4:1, 2); bb) indicates some objects of false teaching (verse 3) and: c) having exposed its unfoundedness (verses 3-5), d) imposes on St. Timothy the duty: by interpreting this, to arm believers against such future false teaching (verse 6). aa) Characteristics of false teachers (1 Tim. 4:1, 2) 1 Tim. 4:1. The Spirit speaks clearly that in the last times some will depart from the faith, heeding spiritual flattery and the teachings of demons. This verse defines the mental side of false teachers, namely: where they borrow their false teaching from, and the next - the moral side, namely: what they are like in relation to conscience. Both of these, although extremely incriminating, can be applied to all false teachers, with rare exceptions. “The Spirit,” which is clearly stated, is the Holy Spirit, who dwelt in the Apostles and filled them abundantly with His holy gifts, reminding them of what had happened and foretelling what was to come—all in relation to the Kingdom of God. He also revealed to Saint Paul what was to come; and Saint Paul judged it necessary to communicate what was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the believers. The words: “The Spirit speaks” are equally divine, as are the (prophetic) expressions: “This says the Lord” - and: “This says the God of hosts” (Blessed Theodoret). “The Apostle does not remain silent about the future revealed by the Holy Spirit for the edification and warning of the Churches; so that those who have been forewarned of this by the Church carefully maintain caution, lest such people bypass them” (Amvrosiastes). To whom does the Spirit speak: to Saint Paul or throughout the Churches? There were cases when the speaking of the Spirit went through the Churches of God, and the Apostle heard it already from the Churches. Such was the testimony of the Spirit about the bonds awaiting the Apostle in Jerusalem, hearing about which the Apostle said: I do not know what will happen (Acts 20:22, 23, 21:11). But there were cases when the Spirit spoke clearly to the Apostle himself. - So He forbade him to speak a word in Asia and did not allow him to go to Bithynia (Acts 16:6, 7). In the present case, one can assume both: this verb went through the Churches, and Saint Paul heard it from the Holy Spirit. And I heard “clearly”, ρητως, a verb expressed in an articulate word. How? And it could resonate in the ears, and be imprinted directly on the mind and heart, but also with a specific word. He added the following word: ρητως - Apostle, to let us know that the testimony of the Spirit about this is “obvious, clear, unquestioning, so that there is no room for doubt at all” (St. Chrysostom). So know for sure that he says that “in the last times some will depart from the faith.” – “The last times” are not those that will be before the end of the world and the second coming of Christ, but those that will be after us, those that will follow. “They will fall away” directly means: they will leave the faith of Christ and become non-Christians, like Julian the Apostate. But, judging by the subjects of the future false teaching indicated below, we can assume that this deviation will be from the purity of the Christian faith. False teaching will arise among Christians and from Christian principles, misunderstood and crookedly interpreted by human wisdom apart from the voice of the Church. Both the false teachers and those who are carried away by them will consider themselves Christians, and even the most perfect of Christians, as it turned out later. And these, who have retreated, will themselves be false teachers, or will there be special false teachers, described below, and here we are talking only about those who will be carried away by their false teaching? “They will retreat” - points directly to those who are willing to retreat due to the passion of others; but in the explanation of how they will retreat, one cannot help but see the image of how those who are most enticed to retreat will retreat. There will be both. Among some, the superstitious, false teaching will arise; having fallen away from the unity of faith because of him and through this from the one body of the Church, they will lead others who are not firm in the faith. Saint Paul predicted this to the Ephesians much earlier, in a speech he gave to their elders, bidding farewell to them in Miletus: “heavy oxen will enter into you, not sparing the flock; and men will rise up from you, saying perverse things, even if the disciples are torn away after themselves” (Acts 20:29, 30). Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle showed that some, having first joined the church body, would later become teachers of lies. For this is what the words mean: “the world will depart from the faith, listening to spiritual flatterers.” And Saint Chrysostom says: “There will be a time, says the Apostle, when those who have become partakers of the faith will begin to act worthy of condemnation, giving disastrous advice not only regarding food, but also regarding marriages and everything like that.” “Listen to the spiritual flatterers.” This is how false teaching and the origin of apostasy will arise! Two forces will lead to retreat: the spirits of flattery and the teaching of demons; this is from the inside, and this is from the outside. They will listen to flattering spirits, accept false views, recognize them as true, and deviate from the faith that proclaims the truth about what they have accepted false views and beliefs about. A visible apostasy from the faith, expressed by a falling away from the Church, is preceded by an internal falling away from it, which occurs from consent to the suggestions of flattering spirits that are inconsistent with faith. Flattering spirits are unclean forces, servants of the father of lies, demons or demons. They are called flatterers because they lead people into lies through flattery, seduction, and deception. They cover up lies with the appearance of truth and carry them away. But how? directly yourself or through other people? The apostle does not distinguish this, but only points out where the lie comes from. Vonmut, he says, will flatter the spirits and depart from the faith. One can put it this way: having noticed persons more greedy for news, the spirits of lies will internally lead them astray from the path of truth to retreat, and then they will begin to entice others with their help, both externally, through their false teaching words, and internally, through deception in thoughts. Just as the infatuation of these latter or their final agreement to lie does not occur without the internal influence of flattering spirits, the Apostle exposes this in advance as an inaccurate beginning of the falling away from true faith in lies. The same thing happens here as when you fall into sin. Both the examples of others and one’s own urges lead to sin; but the very infatuation and fall does not occur without the participation of evil spirits. They cloud the mind and surround sin with ghostly charms; and the will is inclined to sin. This internal decline is followed by an external one. So in falling away from the faith, either completely or only in certain points, one’s own considerations and the speeches of others take part; but the final consent to accept a lie and follow it is not without being fogged by the spirits of lies, which, covering the lie with the seductive appearance of truth, wrest this consent to it. Which is what the Apostle expresses with the words: “heed the spiritual flatterers.” “The teaching of demons” - the Apostle called that image of the view of Christianity, which is formed internally under the influence of flattering spirits and then, clothed in appropriate expressions, circulates among people in the form of a special teaching, as a temptation and attraction to deviate from the truth into a lie. Demons attack, in the minds of believers, first on one side of faith, in which it is easier for them to imagine the apparent inconsistency of the truth and the illusory consistency of the lie opposite to it. Having succeeded in this, they then teach how to rebuild the entire Christian teaching in the spirit of this lie. When this happens and the formed view receives its expression and structure, the false teaching is ready. After this, demons inflame those taught by them with jealousy, as if according to the truth of God, and they uncontrollably strive to spread the false teaching instilled in them by flattering spirits. He who listens to him listens to the teaching of demons, because it received its beginning from them. At the same time, the demons do not sleep, but hasten to directly act seductively on the soul, into which the attention shown to their false teaching opens the entrance to them. This is the second agent in the attraction of believers to apostasy from the faith. What an unflattering origin of false teaching and the jealousy of false teachers! “Hearing the demons,” writes Theophylact, “false teachers condemned other foods and marriage. However, the Apostle also means all other heresies; for they are all from the deception of the spirits of lies and the teachings of demons.” Ambrosiast leads from this: “What better could be said in advance about false teachers and false teachings in order to encourage one to avoid them or, even more so, to condemn them, than by calling their views delusion and their teaching demonic? After this, having heard speeches contrary to the truth, everyone already knew that this was a teaching composed by demons, as the Holy Spirit predicted through the Apostle.” - And in this, of course, I had the strongest urge to turn my ears away from him. 1 Tim. 4:2. In hypocrisy, a liar, burned by his conscience. How do the distributors of demonic teachings manage to drag people after themselves? Hypocrisy. They take on the appearance of some special people who have comprehended all wisdom, dress in the guise of holiness - and, thereby winning over those who listen to them, they do what they willingly drink the poison of their false teachings and get carried away. This is what the Apostle expressed with the words: “in hypocrisy there is a liar.” Saint Paul called them false talkers because in their teaching, which is false, there are only words and words and nothing that corresponds to reality, as in ghosts. Further, since a lie cannot keep moral forces in proper tension, these false speakers naturally relax themselves in many ways, even in those things that, as improper, are prohibited by their teaching - which, however, they clearly cannot do, because this would undermine their teaching weight and the teaching itself. Hence, it is inevitable that they have hypocrisy or concern to appear holy and blameless while living an unholy and not blameless life. This is one side of hypocrisy. It can be said that another is inevitably added to it, namely: when deeds are allowed that are contrary to the teaching, then the conviction in the validity of the teaching itself weakens or completely disappears in the soul of the one preaching it, and he then becomes a preacher without conviction or a hypocritical teacher. This side is especially emphasized by our interpreters with these words of the Apostle. “In hypocrisy,” writes Ecumenius, “means: in cunning and crafty resourcefulness, by which, knowing that the dogmas they have prepared are false, they manage to present their falsehood as truth.” Theophylact says the same: “what they speak falsely about, they do not speak falsely out of ignorance, but, knowing that it is false, they pretend to teach what is true” (from Saint Chrysostom). Blessed Theodoret takes it in general: “having taken upon themselves the name of Christians, they teach something completely different.” Saint Paul remembers such hypocrisy in order to prevent future apostasies from the faith. For nothing turns one away from teachers more than the perception of hypocrisy in them. “Burnt by their conscience.” Hypocrisy is partly visible on the outside, but burning with conscience is a completely internal matter. Only in the last stages is it revealed by some daring shamelessness in the pursuit of unkind perceived goals. However, the Apostle pointed out this characteristic feature of false teachers, in order to prevent being carried away after them, in the following thought: if you notice hypocrisy, look closely and you will see a burning conscience; and once you notice this, what good can you expect from such people? Burning by conscience gives two thoughts: either that their conscience is burned, or that they are burned by their conscience. Conscience itself never burns out; but the soul can become so insensitive to its suggestions and accusations that it seems as if there is no conscience, it has burned out. False teachers are presented by the Apostle as living in disagreement with the teaching and teaching by word in a manner inconsistent with conviction. This conscience could not leave without denunciation and, of course, denounced them. If now, despite this, they continue to live and act in the same spirit, then it is obvious that their conscience has already been drowned out or they have become deaf to its suggestions - the same as being burned. Blessed Theodoret writes: the Apostle called them “scorched with conscience,” showing their extreme lack of conscience; because the cauterized area, having become dead, loses its former sensitivity.” Burning by conscience can be understood as burning or, rather, burning by conscience. The Greek gives the reason for this: κεκαυστηριασμενον. – Καυστηριαζειν – means: to burn a sign. In the East, owners burn signs on animals, by which both themselves and others recognize that these are their animals. Conscience also kindles similar signs on the foreheads of false teachers, so that those who have eyes to see see and know that they are among the guilty, both here worthy of condemnation, and ready for condemnation there, at the judgment of God - they bear condemnation in themselves. Blessed Theophylact writes: “since they knew a lot of unclean things about themselves, their conscience had burnt signs of their unclean life in them” (the same with Ecumenius). Ambrosiast explains this: “just as a burn damages the skin and leaves a mark, so conscience marks false teachers for destruction, for their deceit, because they cunningly hold one thing in mind and express another in word. The apostle makes it clear that such people cannot change for the better in order to be saved: for just as burning (on animals) cannot change, so their soul cannot be corrected. There is nothing worse than hypocrisy." bb) Certain subjects of false teaching (1 Tim. 4:3) 1 Tim. 4:3. Those who forbid getting married, move away from brushes. Only two objects from the entire false teaching are indicated, probably because they, as obvious ones, stood out more sharply from a number of others, not so obvious, and, moreover, clearly indicate the principles on which the entire false teaching will be built; with them, perhaps, the false speakers began their seductive speech; and, having already managed to confuse you at these points, move on to presenting the entire false teaching and especially your own evil principles. To abstain from marriage and food is not in itself reproachful; It can only be reproachful because of the thoughts with which it is done. It is true, according to the principles of those false speakers, it turned out that marriage and some foods were unclean. Whoever would abstain from them in this spirit would be blaspheming the Creator of all things. Blessed Theodoret writes: “they call both marriage and most foods vile, in desecration of their Creator, Who created this for (non-shameful) consumption.” Why does the Apostle call this kind of abstinence reproachful and warns against it. In what spirit and for what reasons believers can abstain from marriage, the Apostle indicated this in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 7). He also pointed out there that it is fitting for one who strives to abstain from everything, setting an example of this himself (1 Cor. 9:25–27). The false speakers sinned not by instilling celibacy and abstinence, but by turning both into an urgent law and, moreover, on false principles. This is what the Apostle condemns. He “does not reject celibacy and abstinence, but accuses those who force them to make this a law” (Blessed Theodoret); as if those who partake of them are therefore already unclean and join the ranks of those who are perishing. Blessed Theophylact poses the question: “what then? Don’t we forbid marriage?” - and answers: “No way.” But we direct those who do not want to get married to preserve their virginity, instilling in them that it is the most honest thing to do. But it does not follow from this that the marriage is no longer honorable; just as from the fact that gold is more honest, it does not follow that silver is dishonest. And in general, the most honest is the most honest because it is more honest than the honest, and the best is better than the good, not the bad. So, let him who is able eat the gold of virginity; and whoever cannot do this, let him accept the silver of marriage.” Who are these false teachers? The Jews abstained from certain foods. But they had a specific commandment about this and, while they remained Jews, could not act otherwise. Saint Paul in other Epistles does not reproach them for this, but only teaches that now it is no longer timely to keep this law. But as it seems, in this place the Apostle does not mean them, but those who abstained not according to God’s commandment, but according to their own wisdom, although one may consider it probable that they borrowed the example of abstaining from food from the Jews and even based their false teaching on it. So, the prohibition of food, although in some small part, can be considered based on Judaism, not in the spirit, but nevertheless, in the Jewish spirit. As for the prohibition of marriage, neither Judaism nor paganism could provide a reason or support for it. This is something completely new. Where does it come from? Is it not, perhaps, the product of a false teaching that crept into Colossae and circulated throughout Phrygia, in which the prominent point was unsparing of the flesh ( Col. 2:23 )? It was very natural to add to it the prohibition of marriage, which is what the Ephesians did. From the word: “forbidding” one cannot directly conclude that this was already in fact, was now being done; for in connection with the previous speech this can also mean: those who have to forbid. But one cannot help but admit that the beginnings were already there; Such a teaching had already circulated, but it was still powerless due to the small number of followers, and, perhaps, due to the failure to establish the entire system. Both were still expected in the future; The Apostle warns. Of the heresies that were discovered after this, one can see the Manichaeans, Encratites, and Marcionites mentioned here. So does Saint Chrysostom and all our other interpreters. Grammatically: “those who forbid... to move away from the brushes” would directly mean: they demanded not to move away from the brushes, that is, to accept all food without shame. But this would be contrary to the Apostle’s thoughts. Why is it necessary to understand this as if it were: “those who forbid getting married and who command them to move away from brushes” (Blessed Theophylact). Ecumenius cites several examples from Hellenic writers to show that there is no error in the words of the Apostle, but that it is also common for Attic speech to express itself in this way. cc) The unfoundedness of false teaching (1 Tim. 4:3–5) 1 Tim. 4:3. What God has created is to be consumed with thanksgiving by the faithful and those who have known the truth. Having pointed out some objects of false teaching, Saint Paul immediately briefly but decisively denounces its inconsistency - however, focusing only on the latter, on the prohibition of foods. The first - the prohibition to marry - does not deserve attention, probably because its absurdity is self-evident to everyone: for if it were generalized, it would directly lead to the cessation of the existence of the human race. Ambrosiast writes: “they do not mourn the fact that they were born, but they forbid marriages,” being misanthropes. Perhaps this is why the Apostle passed by this subject of false teaching, because it was just in its infancy, spoke out timidly, while the error regarding the use of food was already openly circulating throughout the Churches, introduced, however, by the Judaizers in a different sense than these Ephesian false teachers. The Apostle presses on this, leaving the first aside. Saint Chrysostom notes, among other things, that “The Apostle did this because he did not want the thought (that marriage was unclean) to sow prematurely in the souls of believers; but he exposes one thing that has already begun, namely, the error regarding food.” He denounces by indicating the purpose for which the beasts were created: “what God created for consumption.” God put into the nature of man, like an animal, the need for food, and around him among the creatures he scattered those who could satisfy this need by eating them. He allowed them to do this in paradise; He confirmed this during his expulsion from it and expanded it in the commandments and blessings given to the righteous Noah after the flood. God arranged it this way so that people, seeing the food He prepared for them around them, would recognize God’s care for them and eat the food “with thanksgiving.” This thanksgiving was supposed to nourish religious feelings towards God and, in points of belief about God, to illuminate His face with bright, attractive and exciting features. Thus, in this apparently simplest task, the eating of food, God placed the most impressive, and at the same time silent, school of faith and piety. – False teachers, instilling that there are foods that make a person unclean, perverted this divine order and deviated from God’s intention in giving man the need for food and food itself: they threw a certain darkness over God’s creation and forced this silent school about God and the feelings due towards Him to fall silent. It is obvious that they are wicked: “they inspired unkind thoughts about the Creator of man and by suggesting that there are unclean dishes and worthy of disgust, they led to believe that they had a different creator, not a good one” (Ambrosiastes). Thus, with this brief reminder of the purpose of the creation of the brushes, the Apostle sufficiently exposed the inconsistency of the false teaching about them. But of course, such a denunciation could only be understandable and convincing for those who have a vibrant religious feeling and strong, sound concepts about God. This is why Saint Paul added: “to those who are faithful and know the truth.” He did not say this in the sense that God created meat for consumption only for such people, but in the sense that such people use them in accordance with God’s intention in creating them, that is, they consume them with thanksgiving. As he wrote to the faithful and those who knew the truth, his speech inspired: you, the faithful and those who know the truth, eating meat with thanksgiving, accurately and completely fulfill God’s intention in creating them; your thanksgiving sanctifies all food; and eat it without hesitation, and do not succumb to the confusion that false talkers want to place in you, interpreting that there are unclean foods. The Apostle’s speech can be paraphrased as follows: which (brushna) God created so that the faithful would eat them with thanksgiving, without hesitation. There is no word about the infidels; they eat food without any good thoughts, just to eat and enjoy themselves, like unclean animals. They make even pure dishes, if we can distinguish between them, unclean with their ungrateful hearts and the mere sensual pleasure of the larynx and belly. “Foods are unclean for those who eat them without thanksgiving and praise to the Creator” (Ambrosiastes). Well, who will say, is the enjoyment of breastfeeding really forbidden? Pleasure naturally accompanies the eating of pleasant food; but for those who accept it with feelings of gratitude to God, pleasure loses the character of sensuality, becomes spiritualized and sanctified. When they eat food in order to enjoy, creating pleasure for the flesh in lust, then they are immersed in sensuality; and when they take food to satisfy an inevitable need, with thanksgiving, then they feel the sweetness without becoming sensual. At the same time, raising the mind and heart to God makes sweetness itself somehow detached and dematerialized. Such people accept food, but do not indulge in carnal knowledge. Consumption, μεταληψις, – communion, acceptance. Ecumenius writes: “look, in a word: μεταληψις - The Apostle drove out pleasure, τρυφην? Μεταληψις means eating in moderation.” “Μεταληψις,” writes Theophylact, “observes moderation, but knows no measure. However, the enjoyment of food is not in itself unclean, but because it weakens the soul of those who indulge in it” (both from St. Chrysostom). By truth, in the words: “those who know the truth,” we mean the Christian faith, the only one containing true and sound views about all things. This, of course, also combines the truth regarding foodstuffs, that they should be received with thanksgiving in order to moderately satisfy the needs of the body. So those who look at this act in this regard with full conviction that they are acting correctly, in accordance with the will of God. What conviction gives lightness and holiness to the simple consumption of food, and surrounds it with a special feeling. Or perhaps, here is foreshadowed “that truth about which we will immediately speak, that is, every creation of God is good” (Blessed Theophylact). 1 Tim. 4:4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is taken into account and accepted with thanksgiving. First he gave an argument from the moral and religious system, and now he takes the matter from the side of dogma. Everything that comes from God’s creative hands is good. Good and every good thing destined for man to consume. Consequently, the false talkers lie, prohibiting certain foods, for the reason that they are supposedly unclean. Nothing is unclean in itself; everything is good and pleasant, that is, it can be eaten without shame. “The words: “every creature of God is good” - the Apostle borrowed from the Mosaic Scriptures. “God saw,” it is said, “he created everything that was great; and behold, every thing was good” (Gen. 1:31). And what is good, “acceptable with thanksgiving,” in remembrance of God, turns out to be holy” (Blessed Theodoret). “The expression: “every creature of God” - the Apostle here means something that can be eaten. If all such things are the creation of God, then they are also good: for “all things are good” (St. Chrysostom). “Nothing is noteworthy” - one should not reject anything eaten, not disdain or disdain anything, as if unclean and ungodly; on the contrary, to accept all this as a blessing and a gift from the hand of the Lord. That’s why it should be accepted with thanksgiving. Whoever accepts the meat he eats with thanksgiving, for him they are all pure and holy, by virtue of this very thanksgiving. “Thanksgiving purifies everything; and the ungrateful one is himself unclean and filthy” (Blessed Theophylact). “Ingratitude makes even the pure unclean. The will that does not thank God is unclean” (St. Chrysostom). “All things... are pure to the pure: but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure” (Titus 1:15). 1 Tim. 4:5. It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. “Sanctified by the word of God” - can be understood this way: “sanctified” - sanctified once and for all - “by the word of God”, - by the word that God spoke after creation, that “all is good.” With this word, everything, including everything edible, is recognized and offered as sacred. Therefore, it should be acceptable to a shameless conscience, as pure and holy, with full conviction of it without the slightest doubt. Or - “is sanctified” now, at the hour of eating, and is sanctified by the “word of God” - by calling on the name of God; so: “and prayer” - only explains: “by the word of God.” Invoking the name of God and turning to God in prayer makes every acceptable food holy for the one who takes it in this spirit. But why also special consecration, when, as was said before this, all food is good and no food is worthless? One can answer this in this way: that this only indicates how the condition is fulfilled, under which, according to God’s definition, there is nothing significant, namely: the expression of grateful feelings to God for the gift of food with a request for His blessing to accept the food that is presented. He who eats food this way joins the ranks of those for whom everything acceptable for food is holy and pure. Or Saint Paul makes a kind of concession here: let it be, let us assume that there is something unclean; but even such things are sanctified when you call on the name of God. So Saint Chrysostom: “if “all is good,” then what does it mean: “sanctified by word and prayer”? For it is obvious that what is sanctified is considered unclean. – This is not how you need to take these words. Here the Apostle speaks against those which some foods considered to be something bad. Therefore, he expresses two main thoughts: firstly, that there is not a single creature that would be bad, and, secondly, that even if something were bad, then you have a remedy against it: fall with the sign of the cross, give thanks, give glory to God - and all uncleanness will disappear. “Can it really be that something sacrificed to idols, you say, can be cleansed in this way?” (Yes; however, then) when you do not know that it is sacrificed to idols; and if you know and, despite this, taste of it, then you will become unclean, not because it was sacrificed to idols, but because, having received the commandment not to associate with demons, through this you entered into communication with them. Consequently, (what was sacrificed to idols) is not unclean by nature, but it becomes so as a result of your will and disobedience. - What? Is it really unclean to eat pork? Not at all when you eat it with thanksgiving, with the sign of the cross; in the same way, everything else is not unclean. The will that does not thank God is unclean.” Theophylact and Ecumene have the same thing. In these words of the Apostle one can see the beginning of prayers before and after eating food, as well as sacred readings throughout the table. d) The duty to arm believers against false teaching (1 Tim. 4:6) 1 Tim. 4:6. Having said all this to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ. “This is all” – what exactly? What I have said so far, starting from verse 15 of the 3rd chapter, is that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that the great mystery of piety, around which all other truths of the faith are grouped, is: “God has appeared in the flesh” - that, strictly containing this mystery and every other truth proclaimed by the Church, we must reject everything that disagrees with this, both now existing and having to appear later, as a demonic teaching - and precisely as if one should not marry and eat certain foodstuffs as unclean (St. Chrysostom, Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). “Saying”, υποτιθεμενος, - offering. “Do you see that he doesn’t show any power here, but only condescension? “Saying,” he says. He did not say: commanding, he did not say: commanding, but: “saying,” that is, as if advising; offer this and start talking about faith” (St. Chrysostom). This is noted about the way of teaching the flock, but its very teaching lies on the shepherd, as an inalienable duty, deviating from which or not zealously fulfilling which he is no longer what he should be according to the intention of the Lord, who established the pastorate in the Church. The Apostle inspires this, saying after this: “You will be a good servant of Jesus Christ.” By saying this, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, and by not saying this, you will not be a good servant, you will be an unworthy servant. “Servant”, διακονος, is the name of the shepherd, because his duty is not to rule and exalt himself, but to faithfully “fulfill what he has been ordered to do and pass on the Master’s punishments to his fellow believers” (Blessed Theodoret). And a servant of “Jesus Christ” - because shepherding originates from the Lord Jesus Christ, and every shepherd receives ordination from the hand of the Lord, through the hands of his fellow shepherds. Why, while working to shepherd the flock, he must keep in his thoughts and hearts that he does not serve himself or people, but the Lord, doing His work and fulfilling His will. In this place, only one part of the good ministry of the shepherd is designated - ministry by word. “He serves the Lord well, teaching his flock what Christ wants them to teach” (Ecumenius). The flow of speech shows that this part of the ministry is fulfilled by him not only by proclaiming pure truth, but also by rejecting unclean teachings - and not only by rejecting existing unclean teachings, but also by foreseeing those that will appear and preparing the flock to reflect them. However, this latter cannot be better fulfilled than by a complete explanation and imprinting in the minds of believers of pure truth, or an image of sound words. “What could be more prudent and protective for the flock than for the Christian teaching to be taught to it and taught intact and fully, so that it, firmly rooted in the field of the Lord, bears abundant and lasting fruit - such that even on the day of judgment it would withstand the test of fire and would not be burned by it. Such is the duty of a good teacher and faithful servant of Christ” (Ambrosiastes). c) About the self-creation of a shepherd (1 Tim. 4:6–10) Containing the truth of God and rooting it in the minds and hearts of his flock, the shepherd must not forget himself, but, paying attention to himself, build and improve himself - both: aa) in knowledge (1 Tim. 4:6, 7), and: bb) in true piety (1 Tim. 4:7-10). aa) In charge (1 Tim. 4:6, 7) 1 Tim. 4:6. We nourish the words of faith and good teaching, which you have followed. The Apostle makes the good service of the shepherd to the Lord, in teaching the truth to the flock and protecting it from the teachings of demons, subject to the condition of feeding the shepherd himself with words of faith and good teaching. Acting, he says, in this way in this matter of teaching the flock, you will be a good servant, receiving strength from feeding yourself with the truth. If the shepherd is obliged to act as indicated, then he is obliged to fulfill the condition for the specified proper action. Why: “nourish” has the same meaning as if it were said: “nourish yourself.” The power of the Apostolic word here is in the word: “nourish.” “Not only instruct others, but also practice this yourself” (St. Chrysostom). “You, first of all, should diligently engage in spiritual teaching and be enriched by it” (Blessed Theodoret). “He said: offer this to others. Now he says: but you yourself be nourished (by the same truths), rotating them in your mind and, as it were, chewing them. For, inspiring constant attention to them, he said: “nourish” (blessed Theophylact). That is, “feeding on spiritual food in them: for “man will not live on bread alone” (Matthew 4:4). You should not only offer this to your brethren, but also feed yourself with the same” (Ecumenius). “We feed,” he says, indicating constant attention to such items. For, just as we eat this (bodily) food every day, so we should always accept the word of faith and should always feed on it. What does it mean to “nourish”? Chewing, constantly repeating (in the mind) the same thing, always learning the same thing” (St. Chrysostom). “Words of faith” are the gospel of the Gospel, which embraces the entire incarnate economy, constituting our faith and content acceptable by faith. It is also “good teaching”, as coming from a good source, as being good in itself, and as beneficial for those who accept it now, and leading them to a good end. But it seems that the Apostle had the primary focus in his thoughts on the words: “thou hast followed him.” You already know it and firmly hold it with all your soul. Feed yourself with this content, renewing it with memory in your consciousness and reviving it in your heart with sympathy and love for it. But this happens naturally. The Apostle’s suggestion goes further: feed yourself with this teaching that you already hold, do not chase after any new one, but on the contrary, immediately reject it as alien, as soon as you hear it. What is given to you, keep it; Turn away your ears and attention from the nondevotee who comes from elsewhere. 1 Tim. 4:7. Deny nasty and old woman’s fables. “Bad”, βεβηλους, - vulgar, those who should be disdained. The Apostle reminds us of the same thing that at the beginning of the Epistle he said: “Take heed to fables and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4), that is, about the empty speeches going around and the teachings of false talkers. Neither there nor here does he say definitely what these fables consisted of, perhaps because it was not worth even mentioning them, or because, as the norm of truth is known, everything alien to it was determined by itself and was known to Saint Timothy. In general, it reminds only to inspire denial and opposition. Our interpreters, however, believe that here the Apostle means Jewish beliefs or that part of Judaism that was included in the teachings of false speakers. Theodoret writes: “Women’s fables” the Apostle called the Jewish teachings, not the law, but a false reinterpretation of the law and its untimely preservation.” Saint Chrysostom also explains the reason for this name: “What fables is he talking about here? About Jewish calculations and observations? Does he call them fables? Yes, either because they are fictitious, or because they are untimely. What is opportune is useful. And what is temporary is not only not useful, but also harmful. - Besides, imagine: if a man in his twentieth year of life clung to the breasts of his nurse, then to what extent would he be worthy of ridicule for his timelessness? You see that he calls this both unclean and womanish. And he calls it a part because it is already outdated, and a part because it constitutes an obstacle to faith.” But Ecumenius admits that perhaps the Apostle here means “Hellenic nonsense, as well as the nonsense of the heretics of that time. For, truly, words like these, for example, the legends of the Hellenes: Zeus (Jupiter) fell in love with Ira (Juno); Ares (Mars) fornicated with (Venus); Iphaestus (Vulcan) was thrown from the sky." It is very likely that the teachings of the false talkers were taken partly from the Jews, partly from the Hellenes, and partly drawn from other Eastern faiths. Just as believers, in the very act of believing, reject everything, then, having believed, there is nothing more to do with it. Why does the Apostle write not: deny, as if compete, but: “deny.” “Through this he shows that this must ultimately be avoided. It is his words that have this meaning: don’t even take the trouble to ever enter into conversation with them; except perhaps in the case when you foresee any harm from the fact that we, as if due to our powerlessness, refuse to interview them” (St. Chrysostom). bb) In true godliness (1 Tim. 4:7–10) 1 Tim. 4:7. Train yourself to godliness. The Apostle calls life in the spirit of the Christian faith “piety.” Although this life embraces not only a due attitude towards God, which in fact is piety, but also all sorts of exploits and the whole circle of good deeds; but since these two sides, or parts, are observed by Christians for the sake of God and are dedicated to Him, so that “their life is entirely hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3), then the Apostle called the whole life of faith piety. “Train yourself to piety” - that is, in pure faith and righteous life (practice), to the best behavior (tune yourself); because this is what piety consists of” (St. Chrysostom). “It is united with right faith, zealous concern for a life pleasing to God” (Ecumenius). But what the Apostle wants to instill here is combined in the word: “teach yourself.” “Teach”, γυμναζε, - exercise yourself in the works of Christian piety in order to become skilled at doing them, just as gymnasts practice various body movements in order to acquire skill and art in them. The body is capable of very dexterous movements, but it must be accustomed to this through exercise. Likewise, a believer, after baptism and acceptance of grace, is capable, that is, ready and strong, for all kinds of deeds and exploits in the spirit and according to the requirements of the holy faith; but in order to do all this properly and fruitfully, for this you must train yourself in such matters. But the gymnast first practices various body movements alone, especially, only approximately, but in reality these body movements will be useful to him later; the Christian gymnast directly enters not into exemplary, but into real deeds, and by doing them he trains himself to perform them best. Therefore, “teach yourself” - the same thing means: do not miss a single case in which you can do a work in the spirit of your faith, or even more: look for such cases in order to quickly be established in works according to our faith and then without difficulty show yourself before God and people as a “worker without shame” (2 Tim. 2:15). Experience has already shown that such self-exertion is necessary to achieve perfection in life - and it is a comprehensive exercise, that is, in how to conduct one’s external affairs, or in maintaining one’s behavior, and in how to keep in order the various movements that arise within. Zealous exercise in both is always crowned with success, that is, with skill in a life pleasing to God, both internal and external. This perfection does not come by itself: you need to train yourself. So it is with every believer, especially with the shepherd of the faithful. Why was it not superfluous for Saint Timothy to say: “Teach yourself to piety.” 1 Tim. 4:8. Bodily training is useful in small ways, but piety is useful for everything, having a promise for the life of the present and the future. What kind of bodily training are we talking about here? About strengthening the body with gymnastic exercises and accustoming it to quick and dexterous movements: for he says: σωματικη γυμνασια - bodily exercise. Why is it brought up here? Then, in order to arouse through this to greater zeal, to practice in the deeds and labors of piety. The apostle says something like this: those who wish to receive crowns at the games diligently practice bodily gymnastics in order to strengthen their body and accustom it to dexterous movements. But if for perishable crowns they use so much work in physical gymnastics, then how can one not use much more work in spiritual gymnastics, that is, in teaching oneself piety for incorruptible crowns?! That “bodily training” or exercise is “smallly useful” - that is, useful for a small something or for a short time, “that is, only for the body and only for real life” (Ecumenius). It is useful for something small, namely, for strengthening the body, accustoming it to easy movements and thereby obtaining crowns in competitions at folk games, and both are of little importance; useful for a short time - only for real life, and not all of it. And piety “is useful for everything,” that is, both for prosperity in the present life and for eternal bliss in the future—“a promise for the life of the present and the future.” “There is a promise” indicates that God Himself, in His unchanging truth and inexhaustible goodness, deigned to combine with piety, or life in the spirit of the faith of Christ, both temporary prosperity and eternal bliss. By “belly” we mean not life as life, but the quality of life, the desired, happy and blissful life, without which life is not life. If this is piety, then exercise in it should be conducted accordingly, that is, with as much zeal as its fruit is higher than the fruit obtained by bodily exercise. By bodily training, out of context, others, especially the ascetic Fathers, mean bodily exploits and in the words of the Apostle they see a definition of their relative value, compared with spiritual exploits. But in the context, according to the flow of speech, this refers to gymnastic exercises of the body. Saint Chrysostom says: “Some believe that this is said about fasting. But we cannot agree with this: fasting is not a physical, but a spiritual exercise. For if it were a bodily exercise, it would nourish the body. If it exhausts, thins and dries out the body, then it does not constitute bodily exercise. Consequently, he is not talking about this, but about bodily (gymnastic) exercises, which others do even not during competitions and, like warriors, do everything, abstain from everything, endure hard work. But why, you ask, does he mention bodily (gymnastic) exercise here? In order to show through comparison the superiority of spiritual exploits (in piety); because the first (physical gymnastics), being combined with great work, does not bring much benefit and nothing worth talking about; and the latter (deeds of piety) bring constant and abundant benefit. – The first type of exercise does not bring benefits, but only brings a few benefits to the body. And exercise in piety bears fruit in the future life: it provides consolation both here and there.” Explaining this last point, Blessed Theophylact adds: “and here, he says, piety supplies a person. For, not being convicted by conscience of anything bad, and here rejoicing in spirit, the faithful having promises of future blessings, there and by the very deed will live true life.” The first part of this explanation, however, he took from the same Saint Chrysostom, in whom it was set out in more detail: “and here we abide in good hope. For the one who does not know any crime behind him and does good deeds rejoices in this life. Meanwhile, a vicious person, not only there, but also here, endures punishment, constantly living in fear, not daring to look at anyone with boldness, trembling, turning pale, languishing. Isn’t this what greed seekers are like, thieves who are not sure of what they own? Do not adulterers and murderers lead the most painful lives, looking with distrust at the very sun? Is this really life? This is not life, but rather the most difficult death.” 1 Tim. 4:9. The word is true and worthy of all acceptance. “That is, this word is true and worthy of everyone accepting it as undoubted. What is this word? That piety is useful both here and there” (Blessed Theophylact). “Because he mentioned the future life, and it is something invisible; then, out of necessity, he added certification that the word about this is true, as worthy of faith and adorned with truth. The ascetic must inspire the ascetics by confirming the fidelity of their rewards” (Blessed Theodoret). Another time in this Epistle the Apostle pronounces this affirmative expression: above that the Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), and here about the fact that in piety, or in life in the spirit of the faith of Christ, one must exercise more than wrestlers practice in bodily gymnastics, since piety has behind it the promise of temporary happiness and bliss eternal. He does this to impress upon the minds and hearts of the readers of the Epistle the conviction that both faith in the coming of the Lord Jesus for the salvation of sinners and zealous exercise in piety, or life in the spirit of the faith of Christ, are equally obligatory for the followers of Christ, and that only on the combination of both of them can the hope of salvation and obtaining eternal bliss stand firmly. Inspired by this steadfastness of hope, we endure everything for Christ the Lord. 1 Tim. 4:10. For this we labor and reproach ourselves, for we live by trust in God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of the faithful. The falsity of the promise and the certainty of receiving the hoped-for is confirmed by the Apostle with his own example (Blessed Theodoret). That faith and life by faith bring eternal life, the conviction of this constitutes our strength. Why do we raise such troubles and expose ourselves to every kind of reproach? Not because of anything else but because they are sure of receiving an eternal life for it. What is this confidence based on? Because we trusted (ηλπικαμεν) in God, we were completely confident in the truth of His word and relied entirely on Him. This application gives the idea that the Apostle wanted to say this: we heard the word of promise from the mouth of God Himself, we were completely confident in Him and relied on Him that the promised would undoubtedly be fulfilled. Without this addition of thought, one example of the Apostles would not be demonstrative. But when behind this example we see the face of the living God giving a promise, then he, becoming a representative of the action of the word of the living God, proves to everyone the certainty of hope with equal strength, as if he himself had heard the word from the mouth of the living God. Saint Paul, not only here, but also in other places, demonstrates his confidence in the certainty of hope - and it was a life-giving force for him in bearing the Apostolic labors. I flow, he says, not against the unknown, “I strive not as the air beats” (not against the wind) (1 Cor. 9:26). This is written to Saint Timothy, who shared with the Apostle Paul all his labors; I was undoubtedly filled with the same spirit of hope. Why: “we” (“we labor in hope”) - here it sounds like “you and I.” In their faces, of course, the thought is brought to all the Apostles, and to all those who labor in the gospel. This is reminded of Saint Timothy in order to evoke and restore the same spirit of hope that always enlivened him and to say, as it were: be as always. For Saint Timothy was now left alone to bear labors that he previously shared with St. Paul. St. Chrysostom says: “Here the Apostle encourages St. Timothy to endure dangers, so that he would not lose heart, having such a strong helper in God, and would not need the assistance of others, but willingly endure everything with courage.” God is called the living God to express that our hope is not ideal, not based on the idea of ​​God, but on the word of the living God, who by his very deed accomplished and arranged everything necessary to receive what we hoped for. We have seen face to face and effectively known the living God, so we do not hesitate to trust. Or for this reason this word: “alive” - it is added that God, as He, can always fulfill the promise. People, be they princes, exist today, but tomorrow they are gone. God always lives to give what he promised. Blessed Theophylact writes: “Here the royal soldiers, having endured many labors and dangers, often do not receive due reward when the king happens to die in the meantime; and our King is always alive, and will always reward.” “God is the Savior of all men” - because “he wants to be saved by all people and to come into the understanding of truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) - and not only wants to be saved by everyone, but also created a wondrous image of salvation, open to everyone and always powerful to save everyone who wants to use it. But why is He a Savior “more than the faithful”? Because God’s saving will, God’s saving power and God’s saving dispensation (economy salvation) extends to everyone and is sufficient for the salvation of everyone; but in fact, only the faithful are saved, or become partakers of these salvations, that is, only those who believe in the gospel and, after accepting grace, live in the spirit of faith. So God, who is always willing and always powerful to save everyone, is in reality only the Savior of the faithful. translate: precisely to the faithful. “Zhe”, δε, - there is no particle in the Greek. To add this: precisely to the faithful - St. Paul needed it, because he wrote about the hope of the eternal life, which the unfaithful cannot participate in. “God is the Savior of everyone here, but not everyone there, but only those worthy of being saved” (Ecumenius). But here too, God the Savior shows special care for the faithful: for if this had not happened, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth long ago (Ecumenius). Saint Chrysostom says: “How, you ask, is God a Savior more than the faithful? Because it reveals great concern for the faithful. If He were not their Savior, then nothing would have prevented those against whom everyone is fighting from perishing long ago.” d) On the edification of the flock (1 Tim. 4:11–16) Following instructions on how to edify oneself, St. Paul gives lessons to St. Timothy on how to edify his flock. There are two main points here: live exemplary and teach zealously - pay attention to yourself and to your teaching; the rest is added as an incentive to zealous shepherding (1 Tim. 4:11-16). 1 Tim. 4:11. Make this commandment and teach. These words seem to be the conclusion of the previous speech; but it is better to recognize them as a transition to the next one, giving them the following meaning: not only feed yourself with the words of faith and teach piety, in the hope of eternal life, but also teach your flock the same and instruct them to act in this way. “This” - “that is, to learn piety, to expect rewards, to look to the Hero of Labor” (Blessed Theodoret). “Teach and teach” - one can refer to one and the same thing, namely teaching - teach, exhort, convince - and so it is understood that the word: “teach” means teaching, and the word: “teach” means an authoritative pastoral command. Our interpreters believe this difference in these words. Saint Chrysostom says: “When arranging human affairs, sometimes instruction is required, and sometimes command. If, therefore, you began to command where you should teach, then you would be worthy of ridicule. And vice versa, if you began to teach where you need to command, then the same thing would happen to you. For example, what should not be evil (what should not steal [see: Blessed Theophylact]), this should not be taught, but this should be commanded and prohibited with special force; just as it should command that one should not adhere to Jewish errors. If you intend to talk about how one should distribute property, how one should maintain virginity, or if you are thinking about talking about faith, then teaching becomes necessary. That is why Saint Paul uses both of these expressions: “command and teach.” – Also, if someone wears pendants (out of superstition, to ward off evil) or something similar and does this, knowing that this is evil, then in this case only one command is necessary; when, without knowing it, there is an instruction. “Do you see that a priest must both command and speak with authority, and not teach everything?” 1 Tim. 4:12. Let no one care about your youth: but be an image with the right word, life, love, spirit, faith, purity. That is, edify your flock with your good morals, good life and good deeds, so that they follow you, despite your youth. “If you want, says the Apostle, not to be neglected when you give orders, be animated by the law, show in yourself the success of the laws, let your life testify to the word” (Blessed Theodoret). “Saint Timothy was young in years, but in morals he was an important old man. The Apostle exhorts him: be such that your success in everything represents an example of good deeds, so that in you, a young man, a training worthy of respect and admiration (disciplina) is visible, so that your deeds do not show your age, and everyone has you not as a young man, but as an old man, so that the elders blush with age, not showing themselves, like you, important in behavior and morals, and the young have in you a peer his teacher. “This young man, Saint Timothy, was marvelous, when his example was powerful to curb untrained youth and expose old age, which does not respect its inherent importance” (Ambrosiastes). “Let him be negligent,” let no one despise your youth or you because of your youth. Just as it is impossible to force not to despise, the meaning of the Apostolic suggestion is this: do not bring yourself to the point of being despised, do not give reasons for contempt for you and disrespect for you. How to manage this is shown by the following words: “but wake up the image.” “Show a life adorned with good morals, and your youth will not be despised, but, on the contrary, it will attract general surprise” (Blessed Theophylact). “As long as you lead a life decent (to your rank), no one will despise you for your age, but everyone will be even more surprised at you” (St. Chrysostom). And this may still be the meaning here: according to the consciousness of your youth, do not remain silent and do not ignore when you need to speak, denounce, correct, act with authority; for if you allow this, those who are faulty before your eyes will begin to commit outrages, putting your authority at nothing. It is no longer you, Timothy, but in your person the bishop will be despised, the Apostolic power devoted to him to build the Holy Church. This cannot be allowed to happen. “The teacher should not be neglected” (St. Chrysostom). “A bishop, acting as a bishop, must speak and reason with authority” (Ecumenius). “Command what is due with authority, and no one will despise you” (Blessed Theophylact). But how will the bishop demonstrate the meekness commanded to him above (1 Tim. 3:3)? To this Saint Chrysostom says: “Where, you say, is meekness if he never experiences disdain? In those things that personally concern him, let him, having been neglected, bear it, for in this way his long-suffering will contribute to the success of the teaching; but as far as (saving) others is concerned, no, because it will no longer be meekness, but indifference. When he takes revenge for insults inflicted on him, or for slander, or slander; then it is fair to blame him. When it comes to saving others, then command and dispose with full authority. What is needed here is not meekness, but power, so that this does not become disastrous for society.” “But be true to the image.” “In everything, set an example of good deeds. That is, be the prototype in life, appearing before others as an animated law, as a rule, and a charter for a good life. For this is what a teacher should be” (Saint Chrysostom). “The Word” - or the teacher’s, that is, “in saying what should be said as a teacher. You see that the teacher must prepare a word or have it prepared” (Ecumenius), - “in order to speak with convenience” (Blessed Theophylact), - “in order to enter into an interview without difficulty” (St. Chrysostom). Or in an ordinary word when addressing each other, in conversations and interviews, so that both the content and the manner of speech are edifying. In this case, we are reminded here of the same thing that was said elsewhere to everyone: “Let every word that is corrupt come out of your mouth, but let it be true... for building up... let him give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29). This idea is closer to the flow of speech. “Life”, εν αναστροφη, - in mutual circulation, or in the way of holding oneself during meetings and relations with others - in accordance with the place, time, persons and one’s rank. The application of this is appropriate in everyday, civil, and church orders of life and relationships - “in ordinary life and in church rites” (Blessed Theophylact). The general law here is: to meet everyone with respect for him and the readiness to do him every good, in word and deed, without allowing any freedom in treatment. “Love”, which embraces everyone, like brothers and sisters (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). And in mutual circulation love must breathe; but there another treatment may seem amateur without being so. Why does the Apostle enter inside the heart and plant love there as the queen of all deeds—the love of feelings, so that loving deeds come from it. The shepherd, taking the flock into his hands, must accept everyone as blood children and as relatives - and care for everyone as if they were his own. “By the Spirit” - “or spiritual mood, or the gift of grace of the Holy Spirit” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). In the first respect, it is required to be detached from everything created and sensible and to have your life hidden in God (Col. 3:3), doing everything for His glory, according to His will, in His presence, with fear and reverence. In the second - “not to be exalted by the gift of grace of the Holy Spirit” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact), but rather to humble oneself, fearing not to be as active and fruitful as one should be, judging by this gift. “By faith” - “right and unwavering, when someone believes in God even in what is impossible (in the natural order)” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). There are two faiths: right faith, which accepts without a doubt of thoughts everything revealed to us by God, and faith, confident in God that it will not abandon those who have surrendered themselves to Him and will lead to the desired end - eternal bliss, no matter what position one may be in here on earth. The first faith reigns in the mental sphere, the second in active life. This is the latter for admonition, reinforcement of moral energy and extrication from difficult and dangerous circumstances for the purity of the heart and conscience. The top of it is the faith about which the Savior speaks: “believe in Me, the works that I do, he will do also” (John 14:12). And again: “everything you ask in prayer as a believer, you will receive” (Matthew 21:22), or: “everything you ask in prayer, believe as you receive, and it will be done for you” (Mark 11:24). “Purity”, εν αγνεια, - in purity, - “in virgin purity and chastity” (St. Chrysostom, Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). Saint Timothy was a virgin in body. What was instilled in him was only the virginity of the heart, which one may not have with a virgin body, when one is not indifferent to the beauty of a woman, even without lustful desires. He who lives in the spirit, as indicated in the word: “by the spirit,” must also be detached from this, having all his wives as sisters, which eliminates any preference for any one, not based on her spiritual dignity, and clinging to her based on her outward attractiveness alone. 1 Tim. 4:13. Until I come, listen to reading, consolation, teaching. He said: be an example in everything for your flock, so that they listen to your word and obey it obediently. Now he indicates what should be done with them in order to edify them and lead them to perfection - namely, reading, consolation, teaching; “Listen to the reading” of the Divine Scriptures, the “consolation” of those who need it, the “teaching” addressed to everyone in general” (St. Chrysostom). Blessed Theodoret distinguishes consolation and teaching as follows: “teaching, without being held back by anything, offers various instructions (in general - “to all the people” [Ecumenius]); and consolation either encourages the sad, or calms the angry with advice.” Blessed Theophylact, repeating this, adds to the explanation of “consolation” that its object is “the persuasion and stimulation of those who feel a decline in moral energy.” Ambrosiastes writes: “When with a gentle word we dispose others to a good deed, this is consolation; and when we imprint something hidden (the sacraments of faith) in the minds of those who listen, this is teaching.” As for reading the Divine Scriptures, it can be understood as reading in church meetings, and reading at home, as preparation for reading in meetings, and a collection of reserves from which to draw consolation and teaching (Ambrosiastes). From here our interpreters draw such lessons. Saint Chrysostom says: “Timothy commands him to read. Let us all listen to this and learn not to neglect the study of the Divine Scriptures. This was said not to Timothy alone, but to everyone. If the Apostle gives such instructions to the one who raised the dead, then why should we say against it? And Christ points to the teachers when he says that “like the kingdom of heaven is to a homely man, who wears out of his treasure the new and the old” (Matthew 13:47, 52). Blessed Paul also inspires this when he says: “Let the imams have hope through patience and the consolation of the Scriptures” (Rom. 15:4). “He himself did it more than anyone else.” Having been instructed in the law at the feet of Gamaliel, he, of course, continued to read it after that. Do you not see how he often brings evidence from the Prophets and examines them? Therefore, if Paul is engaged in reading - for no small benefit comes from the Scriptures - then will we be lazy and absentmindedly listen to him? – Let us also add a short word from Blessed Theodoret: “And blessed Timothy, no matter how spiritual he was, the teacher commands him to listen to the reading. From this we can understand that we must also bring in labor on our own to sharpen the path to receiving the grace of the Spirit.” The words: “until I will come” are added both as a consolation that, being left alone, you will not be an orphan for long, and to drive away fear when you encounter perplexities, as it were: if you encounter perplexity, look for its resolution in Scripture; If you don’t get it, I’ll come soon and solve it. Blessed Theophylact writes: “he consoles Saint Timothy, saying: “I will come until then,” for this gave hope that he would soon see the teacher, since, having been orphaned, he certainly sought Paul with his heart. And here’s another reason why he said this: since Saint Timothy, being young, of course, did not know much and needed the presence of a teacher in order to learn it from him; then Saint Paul says to him: while I come, read the Scriptures, and there you will find the necessary provisions of the law. And when I come, I’ll tell you the rest.” 1 Tim. 4:14. Do not neglect your gift that lives in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood. “Do not be negligent” - coming after: “attend to reading”, consolation, teaching - makes it clear that if he does not do this, he will turn out to be negligent, and that this negligence will be negligence about the talent living in him. Since this gift is obviously the gift of episcopacy or shepherding, it follows that a shepherd who neglects reading, consolation and teaching is a careless shepherd, a neglecter of the gift of shepherding given to him and abiding in him. He buries his talent in the ground (Matthew 25:25) or wraps his “us” in a rag (Luke 19:20) - and goes to sleep. Ambrosiastes writes: “if the shepherd of the people (faithful) is negligent about this (about reading and so on), then he is negligent about the grace given to him. For then he becomes a leader of the people, so that he takes care of their salvation, admonishing and teaching, so that his placement in this rank will bear fruit; since God then elevated him to this degree, so that he would contribute to the salvation of His people. Why is it that anyone, having been awarded such dignity, is negligent, he will be considered a despiser of God and “he will be called in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Moreover, whoever does not care to teach, will he care about doing?” This was the purpose for which the Apostle said this here: “do not neglect the gift.” He wanted to present an incentive for the shepherd’s previously indicated activities in shepherding, making it clear that the main task of the shepherd is to teach and lead the souls entrusted to him through teaching through salvation. A shepherd who does not teach is not a shepherd. -But in order to further strengthen this impulse, the Apostle considered it necessary to remind Saint Timothy of how he received such a gift of shepherding. “It is already given to you to be fast.” He did not appropriate it to himself, he did not seek it and covet it directly or indirectly, but: “given.” Saint Timothy was chosen by the common voice and general direction of the faithful. But the voter was not satisfied with this, but waited for instructions from above. And it was given by “prophecy,” that is, either by a special revelation about the dignity of the chosen one to St. Paul, or by a prophecy about this by one of the Prophets then common in the Church, or by some other indication from above. Saint Paul already mentioned the prophecies about Saint Timothy above (1 Tim. 1:18). This probably happened more than once. But here we are talking about what happened in Ephesus. “Prophecy,” writes Ambrosiast, “is an indication from above that the one chosen will be a worthy teacher.” Why, having said: “by prophecy,” the Apostle testified that Saint Timothy was ordained bishop “at the command of the Holy Spirit” (Blessed Theophylact). And in general then, “bishops were appointed at the command of the Spirit, and not somehow. And that is a special type of prophecy, when it is indicated from above to the present, as there - in Antioch: “Separate Barnabas and Saul” (Acts. 13:2)" (Ecumenius). Instructions from above about the dignity of the chosen one happened many times in the Church; Often those who elected did not dare to complete their election without instructions from above. Election - preparation; the very installation of a bishop was then accomplished by ordination: “the laying on of the hands of the priesthood”, του πρεσβυτεριου, - actually the eldership, the eldership, or the host of elders and elders in the Church. Priests were chosen from such persons, and Saint Paul probably means them here. Since there were quite a few of them in Ephesus and around, he designated them all with a common name: πρεσβυτεριου, - which is translated in Slavic: “priesthood”, - a host of priests. But how does it turn out: priests ordain a bishop? Saint Chrysostom answers: “He is not talking about presbyters (not about priests) here, but about bishops; for it was not the elders who ordained the bishops.” So it is with Ecumenius and Theophylact. But Blessed Theodoret writes that the Apostle here calls “priesthood” those who have been worthy of Apostolic grace.” And therefore, Saint Paul here means only himself. This is completely consistent with what he says in the Second Epistle to Timothy: “I remember you to kindle the gift of God in you by the laying on of my hand” (2 Tim. 1:6). There “gift” and here “gift” mean the same thing. Consequently, the mentioned “gift” was given by the laying on of the hands of Saint Paul, as having Apostolic grace. - But in this case, the word: “priesthood” will receive not a direct, but a figurative meaning. In order to retain the direct meaning of this word and together with the laying on of hands, which communicated the grace of the episcopate, to understand the laying on of the hands of St. Paul, and not the presbyters, we can assume that in the present place the laying on of hands of the priesthood was valid, but it was not as the fulfillment of the sacrament of episcopal consecration, but as an expression of consent to election, and, perhaps, even separately from the consecrated laying on of hands of St. Paul, - first as the completion of the election indicated by revelation from above. In this case, the meaning of the whole passage will be this: do not neglect the gift given to you by the laying on of my hands, according to prophecy, with the consent of the entire priesthood, which they expressed by their laying on of hands on you. It gave its hands of consent. 1 Tim. 4:15. Learn from these, abide in these, [understand in these,] so that your success will be revealed in everyone. “In these” - in everything that was said to him before, that is: “be faithful to the image” - and: “attend to reading, consolation, teaching” - or even higher: feed on the words of faith and train yourself to godliness, according to the hope of eternal life. But you can limit the breadth of meaning: in these, mainly by what relates to the creation of oneself as a shepherd, and to the pastoral creation of the flock. “Learn”, μελετα, - reason about this, keep this in your mind constantly and think about it, be diligently occupied with this. - “Abide in these” - be completely in this, so that nothing else comes to mind, be wholeheartedly devoted to this one. As a warrior is all in his army, an artist is all in his art, a scientist is all in his science: so be you all in your shepherding. For this is an essential condition for appearing perfect in the work that someone undertakes or to which someone is called. Why does the Apostle add after this: “may your prosperity be manifested in everyone.” – “Prosperity” – success, perfection. “It will be” - so that it is obvious that you are perfect in everything, both in life and in teaching, or so that it is clear to everyone that you are perfect in your work and rank, that is, shepherding. In this way, it will come naturally that no one will care about your youth. Ecumenius writes: “prosperity” indicates great; for, if it were not very great, it clearly would not be. The word: “in all” means: either in all people, or in all things.” Theophylact supplements this: “in all,” that is, not only in life, but also in the teacher’s word. Look how great and wondrous he wants him to be even in this!” The words: ["understand in these"] - none of our interpreters reads. From verse 14 to the end of the chapter, the Apostle offers convincing ideas as an exhortation to good shepherding: in verse 14: “do not neglect the gift”; here: “may your prosperity be revealed in everyone”; further: “you yourself will be saved and those who will listen to you.” “Look,” says Saint Chrysostom, “how persistently he encourages him to do the same thing, wanting to show that the teacher should try most of all about this (that is, to be a model and teach).” 1 Tim. 4:16. Pay attention to yourself and the teaching and remain in them, for by doing this, you yourself will be saved and those who will listen to you. “Take heed to yourself and to the teaching.” “That is, be attentive to yourself and teach others” (St. Chrysostom). But this has already been said; Therefore, we can believe that here the Apostle meant to instill not so much the subject of the matter as the way of doing it. The verbs used here give rise to this assumption: επεχε - and επιμενε. "Επεχε - have it on yourself. Have the mind on yourself - pay attention to yourself; but you can also have the tension of the will on yourself, or force yourself, put it on yourself. It will be: επεχε σεαυτω - lean on yourself and on the teaching of others, do not spare labor, force yourself to lead an exemplary life and tireless teaching. Moreover The following also comes closer to the meaning: “abide in them” - “Abide”, επιμενε, - abide in this with effort, diligence and patience, - in these labors and shepherding activities, do not know fatigue. This is επιμενε - indicates inspiration for patient work and effort, - and hope for. success; so: “abide in them” - it will be: be tireless in the labors of shepherding, in the hope of success of the saving fruit, which is spoken of immediately. “By doing this, you yourself will be saved and those who will listen to you.” - “Save yourself”; for if you do this, then there is nothing more to demand from you - you will do your job as it should, whether your flock listens to you or not. But the Apostle promises even more than this, namely, that those who listen to him will be saved. They will certainly follow you, and just as you, acting in the above manner, truly achieve salvation, then they, after you, will achieve the same. It seems that Saint Paul especially had in mind to demonstrate the victorious power of teaching, justified and confirmed by life. In this case, he seems to say, no one will resist your word and conviction - everyone will obey you, follow your teaching and your example and be saved. The fruit of this will respond to you. Ambrosiastes writes: “The Apostle urges that Saint Timothy present himself to everyone as an example in good deeds and be exemplary in the work of teaching. Success should be manifested not only in teaching, but also in deeds. For just as a good tree produces good fruit (Matthew 7:17), so good teaching cannot bear evil fruit. When good deeds are visible, those who listen, convinced that this is the fruit of good teaching, cannot help but receive benefit from the teaching. For what is proposed in the word of teaching is always recognized as true and accepted with fear and reverence, if it is clear that everything is reverently observed by those who teach. Thus, the good shepherd of the people will receive fruit in two ways - both for his good deeds and for the salvation of his flock - those who listen to him; on the contrary, if he is careless, then he will give an account to God both for himself and for them.” b) Instructions on how to teach and lead the flock, judging by their different states You should not act on everyone in the same way, but you must take into account the differences of each person in age, position in the Church, position in society and external condition. How to do all this, St. Paul indicates in the last two chapters. Saint Paul takes into account only the opposites of old man and young man, old woman and young woman. About the others he leaves instructions to Saint Timothy himself. And he points to these as if only as an example. 1 Tim. 5:1. Do not do dirty tricks to the old man, but comfort him as he would his father; the young man as he would his brethren. By old man here St. Paul means not one who is venerable in priestly dignity, but one who is outdated in years (St. Chrysostom and all). To such a person, he says, “don’t do dirty tricks,” μη επιπληξης, don’t shout at him, don’t scold him, and don’t shame him. “But what if he needs correction? In this case, treat him as your own father who has sinned, with respectful quietness” (St. Chrysostom, Ecumenius). Why does he say: “comfort”, παρακαλει, - beg, beg, persuade. “By the very essence of the matter, this, that is, listening to comments, is painful, and especially when this happens to an elderly person; If, however, comments are given to the youngest, then this becomes three times intolerable. Therefore, it is necessary to soften the severity of this with meekness and friendliness. For one can reprove without cruelty if anyone wants to get used to it; only this requires great prudence; however, this is possible” (Saint Chrysostom). “This is how the Apostle teaches to dispose an old man to goodness, because of the respect caused by his age. With such an attitude towards him, he will more conveniently accept the proposed instruction: for, despite the respect shown to him, at the first suggestion he cannot help but fear that the next time they will shout at him, which is a shameful thing for an elder to undergo; among all nations, eldership is respectfully respected. Why, like the synagogue, the Church also had elders, without whose advice nothing was done in the Church. And I don’t know how this got out of the ordinary? Perhaps because of the carelessness of pastors and teachers, or, better, because of their pride, because they alone wanted to be prominent in the Church” (Ambrosiastes). “Young men, like the brethren,” that is, exhort and persuade them to do good. “Why does this commandment here, that is, a meek manner of speech? Then, so as not to irritate the insolence characteristic of this age; why, in this case, reproof should be softened by the spirit of meekness and love” (St. Chrysostom). “The Apostle commands the young men to be admonished as brothers, with the warmth of love, so that, seeing that they are admonished out of love, they will correct themselves more willingly; especially if they see that the mentor himself does not at all disagree with his lessons” (Amvrosiast). 1 Tim. 5:2. Old women, like mothers: young ones, like sisters, with all purity. “Old women” - teach, exhort, persuade to do good, “like mothers.” “The reason for this is the same as in relation to the elders” (Ecumenius) - “softening the bitterness of corrective speech with the warmth of filial love and respect” (Blessed Theophylact). “The elders, seeing that they are taught with meek speech, will accept it without bitterness, since in this case respect is observed towards them. It is bitter for the old to accept lessons from the younger ones. Why, when this happens inevitably, the Apostle orders that this action be softened with meekness and respect, so that it will serve the benefit of both the teacher and the listener” (Ambrosiastes). “Youngs,” that is, girls or young wives, teach, admonish and correct, like “sisters.” The reason here is the same as in relation to young men, because insolence and disobedience are not alien to them either. “The Apostle orders the young people to be taught like sisters, so that they will readily submit to the discipline of good living. For, seeing that they are not commanded with authority, but kindly suggested to them, what a good life requires, they unquestioningly agree to it, humbling themselves before the warner. With affection you can more quickly achieve what authoritative power does not always succeed in” (Amvrosiast). “But just as conversations with young women hardly avoid suspicion, and yet the bishop must do this too, the Apostle adds: “with all purity,” showing that one must speak with them with all purity. If he commands this to Timothy, then let all others think about what kind of bishop should be, so as not to give rise to suspicion, or even a shadow of justification for those who would want to slander” (St. Chrysostom). But it seems that with these words Saint Paul means not so much the suspicion of others as the prevention of heartfelt sympathy for young women. This sympathy and further attraction are naturally aroused when meeting wives, especially young ones. But it is not inevitable, much less such that it necessarily rules over the heart. It can be stopped at its very inception or first movement, and driven away when it breaks through against its will. It is this rejection of sympathy from the heart that the Apostle speaks here about. “The Apostle added: “with all purity,” writes Blessed Theodoret, “teaching, while maintaining bodily chastity, to preserve the spiritual and not to allow any harm into oneself through sight or hearing.” d) About the dispensation for widows (1 Tim. 5:3–16) Widows, from the very beginning of the Church, were under the care of Christian societies. To establish them in the first Jerusalem Church, special persons were elected (Acts 6). Following this model, all other Christian societies considered it their duty to provide for widows and orphans. And that this continued later, an indication of this can be seen in the Epistle of Saint Ignatius to Saint Polycarp (Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer. Epistle to Saint Polycarp. 4), in the First Apology of Saint Justin (Martyr Justin the Philosopher. First Apology. 67), and in the “Church History” of Eusebius (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. 6, 43). Saint Paul speaks of them here; and says: aa) first about the dispensation of widows in general (1 Tim. 5:3–8); and then: bb) more specifically (1 Tim. 5:9-15), - about widows: α) old people (1 Tim. 5:9, 10) and: β) young (1 Tim. 5:11-15); c) recalling at the end and also that he spoke about the dispensation of widows in general (verse 16). He writes at length - it’s true that there was a need for this. aa) About the provision and provision of widows in general (1 Tim. 5:3–8) 1 Tim. 5:3. Widows, honor the true widows. “Honor” - do not neglect, or do not neglect them, but take care of them. “Honour” stands instead: have mercy on them and provide them with what they need” (Blessed Theophylact). But “honor,” he says, those who are true widows. What kind of true widows are these? Of course, those who live well (verses 5-7), but who have nothing to live with (verse 16). Blessed Theodoret writes: “Widows who do not have any source from anywhere to satisfy their needs should use, says the Apostle, church assistance.” Saint Justin, in his Apology, says that “believers donated to the Church whatever they could; and the abbots of the Churches, the shepherds, then distributed what they had collected to the poor, widows and orphans.” Widows who could support themselves or who could be supported by their own families were not to be a burden to the Church (verse 16). “Such are not real widows” (Ecumenius). “Concerning them, this is what St. Paul commands. 1 Tim. 5:4. If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to build their home piously and repay their parents: this is acceptable in the sight of God. A widow, she says, who has children or grandchildren, let her find support in her family. And justice requires this, and God is pleased with it. Saint Paul entrusts this to the children or grandchildren of the remaining widow: “Let them first learn to order their house piously. “Let them learn”, μανθανετωσαν, - can be translated this way: let them learn, acquire a skill. “To arrange piously”, ευσεβειν, - to be pious, to demonstrate or maintain a pious lifestyle. “Your home”, τον ιδιον οικον, - in your home, in your home, meaning: kata. It will be: if a widow has children or grandchildren, let these children and grandchildren support her, so that in this way they learn or acquire the skill to demonstrate or maintain a pious lifestyle first at home, at home. They must demonstrate a pious lifestyle everywhere before the entire Christian community. But first of all, let them get used to this at home, providing diligent care for their mother or grandmother. Honoring and laying to rest a mother or grandmother is a pious matter. If someone, without doing this at home, outside the home, however, maintains the appearance of piety, his piety is doubtful - it is doubtful whether it is sincere, and not just for show. In addition, a pious lifestyle must be learned. How? By doing deeds of piety. The Apostle says: when anyone has a widow at home, either a mother or a grandmother, do not go outside the gate to meet there any work of piety and practice doing it. You have such a thing at hand - the repose and satisfaction of your mother or grandmother. Take care of them. Saying to Saint Timothy, as a shepherd: let the children and grandchildren learn this, he inspires: direct them to this, explain that this is how it should be, and convince them to do it. “And we will repay the parent,” αμοιβας αποδιδοναι, - repay, - repay. The mother or grandmother baked and fed the children or grandchildren when they were housewives. Now it is the turn of their children or grandchildren to take charge. Let them repay them for their previous concern for themselves by giving them peace and all contentment; justice requires this, and their conscience must oblige them to this. Ecumenius writes: “The Apostle’s thought is this: let children or grandchildren learn to honor their mother and grandmother by feeding them and doing all kinds of good to them. For this means: ευσεβειν, - to be pious. This is how they will repay them in return.” We read the same thing from Blessed Theophylact: “let children and grandchildren learn to honor their mother and grandmother, giving them peace and content. For ευσεβειν here means: to rest a mother or grandmother in her old age. The dignity of parents is Divine dignity, so to lay them to rest means to be pious, but, on the contrary, not to rest them in old age is wickedness. At the same time, the Apostle also brings out the requirement of a good conscience, saying: “and we will repay the parents” - to repay the parents, that is, the mother or grandmother, for their upbringing and return.” “This is acceptable in the sight of God.” It is pleasing both because through this the just demand of conscience, inscribed by God on the heart, is fulfilled, and because, as parents before their children in some way show the face of God Himself, God accepts the honor and care they receive from their children as if it were directly shown to Him. And naturally, proper attitude towards parents responds with religious reverence. Others read - not: “let them learn”, - but: “let them teach,” μανθανετω. In this case, the words of the Apostle will relate to the widow and prescribe that a widow who has children and grandchildren should remain in the house and teach, according to her experience and the authority of seniority in the family, her home, that is, children and grandchildren, to be pious. How? honor and care are soothing in all respects. The Vulgate retains the following translation: discant. 1 Tim. 5:5. But a true widow is secluded, trusts in God and remains in prayer... day and night. “He said above: “Honor the true widows”; now she shows what a true widow is” (St. Chrysostom). She who has not only lost her husband, but is also secluded, μεμονωμενη, is alone, has no children or grandchildren to take care of her. Alone, she either remained or was abandoned - abandoned by her own people, live as you want (Amvrosiast). What's left to do? Place all your trust in God and wait for what He is pleased to arrange. The one who does this is the true widow. “Hope”, ηλπικεν, - she hoped, placed all her trust in God; “abides”, προσμενει, - waits, and expects, of course, help from above, remaining in prayer. At the end of the verse, it seems, it should be complemented mentally: this is the kind of widow you honor, this is the kind of widow you take care of, this is the kind of church support you arrange. This is what Blessed Theophylact does: “a real widow is one who has no one to take care of her, neither a son nor a grandson, and has placed all her trust in God. This is the one you should take care of, this is the one you should have mercy on, providing her with everything she needs!” Saint Chrysostom exposes the more moral and religious side of widows. “If someone, being a widow, has not turned to worldly life, then she is a true widow who trusts in God, practices prayer, spends day and night in prayer in patience - she is a true widow. Here the Apostle consoles her because she does not have children, saying, as it were, that her advantage lies in the fact that she is deprived not only of consolation from her husband, but also of the happiness that children bring; because in return for everything she has God. Therefore, she who does not have children is not worse than others; but with this consolation (trust in God) she makes up for what she lacks due to the fact that she has no children.” Ambrosiast does the same: “These are the kind of widows who should be honored! those who, having the opportunity to marry again, rejected a second marriage, out of desire for the most perfect life and the most convenient pleasing of God, being competitors of Saint Anna, who served God day and night in fasting and prayer, after she was widowed, having lived with her husband for only a few years (Luke 2:36). By such a life a widow must first prove herself and then be worthy of being a widow of the Church (that is, supported by the Church). Also, a widow who has children or grandchildren should not immediately be taken into the support of the Church. For if she previously ruled her house well, then she should be reciprocated by her own, as she previously repaid them. But if someone is treated wickedly and is abandoned by her own people, for whom she previously cared piously, then such a person is worthy of being accepted into the care of the Church, as a faithful performer of the Lord’s law.” 1 Tim. 5:6. The one who feeds extensively died alive. “Eating extensively”, σπαταλῶσα, is partial to the pleasures and pleasures of life and the world and devoted to them. “She’s alive and dead”—she’s alive in appearance, but in essence she’s dead—she’s died for the true life inherent in man, according to his purpose. Man was created in the image of God; I must become like God by detachment from everything sensual. Endowed with the Spirit in creation - such a power that cannot be satisfied by anything created, but only by the One God. Whoever, renouncing everything created and sensory, seeks the One God, so that, while remaining in communion with Him, may be revived by Him, he lives a real life. And whoever is devoted to sensual pleasures does not have a real human life, even though he seems to live like such a life. For his spirit is stifled and remains motionless. Such is the widow, devoted to sensual pleasures: “she suppresses the rational (spiritual) power in herself and makes this power in her body, as in a tomb, remain motionless” (Blessed Theodoret). “In appearance she lives this sensual life, but in spirit she has died” (Blessed Theophylact). “She seems to be living this present life, but she has lost eternal life: for as for that life, it died for her because of sin” (Ecumenius). Ambrosiastes writes: “a widow worthy of this name means a person who, in order to gain the Lord, remains in prayer, serving Him day and night. By this she shows that if she despised the second marriage, it was in order to devote herself to a strict life, for the sake of the Lord. But if any widow, hiding behind this name, indulges in sensual pleasures, then she must be considered dead alive. It is a sign of crafty pretense when they promise one thing and do another, wanting to take advantage of the widow’s honor, but not wanting to embarrass themselves with labors to please and serve God, to which the vow of widowhood obliges. For a true widow, having despised her husband, chooses the Lord to serve Him with all her soul, out of the hope of eternal bliss.” Saint Chrysostom writes a lengthy discourse on this point, depicting the spiritual deadness of those who lead a cheerful and riotous life, drowning in sensual pleasures, feasts, festivities, amusements and many other things. “Such,” he concludes, “have neither soul nor spirit, but live only in the flesh. And Scripture calls them soulless, saying: “My Spirit shall not abide in these men... for they are flesh” (Gen. 6:3). They had a soul, but a dead one; that is why they are called flesh.” 1 Tim. 5:7. And command this, that they may be blameless. “And this” can be applied to both the previous and the subsequent. Referring to the previous one, one can limit this previous one to the immediately preceding verse, where the one who feeds extensively is so rooted. And this, that is, so that they do not indulge in worldly and worldly pleasures, food and drink, you strictly punish them, make it an urgent law, so that they appear impeccable before everyone. Or this: demand it; otherwise they cannot remain blameless, that is, they will not only fall under reproach for intemperance, but also fall into other vices. So blessed Theophylact: “You see that he wants this to be a law. He does not leave it to his own discretion whether to indulge in pleasures or not, but forbids it as a sin. For this is the meaning of the word: “bequeath”, παραγγελλε; it stands instead: with all severity, forbid daring to do this.” He took this interpretation from Saint Chrysostom, who speaks at greater length about this: “Do you see that this injunction takes the form of a law? He does not leave this to the freedom of everyone, but says: command that they not be satiated, because this is an obvious sin, so it is impossible and completely inappropriate for someone who leads a luxurious life to be a communicant of the sacraments. “And this bequeath,” he says, “that they may be blameless.” Do you see that this is classified among sins? For what is given to the freedom of everyone, even if not observed, does not in the least prevent one from being impeccable. Therefore, we, in obedience to Paul, will command that widows who are given over to voluptuousness should be excluded from the number of (real) widows.” It is possible, referring: “and this” to the previous one, to the 6th verse and add the 5th. It will be: demand that a widow who has refused a second marriage not only does not allow herself to be comforted, but remains in prayer day and night. You can also add verse 4, including children and grandchildren among the persons to whom you give the order, like this: we command you to support and give rest to your mothers - and grandmothers - widows, so as not to fall under reproach from the faithful. This thought directly fits with the next verse 8: and if anyone neglects his relatives, then he is worse than an infidel. Relating: “and this” to the next one, that is, to: “that they may be blameless,” we get: and this is what else you bequeath, that they may be blameless and impeccable in all respects. For even by abstaining from sensual pleasures, they can exhibit many other things in their behavior, for which they will rightly be subject to reproach. Such a thought is visible in Ambrosiastes: “The Apostle demands that the widow have such care for the goodness of her deeds and morals, so that it is impossible to reproach her for anything. Having renounced worldly life and freed herself from worries about the body, she devoted herself to God for this purpose in order to lead an approving life. What is convenient for her to have time for? For since the cases that usually open the entrance to sins are removed from it; then nothing prevents her from remaining unharmed in her good behavior.” Let us add: there is no need to insist that this passage must certainly be understood this way and that. But, while holding one such thought, do not drive another. 1 Tim. 5:8. If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those close to him, he has rejected the faith and is an infidel. If the previous words apply to children and grandchildren, seeing in them the following commandment: instill, demand, oblige them to put their mothers and grandmothers to rest, so that they will be free from reproach; then the present verse, directly responding to such a thought, will present an incentive to act on the proposed suggestion, showing how inappropriate an incongruous mode of action is. Take care of your own; for whoever does not care for them has rejected the faith and become worse than an infidel. If in the previous verse you see another one of the proposed thoughts; then, to connect this verse with the previous ones, it is necessary to insert the following additional speech: as for the fact that I imposed on children and grandchildren the duty of caring for the widows in their homes - their mothers or grandmothers, this is so urgent that if anyone does not do this, he has rejected the faith and has become worse than an infidel. By “our own” and “relatives” we mean relatives in general, of which “relatives”, οικειοι, are those who live in the same house, and ours, ιδιοι, are all other relatives who live especially. Thus, the Apostle demands that relatives take mutual care of each other and help those among their own who are in need. He who does not do this, he says, has rejected this very act of “faith.” “His deeds like these are not the deeds of a believer” (Blessed Theophylact), or such deeds expose him as an unbeliever, show that he is alien to faith; He confesses God with his lips, but rejects Him with his deeds (Titus 1:16). Faith requires being merciful not only to your own blood, but also to all those in need. “How can one be merciful to strangers who despises people of the same kind as himself, those who are related to him?” (Saint Chrysostom). True, it happens that others, bypassing their own, do good to strangers; but this is always done for show. “Doesn’t everyone call it vanity when someone, while doing good to strangers, despises and does not spare his own, despite the fact that it would be both more convenient and fair for him to do good to the latter?” (Saint Chrysostom). - So, someone who is unmerciful to his own obviously does not have a believing heart and is the same as an unbeliever. But the Apostle goes further and claims that such a one is even worse than an infidel: “an infidel is worse.” An infidel, if he did this, would only violate the natural law, but this one, by doing this, violates both the natural and written law (St. Chrysostom). And compare him with one of the unbelievers who cares for his relatives according to one law of nature; how much worse will he be? “God established family ties for this purpose, so that we would have more opportunities to do good to each other. Therefore, if you do not do what the infidel does, then have you not renounced the faith and become worse than the infidel? If, however, one who does not care about those around him renounces the faith and becomes worse than an infidel; then where should the one who offends his relatives be placed and where should he take his place? It is not the same to despise those near and far. It is much more shameful to despise an acquaintance than a stranger, a friend than an enemy” (St. Chrysostom). And especially a blood relative. bb) How to deal more particularly with widows (1 Tim. 5:9–15) From verse 9 to 15 we are talking about certain widows; but from verse 11 it is clear which widows we are talking about, namely the young ones; which ones are spoken of in verses 9 and 10 is not clearly visible. That these are widows who are not generally looked after by the Church is clear from the restrictions: no less than sixty years old, one husband’s wife, who has worked hard in serving others. For, according to the above, every helpless widow deserves church charity; and this could also be a wife who is not so old, and has more than one husband, and who could not serve in the other way that has been said. So these are some special widows. Which ones? Aren't they deaconesses? It looks like this, as can be judged by the good qualities and deeds that are required of them: the wife raised one husband, children, “strange ways.” For such kindnesses are required, according to the Apostle, from persons elected to the clergy (chapter 3), to which deaconesses were also included. But serving the deaconess required strength: for, in addition to serving at the baptism of wives and overseeing order among them in the Church, it was their responsibility to visit the poor and visit the sick; And at sixty years old, what strength do women have? If not them, then who are they? It comes to mind to assume that these are widows who have lived for a long time and worked hard for others - and are already exhausted, who therefore need shelter, maintenance, and care. This assumption can be supplemented by saying that, while all widows in general were given an allowance in addition to what they could earn through their labors, these were fully provided with food, clothing, shelter and care. Among them could and should have been deaconesses. – Our interpreters still do not see deaconesses here and understand the words of the Apostle as a continuation of the speech about widows in general. Saint Chrysostom says: “first the Apostle indicated what a widow should not have, but now he shows what she should have.” α) Elderly (1 Tim. 5:9, 10) 1 Tim. 5:9, 10. Let a widow not be less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one husband, bear witness to good deeds, if she has raised children to eat, if she has the minds of saints, if she has received strange things, if she has given quick consolation to the sorrowful, if she has followed every good deed. “Let it be due”, καταλεγεσθω, - let it be included in the catalog of widows, or “let it be entrusted to the widow’s institution, εις το χηρικον” (Ecumenius). “It is fair to be included in church monuments for one who has shown herself worthy of it in her previous life. She is worthily accepted into the bosom of the Church (into her care) who previously dedicated her labors to her” (Ambrosiastes). "Not less than sixty years old". “In pointing out what a widow worthy of the catalog of widows should have, the Apostle puts in the first place definitely her age, namely sixty. However, as can be seen from the following words, he does not simply approve of a sixty-year-old for her age; for even such a one may turn out to be unworthy” (Blessed Theophylact). “Well, will you judge her by her years? What is the merit in this? For it was not up to her to live sixty years. Not by age alone (one must judge), he says, so even if she had crossed this age, but had no merit, then even then she should not be counted (as a widow)” (St. Chrysostom). And a young widow may turn out to be worthy of attention; but as long as she is still able, let her support herself. “Those who are in their prime and are able to work and earn food must work to subdue the impulses of youth” (Blessed Theodoret). “Formerly the wife of one husband.” This is indicated as evidence that she did not like worldly pleasures and extensive meals, but was strict and abstinent in life. “The Apostle demands monogamy from her, as a sign of her sedate honesty and love for chastity” (Blessed Theophylact). “We bear witness to good deeds.” About which everyone says only one good thing, testifying that they only saw her doing good deeds. This is a common feature. Then “the Apostle lists in particular exactly what deeds make a widow worthy of provision” (Blessed Theophylact). “Whenever a child has been raised to eat,” ετεκνοτροφησεν, she performed as it should this first service, which lies with the wife-mother. Commendable child nutrition is not only the fattening of children, but mainly their pious upbringing (Blessed Theodoret). “Truly, raising children is not an unimportant matter. But raising children is not simply about fattening (raising) children, but raising them as they should, just as the Apostle said above that a wife “will be saved for the sake of childbearing if (her children) continue in faith and love and in holiness” (of course, having been confirmed in this upbringing) (1 Tim. 2:15)” (St. Chrysostom). “For this, God approved of Abraham, saying that he commanded “his son and his household to preserve all the judgments of the Lord God” (Gen. 18:19)” (Blessed Theodoret). “Even if the minds of saints are nosed, or if strange is accepted.” First he pointed to family virtues, those closest to him and those at hand, and then - to the virtues towards outsiders, not strangers, however, by faith. For the “saints” are Christians. “You see that everywhere he places higher value on the benefits shown to those close to him than on those shown to strangers. For first he says: “if you have raised children to eat,” and then: “if you have the minds of saints,” and so on” (St. Chrysostom). Washing the feet is the first act of welcoming strangers. We must first receive the stranger, then wash his feet. Theodoret, Ambrosiastes, Ecumenius and Theophylact read this way: first “strange pleasures”, and then “nose minds”. But Saint Chrysostom reads first - washing of feet, and then - acceptance of strangers. For if by hospitality we mean not the admission of only the strange into the house, but their very repose, then it followed the washing of the feet. Both, however, constitute one virtue - hospitality - caring care for the repose of the strange. “This is how they did it in ancient times. So Lydda received the Apostle himself and those with him. This is what he said about Thebe: “she has been a quick intercessor for many, even for myself” (Rom. 16:2)” (Blessed Theodoret). Saint Chrysostom makes a lengthy application of these words: “Do you see that the Apostle calls hospitality not just mere goodwill, but combined with diligence, with good will, with zeal, which sets to work in such a way, as if preparing to receive Christ Himself? For he wants them not to entrust the services of the saints to maidservants, but to perform this themselves through themselves. “Even if I,” says the Lord, “have washed your noses... Teacher, (how much more so) you must naturally wash each other’s noses” (John 13:14). Because if any of them were even infinitely rich, if she achieved the greatest fame and exalted herself in nobility for the sake of her ancestors; then even then there will not be such a distance as there was between God and the disciples. If you accept a stranger as Christ, then you have nothing to be ashamed of; it is better to boast about this deed; and when you accept him not as Christ, then it is better not to accept him at all. “Those who accept you will also accept Me” (Matthew 10:40), said the Lord. And as soon as you accept it in the wrong way, you will not receive reward. Abraham, it seemed to him, received people, passing travelers; Meanwhile, he did not order the household to prepare everything necessary for their reception, but he personally performed most of the service and ordered his wife to knead the flour, despite the fact that he had three hundred and eighteen household members, among whom there were probably maidservants. He and his wife wanted to receive a reward not only for expenses, but also for service. So we must fulfill the duty of hospitality, doing everything ourselves, so that we ourselves may be sanctified, so that our hands may be blessed. This is what hospitality consists of; this is what truly consists of fulfilling this duty for the sake of God. – The Apostle said well: “more than the minds of the saints.” He said this for the purpose of encouraging everyone to imitate. As a result of this, we will hasten to do this, so that we too may be praised for washing the feet of the saints. – The feet of saints have great power. As a result of this, they send down punishment when they shake off the ashes. When a holy person comes to us, then we should not be ashamed to do for him anything like this (washing the feet, which is out of custom). And the saints are all those who have the right faith and live piously: they are saints, even if they did not perform signs and did not cast out demons.” “Consolation is swift for the sorrowful.” Raising children and welcoming strangers are domestic virtues: children are always at hand, strangers come themselves. Both can be accomplished without moving outside the doors of the house and without any special personal undertakings. And here is work, but not very intense. Why does the Apostle, for the perfection of widow's virtue, move the widow to the houses of mourning and poverty, into which Ecclesiastes called it a good deed to enter (Eccl. 7:2, 3), and praises the one who “is quick to comfort the sorrowful”, επηρκεσεν, - she satisfied the sorrowful, satisfying the need that caused grief - “with money or intercession and mediation” (Blessed Theophylact). “If you follow every good deed, eat.” This or the same thing that is said at the beginning: “in good deeds we are testified” - only with a special feature: speed, uncontrollable zeal for any good: as soon as an opportunity to do good opened up, she immediately took on it with all her energy and did not retreat until she brought what she started to the end. “The Apostle therefore named all types of virtue by this name” (Blessed Theodoret). Or “followed” - means: imitated. Previously, I did the above on my own initiative; but, not content with this, she also did every good thing that she saw other good Christians doing. Or - this means assistance with other work. When someone, doing some work, could not defeat him alone, she came up with her services and helped defeat him. “What commandment does the Apostle give here? - asks Saint Chrysostom and answers: - He commands to give material benefits (“corporal service” [Blessed Theophylact]), - to take part in affairs, to serve, - to make a bed, for example, to calm, which women are most capable of” (the same with Blessed Theophylact). “You see,” let us conclude with the words of St. Chrysostom, “that in order to become a (real) widow, it is not enough to enter into a second marriage, but much more is needed? The Apostle demands from a widow such perfection as he does not even demand from virgins, despite the fact that he also demanded great perfection from these latter: for, having said that a virgin should be comely and approachable to the Lord with silence (1 Cor. 7:35), he outlined in general terms every virtue. And even more, he demands from a widow almost the same perfection as from a person invested with the rank of bishop.” β) Young (1 Tim. 5:11–15) St. Paul treats young widows strictly here. Experience has shown that some of these did not persist in the vow of widowhood; and, in addition, having weakened in their determination to strictly adhere to this vow, they allowed themselves to behave in general disapprovingly. Why does the Apostle express the desire that young widows would rather enter into a second marriage, so as not to give a reason to the enemy - the devil - to scold them, leading them astray from the real widow's path. 1 Tim. 5:11, 12. Deny young widows: when they become furious about Christ, they want to encroach, those who have sin, as if they rejected their first faith. “Refuse” – deny young widows admission to the widows’ choir. “The Apostle forbids young widows to be accepted into this rank; because age, always ready to slip, should not be easily trusted” (Ambrosiastes). “The young widows themselves gave the reason for such a decree by the fact that they could not stand widowhood” (Blessed Theophylact). “They will become furious”, καταστρηνιασωσιν, - they will fall under the uncontrollable aspirations of the carnal life - comforting, voluptuous, contented. “What does it mean: καταστρηνιασωσιν? That is, when they become insensible, when, having cooled towards widowhood, they neglect it, become coarse towards it, - when, having been overcome by the desire for sweets, they only pretend to show themselves alienated from marriage, but in reality they lust for it - and as a result, with gross arrogance or insensibility, they turn their eyes away from Christ, like a bridegroom" (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). “And widows by their widowhood (when they decide to become widows) become betrothed to Christ” (St. Chrysostom). “Why are they forced into the same order of life as virgins? And the word of the Apostle can be applied to them: “For I have betrothed you to one man to present a pure virgin to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2). Now, when, despite the fact that they have dedicated themselves to Christ, “they want to encroach,” they want marriage and marriage, they obviously no longer want to have Him alone as a groom and, preferring a person to Him, proudly act against Him” (Ecumenius, Saint Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). “They have sin, because they have rejected the first faith.” “He calls a vow faith; as if he were saying this: they deceived Him, rejected Him, broke their vow” (St. Chrysostom). For “having decided to live chastely in widowhood for Christ, they enter into a second marriage” (Blessed Theodoret). “By making this decision - to become a widow for Christ - they enter into a covenant with Him that they are betrothed to Him forever. By now inclining to marry a person, they violate this covenant and for this they are subject to condemnation” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). “Sin”, κριμα, is a criminal matter, subject to trial and condemnation. “It is obvious that they chose widowhood frivolously, without thinking well” (St. Chrysostom). So that there are no such imprudent decisions among believing widows, the Apostle writes a rule - not to rely on quick words of vows. The Apostle wrote this for the admonition of the widows themselves, “so that they would not dare to do what is difficult to do. For it is unreasonable to make a promise, the firmness of which, due to their youth, they themselves should not trust. Having departed from it, they are righteously subject to condemnation. For he is worthy of condemnation who deviates from what he recognized as right and what he began to do as right. How commendable it is if someone accurately fulfills what seems to be the highest of his powers; He is just as worthy of censure if, out of unreasonable self-confidence, he places upon himself what he cannot bear” (Ambrosiastes). 1 Tim. 5:13. They learn to go around houses in vain and idleness, not exactly idle, but also whores and lamenters, saying things that are not proper. A true widow, who has sincerely loved widowhood, determines herself to live a solitary, austere life and, paying attention to herself, remains in prayer and labor. The spiritual contentment drawn from such a life strengthens it more and more and serves as its support and protection against temptations. But the widow, who did not think through all this and frivolously decided on widowhood, soon becomes bored with him and grows cold towards him. When this happens, then the matter of widowhood no longer comes to mind. Sitting in solitude, praying and working is boring. The need to look for entertainment was urgent, and she went home; and with this necessarily go hand in hand talkativeness, curiosity and inappropriate speech. This is the second reason why young widows should be denied. The Apostle says, as it were: even if another has no desire to enter into a second marriage, after a vow - not to enter into it; but if she does not strictly take on the affairs of widowhood - solitude, work and prayer - which is natural to expect from a young woman - then she will soon become idle, talkative and inquisitive, tempting everyone - both her own and strangers. And this alone is enough to act more cautiously regarding them. Saint Chrysostom says: “They are subject not only to this guilt (violation of a vow), but also to other sins (idleness, wandering from home). What good will it do if they refuse to care for their husbands and do not make efforts for God? Then they will undoubtedly become idle, talkative, needlessly inquisitive; because he who does not take care of his own will certainly take care of someone else’s, just as he who cares about his own will not talk about someone else’s, and will not have any concern for it. There is nothing so indecent for a woman as to inquire into other people’s affairs in every possible way, and not only for a woman, but also for a man, for this is the greatest sign of shamelessness and arrogance.” The reason or starting point for such deviation of young widows from decent behavior can be, as Blessed Theodoret believes, church provision itself. “Taking advantage of church assistance and satisfying bodily needs without care, they live in idleness; and idleness brings with it evil thoughts.” And then from thoughts, behavior itself loses its good looks: out of idleness they go from house to house, - they are “whores”, - that is, talkative, φλυαροι, - “and lamentable”, - that is, curious, περιεργοι. This is all the more disapproving if they hide behind their title of widowhood. “Respecting widowhood, the wealthy take them into their homes, and they, having learned that it is pleasant for them to listen, gather them in other houses and transfer them to them; for this, they receive gifts from them - and thus learn to live more by gossip than by the labors of their own hands” (Amvrosiast). 1 Tim. 5:14. I want to encroach upon young widows, give birth to children, build a house, and not give a single blasphemy to the other person. Not all young widows are unreliable, of course. There are many among them who feel within themselves a strong inclination to maintain widowhood, and others do not consider them incapable of doing so. Therefore, the Apostle does not write a common law for all - an urgent one, but says: “I want” - as if offering advice, such, however, that for those who do not feel fit to maintain an honest widowhood, it is a law. “Since what was said before about this kind of (weak) widows is impermissible and contrary (to our sound faith), the Apostle gives advice and commands them what is permissible (instead of the vow of widowhood to enter into a second marriage)” (Ambrosiastes). “It would be better, of course, if they, having once joined the choir of widows, did not turn away from Christ (as the groom) and did not break this first vow of theirs. But since some slip into this, it is better that they remarry without entering into a covenant with Christ, without making a vow to devote themselves to Him. There is no sin in this, otherwise (having made a vow, breaking) is not in accordance with anything” (Ecumenius). “Since they themselves want, I also want young widows to get married, give birth to children, take care of the house, and stay at home; for doing this is much better than doing anything else (unlike). True, they should have cared about the service of God (in order to please God), they should have kept faith (vow); but if this is not the case, then it is better that the latter be present than the former; for in this case God is not rejected, and they themselves do not learn this (to be idle, etc.). Because there will be no benefit from such widowhood, but from this marriage (one can expect) many benefits. As a result of this, their careless and lazy mind can turn (to goodness). However, why, you say, did the Apostle not say that since widows fell, they should take special care not to experience this, which I spoke about, but commands them to marry? Because it was not forbidden to enter into a (second) marriage, because it put one in a safe position, which is why he adds: “not to give a single guilt to the other for the sake of blasphemy,” there is no reason. Consequently, he rejects these widows, not wanting them to be young, but not wanting them to commit adultery, not wanting them to be idle, needlessly inquisitive, not wanting them to say what they shouldn’t, not wanting the devil to find in them a reason (for condemnation), so that if this had not happened, he would not have rejected them. “I want,” he says, “young” - what? get fed up? or indulge in bliss? Nothing like that, but: “encroach, give birth to children, build a house.” So that you do not think that he gives them freedom to spend their lives in pleasure, he added: “not to give a single guilt to the opposite for the sake of blasphemy.” They had to be above everyday worries and worries. If they were lower than them, then let them be at least on the same level as them (that is, they work out their salvation by living as they should, among everyday affairs)” (St. Chrysostom). “It is better for them to build a house, οικοδεσποτειν (to be mistresses in the house and keep strictly good rules in the house), - that is, to take care of their home and bear the labor and work on it, than, walking around other people’s houses, chatting and spending time in idleness. But again, when setting up a house, one should not indulge in worldly pleasures, but conduct household affairs in such a way that, despite all the care for them, it does not harm the soul. The Apostle showed this with the words: “not give a single guilt to the enemy” (“enemy”, αντικειμενω, - adversary, enemy, devil). It is possible, however, to understand these words in such a way that in them the Apostle shows the purpose and motivation for which he makes such condescension to young widows. In order, he says, not to give the devil a reason to mock them if they, having become brides of Christ, then, due to the inconstancy characteristic of youth, fall into unclean deeds. For this reason, I bring them under the yoke of marriage, so that, lacking time and peace, they do not have the opportunity to do a bunch of the above-mentioned bad deeds” (Blessed Theophylact). “Caring and worrying about housework will prevent them from yawning and getting bored from doing nothing. Surrounded in this way, on all sides and continuously, by necessary affairs, they, although reluctantly, will learn to live prudently” (Ecumenius). 1 Tim. 5:15. Somebody has become corrupted after Satan. “Depraved”, εξετραπησαν, - they went down, deviated, strayed from the straight path, which the vow of widowhood showed them, and followed Satan, that is, to that unkind behavior that is depicted above. “The law is established on the basis of experience” (Blessed Theodoret). “The apostle answers this question: why do you give such a warning regarding young widows, as if you care more about them than about virgins? Because, he says, they themselves gave the reason for this by deviating after Satan. I am making such a decree regarding them not because I wish that among the widows (who take a vow of widowhood) there should be no young people at all, but because I am afraid that (having made a vow) they will later leave Christ" (Ecumenius). cc) 0 families of widows (1 Tim. 5:16) 1 Tim. 5:16. If anyone is faithful or faithful to a widow, let him satisfy them, and let the Church not be burdened, but let him satisfy the true widows. In conclusion, the Apostle again returns to what he said at the beginning about widows, namely, that they should be supported by the family to which they belong; only helpless widows remained in the care of the Church. The only difference, perhaps, is that there the elder widow is meant, and her supporters are the younger ones - children and grandchildren, but here, on the contrary, the keepers are the elders - father, mother, uncle, aunt or someone else, and the widows are the younger ones - widowed daughters, or nieces, or others who belong to the relationship, to whatever extent. “Whoever is faithful or faithful.” “The law appeals to the faithful, who, believing, are ready to obey the word of the Apostle” (Ecumenius). He reminds us of faith, saying, as it were: the faithful should not allow their own people to suffer from them, much less turn to the infidels. “By the way, he added: “if anyone is faithful,” for the faithful should not receive food from the unfaithful, so that it would not seem as if they needed it” (St. Chrysostom). “Let him suffice them”—his relatives’ widows. “He did not say: let him provide them with luxurious maintenance, but: let him satisfy their needs” (St. Chrysostom). “Let the Church not be burdened, but let the true widows be satisfied.” Take, he says, you, relatives, of your relatives’ widows for your support. For if you abandon them, the Church will have to take them into its care, and then it will be difficult for it to support true widows, that is, those who have no relatives. “You see that the Apostle again calls those who are completely alone, who have no consolation (provision) from anywhere, true widows, who should be under the care of the Church. (And those who have relatives are ordered to be taken by their relatives.) And it was better. Because two considerable benefits flowed from here: some found a reason to do good, others were well nourished, and the Church was not burdened” (St. Chrysostom). e) How to act regarding elders (1 Tim. 5:17–25) The Apostle here concerns: aa) the maintenance of elders (1 Tim. 5:17, 18); bb) behavior (1 Tim. 5:19–21) and: c) ordination (1 Tim. 5:22–25). aa) Maintenance of elders (1 Tim. 5:17, 18) 1 Tim. 5:17. Let the presbyters who practice good deeds be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and teaching. “Adjacent”, προεστωτες, - upcoming, - good - good present in the Church, or in the Christian community. “Presbyters” are priests who were chosen from among mostly older people, as more sedate, experienced and usually respected, and through ordination they received the grace of the priesthood to continue the work of the Apostle by preaching the Gospel and in general the word of God and the sanctification of believers by grace through the holy sacraments. Because of this, they presided over Christian communities, guiding them, admonishing them and correcting them. Whoever was jealous about this without sparing his strength and even his stomach, he presided well. “Who is the essence of the “good things to come”? - asks Saint Chrysostom and answers: - Let us listen to what Christ says: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Consequently, good leadership consists in not sparing anything for the sake of caring for those who preside.” Another time, the Savior presented a good leader under the guise of a faithful and wise steward, whom the master of the house placed in charge of the servants - “to give in due time the living wages” (Luke 12:42) - that is, everything necessary for the maintenance of everyone. The good leader in this parable is the one who generously distributes to the believers the vitality of the word of God and mysterious blessings. Such primates, he says, “may be honored with great honor.” “The Apostle here calls honor the care, the provision of everything necessary; just as above, when he says: “Honor the widows,” he speaks of the food necessary for them. - What does it mean: “pure honor”? Severe in relation to widows, or in relation to deacons, or simply: “severe honor” - that is, great” (St. Chrysostom). “Good and faithful builders (economists) of the house of God should be considered worthy not only of high veneration, but also of perfect provision for maintenance; so that they would not be disturbed by the lack of necessities, but would be diligent in joy to the teaching of the faith. The one who is not humbled by need will be more insistent in this work, and his jealousy will grow more and more when he sees that his work bears fruit for real life, not to the point of excess, but to the point of disgusting poverty and lack” (Ambrosiastes). “Much more so are those who labor in word and doctrine.” Three tasks lie with the primate of the Church - to teach, to lead and correct - and to sanctify with the sacraments. The first two are corrected by labor in the word and teaching. And this is the most important work, both because it is more difficult and because it prepares us for receiving grace through the sacraments. Why is the one who lifts it worthy of both greater honor and greater provision. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle wants such people to be revered more than all others, and gives the reason: they, he says, undertake great work. And fair enough. For while the other neither watches nor cares, but remains without care and sorrow, he works, cares and learns, especially when he is inexperienced in external sciences. Why shouldn’t he be given more honor than everyone else when he devotes himself to so much labor? Moreover, it is the subject of countless conversations. One reproaches him, another praises him, another mocks him, another insults his memory and intentions - and he needs great reinforcement to bear this. – It is very important and contributes a lot to the well-being of the Church and brings great benefit when its leaders are teachers. And when this is not the case, then much damage occurs in the Churches. Therefore, among the other qualities of the primate - love of hospitable people, meekness and innocence - the Apostle includes these too, saying: “teachable.” Where are now those who say that there is no need for words and teaching? Let them, they say, teach wisdom through their lives. – Of course, and this is absolutely necessary. But don’t you hear what Saint Paul says: “Worse those who labor in word and doctrine”? Isn’t it obvious that he gives preference to teaching primates? Moreover, when it comes to dogmas, then what power does life have? A teaching word is needed here. - However, what word is he talking about? Not about the boastful (not about the dandy), not about the one who is distinguished by external sophistication, but about the one who is imbued with the power of spirit, filled with reason and wisdom. Therefore, he does not need art and elegant expressions, but thoughts - not a learned exposition, but, as they usually say, the soul.” 1 Tim. 5:18. For the Scripture says: Do not turn back the threshing ox: and: the worker is worthy of his reward (Deut. 25:4; Matt. 10:10). “Here the Apostle cites both the decree of the law and the commandment of Christ - both agree with each other; for the law says: “You shall not turn back an ox that threshes.” Do you see what kind of work he demands from the teacher? (Similar to the labor of an ox threshing.) Because no, truly there is no other labor equal to his labor. - But this is a decree of the law. What commandment does he give of Christ? “Worthy,” he says, “is the worker of his own reward.” Consequently, the one who indulges in bliss and peace is unworthy of it. He who is not a threshing ox, who does not patiently bear the yoke, not paying attention to the heat and thorns, and who does not leave it before he has gathered the fruit into the barn, is unworthy of it. “Therefore, it is necessary that teachers be provided with everything they need in abundance, so that they do not work for this themselves and, while doing unimportant things, do not miss the most important, so that they practice spiritual achievements and do not have any concern about everyday affairs. Such were the Levites: they did not care about the things of this life, because the laity took care of them and their income was determined by law, such as tithes, firstfruits and much more. But in all fairness this was assigned to them by law, since they were looking for the real thing; but I say that the primates, having eternal hopes, should have nothing more than food and clothing, so that they do not amuse themselves with this” (St. Chrysostom). bb) Behavior (1 Tim. 5:19–21) 1 Tim. 5:19. Blasphemy against the presbyter was not accepted, except in the presence of two or three witnesses. “Blasphemy”, κατηγοριαν, ​​is a condemnation, an accusation that may be true, therefore, not blasphemy, which means false defamation of a person. Ours translated this word as blasphemy, inspiring one to immediately suspect bad speech about the presbyter as a lie, because, on the one hand, it is inconvenient and unusual for a person of this venerable rank and at such an age to slip into deeds worthy of condemnation, and on the other hand, persons of that rank, having the duty to correct, are easily subject to the dislike of those being corrected, forcing them to spy on themselves, to suspect themselves and, often clothing their suspicions in authenticity, falsely present as actual deeds. Therefore, “The Apostle did not say: do not condemn, but: do not accept the accusation, and do not call him to court at all” (St. Chrysostom). “Because of this rank belongs a high honor, for these persons are the vicars of Christ; it is not easy, one should not immediately accept their accusation. It should seem incredible that someone who is the primate of God would behave criminally, just as, on the contrary, all sorts of vile things can most likely be expected from a comedian” (Ambrosiastes). But, like humans, they too can sin, and when they sin, they are subject to judgment and condemnation. Why, when it happens that two or three witnesses appear to corroborate the accusation, then accept this accusation. Accept does not mean: immediately pronounce judgment, but: take into account, subject to research, and after research, pronounce judgment and exact punishment (St. Chrysostom). The law commanded that there should not be one witness “to testify against a man for every crime,” but two or three (Deut. 19:15). “The law commands this regarding all (accused). But it is especially necessary to act in this way in the reasoning of the presbyter. For it happens that he, since he has been entrusted with the leadership of the Church, offends one of those who sin, and those, being hostile to him for this, weave slander. Why should this number of witnesses be presented against him all the more” (Blessed Theodoret). “But what if two people lie? This rarely happens; moreover, it can be examined in court, and thus this can be revealed. The words of the Apostle point to strict research” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Timothy 5:20. Reprove those who sin before everyone, and others will fear. It's all about the elders. If, upon examination, one of them turns out to have actually sinned, expose him before everyone, so that others may also have fear and refrain from sins with greater caution. For if the elder is not given mercy, what will others get? Ambrosiastes writes: “although it is not easy to believe the guilt leveled at the presbyter; but if it is proven or clearly will be that he acted badly, then, in this case, the Apostle commands to reprove him publicly, so that others will also have fear - which is very useful not only for the sanctified clergy, but also for the people. For when they see that even a high-ranking man is being convicted of sin, they will inevitably be careful about themselves.” We read the same thing from Blessed Theodoret: “Do not condemn,” he says, “before denouncing those who are clearly convicted of any lawlessness, do not deserve mercy; but, if convicted, pronounce judgment on them in the presence of everyone, so that out of fear of punishment they will avoid sin.” Saint Chrysostom speaks about all those who sin in general, so, however, that his speech can be applied more particularly to the trial of elders. “Do not immediately cut off (that is, pronounce judgment and carry out reprisals), but examine everything with great accuracy. When you clearly find out, strictly demand that others come to their senses. For just as it can be harmful to judge thoughtlessly, so not punishing those who have clearly sinned means: giving the way to others so that they too do this and attempt to do this. “Reprove,” he says, showing that (you need to act) not somehow, but with severity, because in this way others will be afraid. “But won’t there be more temptation when you start denouncing it in front of everyone?” How is this possible? When they recognize sin and do not see the punishment, then they will really begin to be tempted. For because those who have sinned remain unpunished, many naturally creep into sin themselves; how, on the contrary, because they are punished, many are corrected. This is how God worked. He brought Pharaoh out on Wednesday (for everyone to see) and punished him; We also see that (clearly in front of everyone) Nebuchadnezzar and many other people and cities received punishment. “Consequently, the Apostle wants everyone to have fear of the bishop, and places him over everyone.” 1 Tim. 5:21. I will testify before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and [His] chosen angels, that you may preserve this without hypocrisy, doing nothing out of evasion. “I will testify” - I call you as a witness. This is done both to demonstrate the importance of the proposed law and to strengthen the determination to urgently implement it. So Moses says to Israel: “I will testify to you... in heaven and earth” (Deut. 4:26); so Micah cried: “Hear... the wilds of the foundation of the earth” (Micah 6:2). It looks like it would be said: “I conjure you with the living God.” But to what subject does such severity of the order apply - to the previous one, that is, the court, or to the subsequent one, that is, not to the quick, but to the prudent laying on of hands? The matter of judgment is important, of course, but the laying on of hands is more important. Why is it more likely to accept the latter than the former? Of our interpreters, only Ambrosiastes refers this spell to the laying on of hands; all the others refer it to the court. Saint Chrysostom says: “having spoken (simply, without an incantation) about bishops, deacons, husbands, wives, widows, presbyters and everyone else, and showing over whom the authority of the bishop extends, when he began to talk about the trial, he added: “I will testify before God.” He utters a terrible suggestion. He was not ashamed to say this even out of respect for the fact that Timofey was his beloved child (fearing, as if, negligence even on his part). But to the one who was not ashamed to say about himself: “I am afraid, lest I preach to others, I myself will be turned away” (1 Cor. 9:27), - one could not be ashamed and not be ashamed to say this to Timothy. He seemed to say this: I call God and His Son and His servants to be witnesses, that I have commanded you; Behold, before Them I command you. He frightens Timothy." The addition of the words: “and [His] elect Angels” - suggests that Saint Paul, pronouncing such an incantation, places himself with Saint Timothy at the terrible judgment of God, on which, as the word of God represents, both the coming Judge and His throne will be surrounded by all the Angels - and as if he is saying to him: at the terrible judgment of God I stand, or will someday stand, with you; take heed, and do not despise the commandment given to you! “He calls upon the Father and the Son (and the Angels) as witnesses to what he has said, so that on the coming day, if anything happens contrary to duty, he will remain right before them, that is, as if relieving himself of all responsibility” (St. Chrysostom). “He called the Angels chosen in contrast to demons, who are also angels, but rejected” (Blessed Theophylact, Ecumenius). “Yes, keep this.” “This”, as noted, our eastern interpreters refer to the court. The word of Saint Chrysostom is given; Here is the word of Blessed Theodoret: “he gives two commands: do not condemn, relying on the reliability of witnesses, before personal research; and, after obvious denunciations, do not delay (or conceal) the sentence, out of mercy to the judged, violating justice. (And so that this is strictly observed, he brings as witnesses God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ with the holy Angels.) Along with God and Christ, the Apostle placed the Angels not as equals, but as slaves. I testify, he says, to you before God and His Son and before His servants.” But Ambrosiast refers to the laying on of hands. “He takes an oath before God the Father and Christ His Son and His chosen Angels, whom the Lord calls saints in the Gospel (Mark 8:38). These (saints) are called chosen because there are others, rejected, who are not God’s angels, but the devil’s, as those who agree with him in apostasy. Under oath, the Apostle commands to observe what concerns ordination to service in the Church - he commands that this should not be done without preliminary strict consideration and that no one should receive church rank with ease before it is known what his life is and what his morals are, but everyone should already be ordained a priest or minister of the Church when he turns out to be worthy, so that if he later turns out to be reproached, the prince of the people (bishop) did not have to regret that he did not fully (not clearly) investigate what he was worth and ordain the disapproving one.” “Without hypocrisy”, χωρις προκριματος, - without prejudice, without a preconceived opinion about the defendant or planned for ordination, in favor of him or against him - an opinion that is established indiscriminately by mere appearance or rumor. Let everything be determined by a strict investigation, brought to full clarity - there (if we refer to the court) regarding the case of the judge, here (if we refer to ordination) regarding the life and morals of the elected one. “Doing nothing by evasion.” - “By deviation”, κατα προσκλισιν, - by inclination to one’s side, not by the essence of the matter, but by a feeling inspired from now on, by partiality. So, the Apostle strictly forbids the bishop to act out of prejudice or partiality, whether the court creates or elects someone for ordination. Blessed Theophylact writes: “be equal, ισος, (not inclined to one side or the other) - to those about whom reason or analysis is going on, so that προκριμα (decision before or without reasoning) does not happen - that is, so that no one preoccupies you and, attracting you to himself in advance, does not favor you for this alone (before reasoning and consideration) pronounce judgment and make a decision. Do nothing out of deviation, κατα προσκλισιν (from: κλινω), that is, out of partiality, leaning to one side. Even if it was written through: η (προσκλησιν), the thought will remain the same. As it would be said: one side invites you to help her; So don’t do it according to this invitation (but according to reason and truth).” Ecumenius writes: “St. Basil, in his interpretation of the parables, reads: μη κατα προσκλησιν - that is, not inclining to what is not right, but what is right, pronouncing judgment. This is precisely what he says: doing nothing by deviation, but pronouncing just and unperverted judgments.” cc) Ordination (1 Tim. 5:22–25) 1 Tim. 5:22. Don’t lay your hands on anyone too soon, and share in the sins of others: keep yourself pure. “I have also reached the most important thing by which the Church primarily holds itself together, that is, consecration” (Blessed Theophylact). And he gives rules regarding it: “for he writes to the bishop” (Ecumenius): “do not lay hands quickly.” “What do you mean: “soon”? Not by the first, not by the second, not by the third test, but having repeatedly examined and carefully examined; since this is not a safe matter” (Saint Chrysostom). “We must first examine the life of the one being ordained, and then call upon him the grace of the Spirit” (Blessed Theodoret). “Participate in the sins of others,” that is, in the sins of the one being ordained, “raising the unworthy to the level of a celebrant for the people” (Ecumenius). If you ordain someone soon, without proper research, it may happen that he seems to be faulty. The sins that he then commits, and the harm that he thereby causes to the Church, will be imputed to you. And you will be involved in the sins of others. “Having given him power, you will be punished for the sins he has committed, both past and future. For, having untimely forgiven him his previous sins, you will become guilty of those that he will commit later, namely: you will be the cause of these latter ones, because you entrusted him with the authorities, and the former ones, because you did not allow him to mourn them and come to a state of contrition. You become an accomplice both in his good deeds and in his sins” (St. Chrysostom). “One should not ordain one for whom sins are suspected (whose integrity is doubtful), so that his ordainer is not stained by sins. If his sins are completely hidden (no trace of them is visible), then the ordainer is safe: his conscience is free. But suspicion should inspire fear. And then he sins if, without having been tested as he should, he ordains. The one who is ordained must be better than others. It is not enough for him to be without blemish; His good deeds must be obvious in order to consider him worthy of ordination” (Ambrosiastes). “Keep yourself clean.” As the speech progresses, it will be more directly understood: “clean” - from the imputation of the sins of the one being ordained. So blessed Theodoret: “Do not make yourself subject to condemnation,” having, of course, imprudently ordained someone who was not worthy and whose sins will stain you yourself. So Ambrosiast: “by observing this (that is, by strictly verifying the dignity of the one being ordained), the bishop will keep himself pure in relation to the faith and the Church, and in the next century he will receive reward for that.” But our other interpreters understand here the commandment to St. Timothy - to guard one’s own moral purity. Saint Chrysostom says: “here the Apostle speaks of abstinence.” Ecumenius and Theophylact write: “he gives a lesson about chastity; exhorts to maintain chastity.” – The connection with the previous one will be like this: but, recognizing whether others are worthy of ordination, be careful not to lose your dignity. Or this: so that you can be bolder in torturing whether one is good or another is bad, be pure yourself. Or another way: if you keep yourself pure, you will have eyes to see whether another is pure and worthy. - Saint Chrysostom adds to this the following guidance: “if the Apostle commands abstinence to a husband who has observed fasts to such an extent and drank water for so long that he has become subject to illnesses and frequent ailments, he is not upset by his suggestions; then all the more we should not be upset when we listen to someone’s instructions about this. If we accept such a thought, then we can see in it the reason or reason for the next reminder. 1 Tim. 5:23. For those who do not drink water, but have taken little wine, stomach for the sake of you and your frequent ailments. The words: “Keep yourself clean” could have forced Saint Timothy to greater abstinence and greater severity in relation to the body, as the most direct means of maintaining cleanliness. But Saint Timothy always led an extremely abstinent life, despite the fact that he did not enjoy good health and was often ill, perhaps especially with ailments of the stoma (stomach). The Apostle remembered this and, tempering this lesson, said, as it were: hearing this: “Keep yourself pure,” do not rush to the greater feat of abstinence. Don't do this. You, on the contrary, due to the state of your health, need some kind of relaxation, and from now on, you don’t just drink water, but also drink a little wine. Of course, grape, light and, moreover, consumed mostly with water. “Don’t drink water”, μηκετι υδροποτει, does not mean: don’t drink water at all, but: drink more than one water, get drunk on more than one water, or quench your thirst, as you usually do. - “You took little wine”, οινω ολιγω χρω, - drink a little wine. “This does not give him permission to get immoderately drunk with wine, but he is allowed to drink it as much as he needs for health, and not for pleasure” (St. Chrysostom). “He didn’t just say: drink wine, but he limited this use, adding: a little. For youth is hot and soon comes into motion from wine” (Blessed Theophylact). “For ostomy’s sake” – indicates stomach diseases. “But it seems that Saint Timothy was subject to ailments not only of the stomach, but also of other parts, as is hinted at by the words: “and your frequent ailments” (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). Ambrosiastes reasons with this: “here the holy Apostle gives private (concerning him personally) advice to St. Timothy so that he should manage himself prudently. God wants them to serve Him to the best of their ability, and not in such a way that they weaken themselves through excessiveness and then have the need to seek the help of doctors. It is necessary to conduct the matter of abstinence in such a way that, if possible and necessary, it is gradually strengthened, and not in such a way that it is later necessary to diminish it because of the excessiveness committed at the beginning. Excessiveness (of bodily abstinence) makes the soul itself weak, and it, worried about the exhaustion of the body, is no longer so zealous for Divine services. The soul, at peace on this side, delights in God with all its heart, begging Him with undivided attention to grant it what it needs for salvation.” Saint Chrysostom asks the following question: “Why didn’t Saint Paul heal Saint Timothy’s stomach?” And he answers: “not because he couldn’t, but because he wanted to extract some important instruction from here; for he whose clothes raised the dead could doubtless do this too. – Why exactly didn’t you do it? Then, so that when we now see great and virtuous people subject to illnesses, we are not tempted by this. Thus, this was done with benefit. Moreover, if he himself was given an angel of Satan so that he would not become proud, then even more so (such prevention of pride was necessary) for Timothy, because signs could easily lead him to pride. Therefore, the Apostle allowed him to use the rules of medical science, so that he himself would think less about himself, and others would not be tempted - and they would understand that those holy men, doing what they did (wonderful deeds), did not cease to be of the same nature as us.” “So that we do not think that the ancients are above our nature, but believe that they are people (like us)” (Blessed Theophylact). 1 Tim. 5:24. Some sins are presented to people as a precursor to judgment: some are the consequences. After a small, apparently digression, the Apostle again returns to the rules on election to ordination, “again continues the word about ordination” (Blessed Theophylact). - When he said: do not ordain quickly, but first examine whether someone is worthy, so as not to become an accomplice in his sins; then St. Timothy naturally could have asked the question: how can this be done - you won’t know?! The Apostle prevents such bewilderment by saying, as it were: you won’t know! There is no difficulty in finding out. Some people's sins go before them, the news of their deeds precedes them, and before you see one of them in person, you may know that he, for example, is unclean in heart and body, unclean in hand, unclean in tongue, and the like. And this will already guide you in advance to pronounce a judgment about him, whether he is worthy or not. All you have to do is check whether it really is as it sounds. And the court will decide on its own. For some people, their sins are not obvious. They know how to cover them up and appear kind and honest to everyone’s face. But their deeds still stand behind them and follow them like the tail of a comet. They have not disappeared, but exist in their wake. Look closely and you will see. This is what my decree obliges you to do and gives you the right to do: “do not lay on your hands quickly”: take it apart, examine it, investigate. If you start to sort it out, it will be wise to hide behind evil deeds. If they hide somehow, then you will not be guilty; because you will do everything possible on your part. “Presentation”, προδηλοι, is obvious in advance, before you begin to disassemble it. “Previously”, προαγουσαι, - leading you in advance, guiding, disposing, encouraging. “For judgment”, εις κρισιν, - to pronounce judgment. As if he wanted to say: there’s nothing to understand here. For others, the deeds “follow” them, επακολουθουσιν - they go behind them in their footsteps, step by step. By their appearance, by their apparent good behavior, they hide them from the gaze of others; but they are still there, back. Someone will take a closer look and see. This is what all our interpreters understand. By the way, they make the following inference from the words: “some people follow”: in this life, others manage to cover up their bad deeds so skillfully that they remain in good standing until their death; but after death, their sinfulness there, in another life, is revealed and exposes them to condemnation. Death does not destroy their deeds, or does not ensure that these people pass on to the next world, but their deeds remain here. No, their deeds will follow them and there will cause righteous judgment about them. And the deeds of others here still decide their fate, clearly showing what awaits them there. Ecumenius, and after him Blessed Theophylact, cite the opinion of Saint Basil the Great, who in these words of the Apostle sees the following thought: the deeds of some sinners, which make them worthy of condemnation, do not stop with their death, but continue to happen without them, with imputation, however, to them. These are precisely those deeds whose evil consequences do not cease with the death of those who committed them, but continue either to seduce into unbelief and evil, or to lead to a bad life. Such are heresies and heretical writings - and seductive amusements and customs. 1 Tim. 5:25. In the same way, the essence of a good deed is presented: even if it exists otherwise, it cannot be hidden. What is said about sins, the same applies to good deeds. And they are presented to others - they are known in advance, they go ahead of the person, recommending him. But for others there are “others”, that is, they are not obvious, they remain unknown, so that it is impossible to say from the first time what kind of person is good or bad. But, he says, even such cases cannot be hidden: investigate, and you will find. This is evidently illustrated by the story of the election of the holy Hieromartyr Alexander from the Uglenians to the bishopric in the city of Comana. The election took place under the chairmanship of St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea. When several persons nominated for election were not approved, someone shouted: shouldn’t Alexander be elected?! But Saint Gregory began to look into it and found that he was more worthy than everyone else, and was everyone (August 12th). f) How and what to teach someone, judging by his external position in society (1 Tim. 6:1–19) Hitherto the Apostle taught how to lead different persons primarily according to their position in the Church. Now he moves on to indicating the course of action on individuals, judging by their position in society. As there, so here, Saint Paul does not embrace everything, but concerns only: aa) slaves (1 Tim. 6:1, 2) - and: bb) the rich (1 Tim. 6:3-19) - because, of course, this was especially required. aa) What should slaves be taught? (1 Tim. 6:1, 2) 1 Tim. 6:1. The Elites are under the yoke of slaves; let their masters be granted all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching are not blasphemed. “This is what the Apostle says about slaves whose masters are unfaithful” (Blessed Theodoret). “Teach them,” he says, and exhort them, so that, although their masters are unfaithful, they obey them, granting them all honor both in words and in deeds” (Blessed Theophylact). Some of the slaves might have thought, and perhaps even thought, that since they had received remission of sins, were accepted into the mercy of God, and had the freedom to approach the Lord, then due to these advantages they should no longer be slaves to unfaithful masters. To prevent this, the Apostle commands Saint Timothy to interpret to each of them: “Do not think that if you are faithful, then you are free” (St. Chrysostom). “You are free in your spiritual nature (free from sins, freely approaching the Lord), but a slave in your body. But this very thing is freedom, to serve, I say, in the name of Christ” (Blessed Theophylact). Be willing to serve, believing that this is the will of the Lord for you, and your work will be a matter of freedom, pleasing to God, and not a yoke. This is precisely what the Apostle points out to instill; for he says: Let servants consider their masters worthy of all honor. That's how it stands in Greek. Whoever has such a conviction in his heart will not feel the yoke of slavery. He who honors someone willingly bows before him and submits to him. But such a suggestion as to make the yoke of slavery easy for slaves is only hinted at in the words: let them be considered worthy of honor. The main intention of the Apostle is to inspire slaves to faithful service by the benefits of faith. Interpret to them, he says, that if they do not honor the masters with faithful service, then the masters will begin to think badly about our teaching and our faith, and they will thus give reason to blaspheme the name of God, which is called upon Christians. And if they serve them willingly and respectfully, especially after their previous reluctant and grumpy service, then they will be given a high understanding of our teaching and will be encouraged to convert to faith in the Lord Savior. “An infidel, if he sees that through faith people fall into conceit, will often revile it as a teaching that leads to indignation; and if he notices that they have become more submissive, then the sooner he himself will submit, the more attentive he will be to what is said (in the Gospel sermon)” (St. Chrysostom). – For the faithful, who loves and reveres the faith, there cannot be a stronger incentive to calmly and willingly bear the yoke of faithful slavery to the infidels. 1 Tim. 6:2. Let those who have faithful masters not be neglectful of them, even though they are brethren: but rather, let them work to return the essence and love, who have received grace. This teach and pray. That was about the attitude towards the infidel gentlemen, and now about the attitude towards the faithful. Faithful masters are understood not only as those who contain faith, but also as those who live in the spirit of faith, and therefore are brotherly towards their slaves, not burdening them beyond their strength, pitying them and caring for them. Seeing this, unreasonable servants could forget themselves, indulge in a sense of equality with their masters and, as a result, neglect their services and treat their masters with disrespect. St. Paul instructs here to prevent this. Teach, he says, so that the servants do not neglect their faithful masters, but work even harder for them. “Slaves whose masters are pious, do not turn their piety into a reason for negligence; but let them therefore be honored with greater helpfulness (Blessed Theodoret). Tell them: “if you have been honored with such an honor that you have brethren as masters (or have brethren as masters), then for this reason you must primarily obey them” (St. Chrysostom). “It is impossible that, since you have become a brother by virtue of baptism, you can treat him carelessly; on the contrary, find motivation in this very thing - to serve and slave him with even greater zeal” (Blessed Theophylact). The motivation for this is: “before returning the essence and beloved, who have received grace.” Faith does not take away the right of domination, but decorates it. A servant who highly honors faith highly honors it in his master, and for her sake also in his master. Hence, there is not a diminishment of the feeling of obligation to serve, but an elevation and, as it were, sanctification. And slave more, he says, “return the essence before.” But by virtue of faith they are “and beloved”, - beloved of God (Ecumenius), - beloved of slaves, because faith obliges and disposes to this, teaching us to love everyone and strangers, and not just our own, and, moreover, those who are their masters. You cannot help but feel how good it is for you that you have faithful and beloved gentlemen. But “as much as you are blessed by having masters as brothers, so be grateful yourself, serving them more diligently” (Ecumenius). “Having said: “beloved,” the Apostle drives out fear, which servants have towards their masters often fall into hatred of them, and instead introduces love” (Blessed Theophylact), or “combines love with fear” (Ecumenius). “Those who receive grace” - those who receive grace are, receive, participate in the essence of grace, that is, they have received remission of sins, accepted into sonship with God, equipped with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those who have been accepted into such mercy of God and are so honored by God, shouldn’t they also be more honored as servants by showing greater obedience and greater zeal in serving them? This idea is conveyed by the Slavic translation, - which translation is also acceptable in the Greek text: οι της ευεργεσιας αντιλαμβανομενοι, - who receive the benefit, or participate in the benefit, - of course, - God's benefit to us sinners, the top of which is the dispensation of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ - “this grace comes with grace” (John 1:16). But the Greek text can also convey the following thought: those who care and are zealous for good deeds, it is implied, slaves, “who carefully try to do good to slaves” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). This is how it is translated in Russian: those who do good to them - the slaves. And our interpreters keep this idea. Saint Chrysostom says: “masters give more to slaves than slaves to masters; for the first spend gold on them and take care of supplying them with necessary things, clothing and everything else. And, pointing to this here, the Apostle says: οι της ευεργεσιας αντιλαμβανομενοι, - who are careful to do good to you, servants. They worry and work for your peace of mind - and shouldn’t they enjoy great honor from their households?” The same is true of Blessed Theophylact: “remember (the servant) that he (the master) is also your benefactor (not only your faithful and beloved), worries and cares about you, to feed you, to clothe you and satisfy your every need and need: so he has many rights to you (to your obedience and service to him), in addition to the fact that he bought you.” It is assumed that the masters, having believed and been sanctified by grace, changed their despotic disposition and began to treat slaves as their own, maintaining them well and showing a loving disposition towards them. As a result, they, beloved to slaves by faith, are even more beloved because of their good deeds to them. Why should these latter naturally serve them more diligently now than before? The Apostle says that slaves should serve faithful masters more diligently, because they are faithful and beloved, and even more so because they themselves benefit them, as if rewarding them with good before they do anything for them; Consider yourself already favored by the gentlemen for your service to them (Ecumenius). By serving them, you will repay them a debt of gratitude for their good deeds to you, covering and embracing you. “Teach and pray this.” Teach as one who has authority, beg, persuade, convince, like a loving father or brother. “Do the first as a teacher, the second as a father” (Blessed Theodoret). “The teacher should use not only power, but also great meekness, and, on the other hand, not only meekness, but also power” (St. Chrysostom). “For there is a doctor, and the doctor sometimes takes with gentleness, and sometimes with strict coercion” (Blessed Theophylact). These words stand in connection with the previous one, that is, with what should be instilled in slaves. This may have been what was required, not so much because of the importance of the subject itself—the obedience of slaves to their masters—but because of the harm that their disobedience could cause to the Church and the believers. - But it seems better to connect them with what follows and relate them to everything said above. Saint Chrysostom takes these words from this, 2nd, verse and connects them with the next one, 3rd. bb) What should we teach the rich? (1 Tim. 6:3–19) This entire section (1 Tim. 6:3–19) contains the following: α) it is suggested: “Teach this” (1 Tim. 6:2) – and after that a reproach is written for those who teach differently, the last bad trait of which is that they “do not desire the gain of being godly” (1 Tim. 6:5) (1 Tim. 6:3–5). This gave rise to: β) to indicate (1 Tim. 6:6-16); αα) the harmful consequences of covetousness for faith and life (1 Tim. 6:6-10) and the suggestion: ββ) “flee these” (1 Tim. 6:11), - drive away piety, faith, etc., with the invocation to urgently observe such a commandment, until the coming of the Lord (1 Tim. 6:11-16). After this it follows: γ) what to teach the rich, namely, so that they do not be proud, do not trust in wealth, but use it for good deeds, “having for themselves a foundation of good things for the future” (1 Tim. 6:19) (1 Tim. 6:17–19). – Thus, everything here is about love in different ways. Why is it considered appropriate to title this section: “What to teach the rich” - considering the indication of the harmful consequences of addiction to wealth and the suggestion to avoid this, and to be zealous for all virtue, as an introduction to this, and the indication of the bad qualities of those who teach differently - as a reason. α) Teach this (1 Tim. 6:3–5) This occasion seemed to have come about by accident. The Apostle only meant to instill - to adhere to sound teaching and to avoid all heterogeneity and controversy in it, as he repeatedly does in this Epistle. But since the best motive for deviating from the latter is the knowledge of the unkindness of those who teach differently, this is what the Apostle depicts. And one of the traits that stood out at that time of these teaching differently was that they acted “in evil for the sake of gain” (Titus 1:11). Having put this line at the end in the words: “those who do not eat, the acquisition of piety,” the Apostle then begins to talk about the passion for acquisitions and wealth. 1 Tim. 6:3, 4. If anyone teaches differently and does not approach the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings of good faith, he becomes proud. Saint Chrysostom is noted to read this in connection with “this teach and pray.” Teach this way, and retreat from those who teach differently. There was no need to remind Saint Timothy of this to deviate from their teaching. Retreat, he says, from the very different teachers - do not associate with them, “turn away from them” (St. Chrysostom). Because, contact them, and there will be a debate of words, from which there is never any benefit, but only irritation and discord. They cannot yield to you, because out of pride and conceit they think that they know the truth and stand in it, whereas they do not know it at all. This self-delusion keeps them stubborn and opposed to the truth. And nothing can be done about them. It's best not to mess with them. Proclaim one truth, and whoever is of the truth will listen to you (John 18:37). This is the content of the present Apostolic lesson. The Apostle does not specify who these different teachers are in particular, but generally says: they teach differently and do not approach the sound words of the Lord and the teaching that is based on good faith. Here one can understand the entire Christian teaching - dogmas, rules of life, and sanctification by the sacraments. Whoever in any of this deviates from the words of the Lord and the sound teaching contained by the host of the faithful, is a teacher of dissent, a proud talker of words, unworthy of fellowship. Why also: “this teach and pray” (1 Tim. 6:2) - refers not only to the obedience of slaves, but to all of the above, not excluding this, of course. The sound words of the Lord are those about which He testified: “all things that I heard from the Father... I told you” (John 15:15). They are the same as what the Holy Spirit inspired to the Apostles: for He also had to say, “If anyone hears” (John 16:13), and, of course, whatever he spoke, he spoke as he heard. The sound words of the Lord, therefore, combine the truth, hidden in the mystery of the Trinitarian God, and brought to earth by the Son of God incarnate, and spread among people through the Apostles by the Holy Spirit - sound truth, that is, pure, unalloyed, immutable. They are healthy because they contain pure truth and because they give health to the soul that receives them. For the truth brings health to the soul, and a lie, no matter how small, weakens it and makes it weak. “The teaching according to good faith” is compiled from the sound words of the Lord and the revelations of the Holy Spirit. It brings together all the words and from all the truths they proclaim, it forms one whole, one image of contemplation of the work of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, according to the good will of the Father. The Lord said a lot, and the Apostles also said a lot from the Holy Spirit. Those who heard and received put everything in their hearts, which, like an architect (architect) guided by grace, arranged that image of contemplating the work of salvation. This image combined “teaching according to good faith.” Having established itself under the influence of the Apostles, this image was carried out in the hearts of believers from the Apostolic age, renewed and preserved by their successors, and handed down to subsequent generations of the faithful, from whom it has come down to us. So: “the teaching according to good faith” is the teaching, the content of the Church, then under the Apostles and now by succession from them. In Greek it is not: “piety”, - but: piety, - τη κατ ευσεβειαν διδασκαλια. But this is not a deviation from the original word of the Apostle, but its most accurate expression. Piety is a heartfelt attitude towards God. Life according to piety is life in the fear of God, for the glory of His all-holy name; teaching according to piety is teaching, content according to undoubted faith in the word of the God of truth. Such content of truth is truly good faith - and it is the only one that is such. 1 Tim. 6:4. He is proud, knows nothing, but is sick of the strife and contention of words, from which comes envy, zeal, blasphemy, and reproach of the evil one. “Getting proud.” This is the one who does not approach the words of the Lord or interprets them crookedly. God speaks and gives laws, but the creature does not listen or, listening, interprets what it hears not in God’s way, but in its own way, subjecting God to condemnation as displeasing to itself. Both actions express: go away, I don’t want to know your ways. It is not only sinners who say this to God, but especially heretics and dissenters. Isn't this pride? This is the height of pride - satanic pride, with which all other teachers are usually filled. And naturally; for, not heeding the word of God, they will only follow their own mind, and the mind will become arrogant. All other teachers are also arrogant, although they sometimes hide behind a very humble appearance - in sheep's clothing, like wolves. Τετυφωται - puffed up, says the Apostle, like a soap bubble. A soap bubble seems like something, but in reality it has nothing solid in it. And the dissident teacher, who does not conform either to the direct word of God or to the teaching of the Church, which is the pillar and affirmation of the truth, having built with his mind his own system of teaching about salvation, rushes around with it, dreaming in self-delusion that he has finally comprehended the truth that others do not know. And he boasts. And yet it is clear that he does not know the truth, but has deviated into lies. A lie claims that there is something that does not exist. Why, although she presents herself as knowledge and may appear to others to be so, in reality she knows nothing - she only bubbles up as if she knows. The Apostle notes that the one who teaches otherwise “is proud and knows nothing.” Imagine that someone would turn your eyes away and present you with a heap of rubbish as a heap of gold. You might see it as a heap of gold, but in reality it is still a heap of rubbish. Such is every system of other teachers; It seems like a truth shining like gold, but in reality it is a collection of dreams that do not contain truth. And we can take it as a sign that, as soon as arrogant conceit fits in with any mental constructs, know that there is a lie hidden here, that this is not comprehension of the truth, but a dream, ignorance of nothing. Saint Chrysostom says: “Consequently, we happen to be inflamed with pride not from knowledge (of the truth), but from ignorance (of it); because the one who knows the teaching consistent with piety knows how to humble himself more than anyone else; he who is instructed in sound doctrine is not overcome by this disease (pride). Therefore, it is possible for someone who knows something (who thinks he knows) not to know anything (as he should); for he who does not know what he ought knows nothing.” As a different teacher, having built his own system of teaching and admires it, he cannot tolerate what is incongruous with it, considering it an insult to himself in the most sensitive place and a humiliation of his highly held teaching. That is why it leads to disputes and disputes everywhere; Ardent argumentativeness accompanies him and follows in his footsteps. This is what St. Paul further puts into perspective: “and is troubled by the strife and contention of words.” - “Competitions”, ζητησεις, - research, - arrangement of questions, - what is this, why is this, how is this and the like. And rumors began, for which no end was expected. “Warfare”, λογομαχιαι, is a war over words. Since the dissident teacher proposes as the truth what is not such, that is, what reality does not correspond to, then his speech does not contain anything significant, but is a collection of words - and, defending himself, he does nothing more than talk about words - he is ill with word debate. By saying: “I am ill,” the Apostle gives the idea that the teacher of dissent has an insatiable urge to argue in his soul. This argumentativeness sits inside him like some kind of sore. And he keeps arguing. - The Apostles had a rule - not to start disputes: “we,” he says, “have no such custom” (1 Cor. 11:16). And Saint Paul writes to Saint Titus and Saint Timothy not to get into disputes. Tell or testify to the truth - and that’s enough. He who is from the truth will listen. He who is not from the truth, argue with him as much as you want, you will not do anything with him. - Dispute - from concern for perseverance thoughts; this anxiety comes from lack of conviction of the all-sufficiency of its foundations. The apostles received the truth directly from God and rested unshakably in their faith. And they did not invent them for others, but only expounded what God the Holy Spirit inspired them with. This is what the teaching of other peoples lacks in the noise of words. This is still being done in the Church: it offers “the teaching of good faith”, which it received from God through the Apostles and which it kept and keeps. Saint Chrysostom says: “Consequently, competition is a disease. And fair enough. For the soul is then engaged in research (ζητησει, - striving), when it is kindled (like a flame) by thoughts, when they overwhelm it (that is, when it is sick); and when she is in a healthy state, then she does not investigate, but rests in faith. Nothing can be found through research and debate. For when research begins to explain what is proclaimed by faith alone, then it neither reveals it nor allows it to be understood; just as if someone, closing his eyes, began to look for something that he wanted to find, he could not (have time to do it). So without faith nothing can be found, but only disputes must inevitably arise.” “Where there is no faith,” continues Theophylact, “everything is painful, there only a verbal war flares up (over words) and nothing else,” and the more skilled in debate strains to overthrow the other. Faith is an eye; He who has no eyes finds nothing, but only seeks.” Knowing nothing, he smiles as if he knows everything, and suffers from argumentativeness: this is the characteristic of a teacher of dissent. What is the fruit of this now? “From these (competitions and contentiousness) comes envy, zeal, blasphemy, and not speaking of the evil one.” All this is seen in every discussion of words. Envy is jealous that the other has the upper hand. It is accompanied by “zeal”, ερις, - zeal, causing an intense effort not to allow another to get ahead of oneself or to get the better of oneself and to overthrow the one who has gained the upper hand again. From this zealousness comes the heat of argument; in the heat of the dispute, “blasphemies and reproaches of the evil one” involuntarily break out. “Blames”: they blaspheme each other for turns of phrase, inconsistency, for ignorance of the facts and aspects of the case, for an inaccurate understanding of evidence, and the like. This inflames irritation most of all and, seeding discord and enmity, blocks all entry into the soul for truth. But at the same time, simple blasphemy cannot help but smack of blasphemy. For the dissenting teacher goes against the truth, and the truth of God, therefore, against God. Why, by blaspheming the truth of God, one blasphemes God. And it is not surprising that some kind of blasphemy will be brought forward directly against God, regarding, for example, the dispensation of salvation, the holy sacraments and providence in general. “The reproach of the evil one”, υπονοιαι πονηραι. – ' Yπονοιαι – suspicions, running up and creeping thoughts: indeed, isn’t it? The teacher of dissent does not spare the conscience of those who disagree with him, but mercilessly pours out phrases that are more and more harsh. Among them, it is not surprising to find those that will leave an impression and generate hesitation: isn’t it? This “isn’t it”, like a thorn, will enter the heart and darken the peace of faith and the lightness of the state of mind. Here's a case. A young monk is sent somewhere by an elder. On the road, a Jew accosted him and started an argument in defense of Jewry, which ended with the monk saying: maybe so. When he returned home, the elder saw him as gloomy as soot. Maybe so - he had an evil spirit and this is what it produced. How the evil one, which came from the evil one, the gloomy one, filled his entire soul and body with darkness, of course, because it brought the most evil one - the gloomy one - inside. - Rest in faith, avoiding all disputes, and you will avoid such trouble. Evil speeches are like nothing, like a slight movement of air. So it seems; in fact, this is a real ulcer that requires healing. They are the same in the matter of faith as thoughts that occupy the heart in the matter of life. Just as the latter are either driven out by struggle or plunged into fall, so in relation to the former one must either fight hastily, restoring the point of faith against which they are directed, or, without doing this, inevitably fall under their power and deviate from the truth. This is how all errors spread and all falling away from the faith occurs. 1 Tim. 6:5. Conversations of evil people who are corrupt in their minds and deprived of the truth, who do not desire the acquisition of piety. Stay away from those. “Evil Conversations”, παραδιατριβαι. – Διατριβη – spending time, filling it with some activity, hence conversations, reasoning and speeches. Παραδιατριβη, - all this in a bad sense, is an empty pastime, conversations that are not about good things and leading not to good, reasoning and speeches that are alien to the truth. “Evil conversations” is the exact expression of this word. Here, of course, it is not the dispute itself, but its feature or consequence and connection. Dispute led by dissident teachers is an empty and harmful waste of time; harmful because, as it was said before, it gives birth to “evil innocence.” Διατριβη from: τριβω – labor. Those leading the conversation rub against each other. But friction from healthy health strengthens, at least does not upset; and friction from a patient can communicate disease and infect. So here, too, if you rub yourself in conversation with a different teacher, you can become infected with his different teaching and become ill with evil faith. According to Saint Chrysostom, the words: “evil conversations” have the following meaning for the Apostle: “just as sheep, being infected with scabies, when they come into contact with healthy ones, and they are told about their illness; so are these evil people.” From Blessed Theodoret we read: “those who have departed from the truth (other teachers) and those who follow their own thoughts attempt to teach inappropriate things. – This is where “evil indecency” is born, and from them comes some kind of destructive disease that infects others. This is what the words mean: “evil conversations.” For just as sick sheep grazing with healthy ones make them sick, so these people fill their neighbors with infection.” Ecumenius expresses himself directly: “evil conversations” - the transmission of the disease of evil dogmas - a metaphor taken from black sheep.” “Like black sheep,” Theophylact explains, “they shake among the healthy and infect them with their illness; Likewise, teachers of other people, rubbing shoulders with others, corrupt their minds and hearts with their evil faith.” That is why they produce such fruit because they themselves are “corrupt in mind.” Such are all those who do not approach the sound (not spoiled by misinterpretation) words of the Lord and the teaching faithfully contained and preserved by the Church. Their mind, having accepted false principles and positions, or dogmas, became corrupted and corrupted them. It's your own fault. Why did you indulge your mind to take on something that it cannot do? It was necessary, having bowed him under the yoke of faith, to force him to obediently accept what was open and devoted, to study it and assimilate it; and they allowed him to invent and compose faith itself. He got it wrong; but, having accepted his invention as an undoubted truth, he himself was corrupted and he corrupted them: and they became “men corrupt in mind,” infecting others with their corruption. What else can you expect from them? “A good man brings forth good treasures; and an evil man brings forth evil treasures from evil” (Matthew 12:35). They are corrupted in mind because they are “devoid of truth.” This is the reason for the corruption of the mind. Just as the content of truth is the health of the mind, so the deprivation of truth is its illness and corruption; just as the maintenance and keeping of the commandments is the health of the will, and deviation from them is illness and corruption of it - and like sympathy for the Divine and heavenly, taste in this and delight in it is the health of the heart, and deprivation of such sympathy, taste and pleasure is its illness and corruption. The same thing happens here as, for example, with berries. Leave them as they are, they will soon spoil and decay: but fill them with sugar, by boiling them in its solution, they gain strength to resist corruption. So the mind, left as it is, soon deteriorates, but fill it with truth, and the truth will give it strength and strength to resist all corruption. Deprivation of truth gives rise to two evils in the mind - either darkness of ignorance, or corruption by evil faith. And that’s bad, but this is even worse. Darkness, deprivation of light causes fading and even death: for nothing living can live without light - the material without the material, the spiritual without the spiritual. The light of the mind is truth; Without it, he freezes or becomes starved. The evil is great; but for someone who has been starved, you can have hope that he will move away, wake up and come to life. One corrupted by evil faith does not give such hope. He is damaged internally and significantly; therefore, he can be returned to the health inherent in him by nature only by the power of God, who created nature, that is, only by being recreated by God’s special grace. “Those who do not eat will gain piety.” - “Acquisition”, πορισμον. – Πορος – estate in abundance of all the needs of life; πορισμος - the acquisition of these needs and ways to achieve this. By “piety” we mean faith in general. They, he says, regard faith as a means to acquisition, and turn it into such a means. This is the height of mental and moral corruption. There is no longer any faith here, much less there is no piety or heartfelt mood in the spirit of faith. Meanwhile, their worries are all about faith, and their worries are intensified, so this matter does not go without controversy. Isn't this where the controversy comes from? Just as traders argue when selling out of a desire to increase profits, so these teachers of other people start arguing everywhere, because otherwise they will not be able to get anything, and they will have to starve. “These debaters,” writes Blessed Theophylact, “attracting disciples to themselves, take advantage of them and strive more and more in disputes in order to attract more and more of them to themselves,” - of course, in order to gain more from them. "Depart from such." “He did not say: grab hold of them and fight, but: “fall back,” that is, “according to the first and second punishment” (Titus 3:10). For those who fight over profit and money, when and how can they be convinced?” (Blessed Theophylact). “Otherwise you will not convince such people as if you give them; but even this will not satisfy their thirst for acquisition. “The eye of the covetous,” says Scripture, “will not be satisfied with portion” (Sir. 14:9). Therefore, one must turn away from them, as incorrigible,” (Saint Chrysostom). β) Direction (1 Tim. 6:6–16) The indication of the last unkind trait in teachers of other religions gave St. Paul a reason to offer the necessary suggestions against covetousness. Here he αα) depicts the harmful consequences of worries about acquisitions, having determined in advance the measure of needs and indicating the source of contentment with it (1 Tim. 6:6–10); and then: ββ) makes an appropriate appeal to Saint Timothy (1 Tim. 6:11-16). αα) Harmful consequences of infatuation (1 Tim. 6:6–10) 1 Tim. 6:6. There is the attainment of great piety with contentment. “Getting”, again: πορισμος, - acquisition, possession of necessary things, possession of them. “Piety” is true faith with a heart in the spirit of faith and a corresponding life. Such piety, he says, in itself is already the attainment of needs, or it brings with it the possession of necessary things, not because it gives wealth, but because it sets a person in such a way that he feels completely satisfied with regard to bodily needs, being content with what he has. Just as piety sets him up to be content with what he has, it thereby extinguishes any urge for acquisitions. A pious man is rich because he is satisfied with everything and does not feel lacking in anything, just as, on the contrary, a rich man should be considered poor when he feels that he still lacks much. The words: “piety with contentment” do not mean this: piety with having a sufficient amount of needs, although this can be allowed, but this: piety with a feeling of contentment, when piety so fills a person’s heart that in his spirit he feels contented. “Those (other teachers, debaters) “evilly desire the acquisition of piety” (Blessed Theophylact), “because they pretend to put on the clothing of piety, so that they have in it a means of acquiring it” (Ecumenius). “And in piety there is condescension, but not in the way that they believe, but much higher. There is gain in it not when you have it, but when you don’t have it: for it teaches contentment. And contentment is great and lasting wealth” (Blessed Theophylact). “Piety, therefore, in itself is true acquisition; because he is content with what he has and does not seek excess. Or (this can be understood) piety is self-indulgence, because with it one does not seek abundance, but is satisfied with having enough of what one needs” (Ecumenius). Thus, the spirit of piety, making you contented and, therefore, rich, extinguishes the thirst for acquisitions. But natural reasoning can lead anyone to this. What's the point of wasting care and effort on this when you don't take anything with you from here? 1 Tim. 6:7. We have brought nothing into this world: I will... below wear out what we can. “Blessed Job also said this: “I myself came naked from my mother’s womb, and naked I will go away” (Job 1:21)” (Blessed Theodoret). “Thus, if we have brought nothing and bear nothing, then what need is there to care about having more than we need?” (Ecumenius). The teachers of other people are so sick of love that they even turn piety into a means to it. And this further exposes weakness and corruption of the mind. For if their minds were sound, they would not be so concerned about material acquisitions. For “this kind of acquisition means nothing, as can be seen from the fact that it remains here and does not move with us (to another world) and does not accompany us there. We came into this world having nothing, and we will leave it having nothing either. Because creation is born naked and goes away naked. Consequently, we do not need anything extra if we did not bring anything with us and leave without having anything” (St. Chrysostom). “In vain do mortal people try to accumulate property and strive to be rich,” the Apostle proclaims with an open voice, when they know that they cannot acquire anything (inherently) of their own in this world. What does human greed serve, except perhaps to be its own enemy? Nothing is brought into the world by anyone, and nothing can be taken out. Why impose on yourself the burden of worries and seek accumulations of wealth? You will leave the same way you came. What Job also writes, confessing his conviction: “naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked I will go there... blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). If the misers had not kept what they had accumulated for their own detriment, then the few of them could have brought benefit to as many as they did for themselves!” (Ambrosiast). 1 Tim. 6:8. Having food and clothing, we will be content with these. Someone will say: although we bring nothing here and take nothing out of here; but we must live while we are here. And in order to live, you must have food, have clothing. Therefore, one cannot do without not having. “But only,” says the Apostle, “you need to have it.” There is food, there is clothing, and that’s enough. “He defines here what the contentment of which he commemorated should be based on” (Blessed Theophylact). “You need to eat what and to the extent that you need to be satisfied; we must dress in what can only protect us from bad weather and cover our nakedness; and this can be accomplished even by simple clothing. There should be nothing superfluous” (Saint Chrysostom). “Eat what nourishes, and not the larynx only delights, and dress with what covers and protects nakedness, and not with what pampers and vanities. This is the meaning of the words: “food” - and: “garment” (Ecumenius). However, the “robe”, σκεπασματα, can contain only clothing, but also shelter. The Apostle’s thought: limit yourself in satisfying the necessary bodily needs to those most necessary, so that worrying about this does not torment your head and heart. Having thus indicated the naturalness for a Christian, the reasonableness and ease of execution of non-covetousness, the Apostle then depicts the clearly detrimental consequences of covetousness for faith and virtue. 1 Tim. 6:9. But those who want to get rich fall into misfortunes and snares, and into many senseless and harmful lusts, which plunge people into destruction and destruction. The reproach is not generally for those who have wealth, but for those who are partial to it, thirsting for it, chasing after it and using it only for their own pleasure and the satisfaction of their desires and passions. It is possible to possess impeccable wealth and to use it commendably, about which the Apostle gives lessons below, verse 17 ff. Why did he say: “those who want” βουλομτνοι - possessed by desire, constantly attracted and consumed by it. “He did not simply say: those who are getting rich (possessing wealth), but: “those who want to get rich.” For if anyone, having received wealth from his ancestors, disposes of it according to Divine laws, then he is free from accusation” (Blessed Theodoret). “The Apostle denounces not those who, having acquired wealth, manage them well, not being addicted to them and distributing them to the poor, but those who thirst for acquisition” (St. Chrysostom). “Exploring wealth from the poor is not the business of those who want to get rich” (Blessed Theophylact). “Such people will not give to others, fearing that they themselves will not have enough to satisfy their wishes” (Ecumenius). “They fall into adversity and a snare,” εις πειρασμον και παγιδα, - into temptation and a snare. Temptation is such a confluence of coincidences that greatly irritates the urge to commit any sin and, as if against the will, leads to it. This is also the network. But a network can also mean cutting off or intertwining in sinful deeds, so whether you like it or not, you sin: this is how things are set up and intertwined. He who chases the wealth of both cannot get by. He constantly has occasions to bend his soul to a bad person for the sake of profit and to trample on the laws of truth and love, inspired by his conscience; when he gets used to this way of acting, he becomes entangled in it, like a net from which he cannot escape. “Whoever, born of the poor and greedily seeking wealth, uses every method to acquire, not knowing the satiety of this lust, walks through the nets of sin” (Blessed Theodoret). The Apostle did not say: they are subject to temptation, but: “they fall.” That is, temptation always overcomes them; as soon as a tempting opportunity presents itself, they fall under the temptation and cannot resist it. But we can understand here not only moral temptations and snares, but also external, everyday ones - various troubles and difficulties. And those chasing wealth have a lot of them: at home - dangers from thieves and fire, on the road - misfortunes from robbers, in transactions - resistance, during business - unforeseen disorders and the like. Saint Chrysostom says: “What temptations and snares do those who want to get rich fall into? In such a way that it removes them from faith, leads them to the path of error, surrounds them with dangers and deprives them of peace.” So does Blessed Theophylact: “they fall into temptation and a snare,” because they sin against faith (and commandments), and are surrounded by dangers because of wealth, and are afraid of everyone.” Our Slavic translation expresses the same idea: “they fall into misfortune.” - And it is illegal to eliminate such a thought. The following words, serving as an explanation of these words, speak of both the internal and external harmful consequences of covetousness, which are temptations and snares. “And in lust many are senseless and harmful.” – “Lust” – all kinds of desires for self-indulgence, contrary to conscience and the explicit commandments of God. Therefore, by their nature, they are meaningless and harmful. There are no meaningful or harmless lusts. All of them are meaningless and harmful for both the soul and the body, only to different degrees. When the Apostle says: they fall into lusts, he means: they submit to them, live according to them, they are a law for them. “Current wealth plunges into indecent lusts, because it provides methods for this” (Ecumenius). The Apostle does not list exactly what lusts; but they naturally manifest themselves in those who do not use wealth properly: eat, drink, wallow in carnal sins, offend, be vain, lust for power, always stand on their own, even if it is wrong, and the like. St. Chrysostom depicts the senseless and harmful lusts of the rich in this way: “How can one not call it a senseless passion when these people (the rich) keep fools and dwarfs, not out of love for humanity, but for pleasure - when they build ponds for fish in their palaces, when they keep wild animals, when they take care of dogs, when they decorate horses and take care of them no less than children? All this is meaningless and unnecessary, completely unnecessary and useless. – What passions are harmful? When people are inflamed by dissolute love, when they seek the property of their neighbors, when they strive for pleasure, when they indulge in drunkenness, when they crave the murder and destruction of others.” “Already they plunge a person into all-destruction and destruction.” This is the end of the satisfaction of senseless and harmful lusts. The lover of wealth, while he is getting rich, although he also lives according to lusts, still moderates them, so that by spilling them he does not interfere with the flow of wealth; but when he gets rich, he can no longer control himself and indulges in the full breadth of his lusts. It ends in destruction and destruction. “All-destructiveness”, ολεθρος, - all-disaster; “destruction”, απωλεια, - destruction, - “both here and hereafter” (Blessed Theophylact), - both temporary and eternal. “He said well: “they are immersed,” so that it becomes impossible for them to go up” (St. Chrysostom). Complete disorder here, and ultimate ruin there. “They end their lives, enduring troubles and ruins” (Blessed Theodoret); and they go there not for the best, so that “covetousness is not safe here, and in the future it will be condemned” (Amvrosiast). 1 Tim. 6:10. The love of money is the root of all evil, and there is no one who desires it, having gone astray from the faith, and having nailed himself with many illnesses. The love of money is the root of all evil; because it gives ways to live according to lusts that are unkind and do not lead to good, as was said before this, and because in order to satisfy this passion, the one who possesses it, without thinking, is ready “for every atrocity, for every crime and obscenity, and actually commits them” (Ambrosiastes). “From this root grow murder, sorcery, theft, lies, breaking an oath and all kinds of crimes” (Blessed Theodoret). “It does not spare the living, nor does it spare the dead, but it robs them too; rebels against parents and brothers and sacrilegiously steals God's property. Drive out the love of money - and there will be no wars, no enmity, no fornication; for a harlot gives herself over to lewdness for money” (Blessed Theophylact). “There is no one who desires”, ορεγομενοι, - as uncontrollably as one uncontrollably tormented by thirst desires water, - “having gone astray from the faith,” απεπλανηθησαν, - they left the straight path of faith, and went along a different road, - and without arming themselves against faith and without even renouncing it publicly, they shied away from it without noticing it themselves. All their attention was absorbed in acquisitions - and they went where this passion led, without thinking about faith, and, walking like this, they passed by faith and came to a place where not a trace of faith remained, neither in the way they viewed things, nor in the way they felt, moods and life. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle said well: απεπλανηθησαν. Because the love of money, attracting their eyes to itself and gradually closing them, does not allow them to see the path (of faith). Just as a person who walks on a straight road, with his thought directed at something else, although he moves forward, however, without noticing it, he passes by the object to which he was in a hurry - because his feet imperceptibly and unconsciously carry him away: so something similar to this is the love of money (the love of money causes it when, having attracted the eyes of the soul to itself, it causes the one who possesses it to miss faith).” The mood of the heart of a money lover is incompatible with faith: faith commands one to trust in God, but he trusts in wealth; faith forbids arrogance, but he is arrogant (below - verse 17); Faith does not command one to lust, but it breeds lust and so on. Thus, the love of money, by its very indwelling in the heart, causes its lover to ignore faith. “For a lover of acquisitions, how will he believe the Gospel, which introduces poverty (the love of having nothing)? This is impossible” (Blessed Theophylact). But from the love of money there is not only a heartfelt deviation from faith, but also a visible retreat from it, or renunciation, when because of faith one has to lose a lot in the production of acquisitions. The lover of them departs from the faith so as not to lose them. It is true that such experiences took place in Ephesus, a crowded and abundantly rich city. The Apostle uses them to clearly demonstrate the harmfulness of the love of money. “And I have pinned myself down with illness to many.” - “Illness”, οδυναις, - illnesses, sorrows, very sensitive worries. “The Apostle mentions two harmful consequences (love of money) (apostasy from the faith and hurting oneself with illnesses); but the one that seemed more difficult for them, he puts here in last place, that is: “nailed himself with illness.” And no one can know this except by living near the rich. How much they cry, how much they weep!” (Saint Chrysostom). “The passion for enrichment not only prevents one from maintaining a proper relationship with God in faith, but also sensitively wounds his lovers with worries, sleep deprivation, and fears” (Ecumenius). “Nailed”, περιεπειραν, - wounded, pierced. Saint Chrysostom says therefore: “Do you see what he is hinting at when he says: περιεπειραν? What he wants to express with this turn of phrase has such meaning. The passions are thorns, and just as with a thorn, no matter from which side one touches it, everyone pricks his hands until they bleed and inflicts wounds on them: so from the passions anyone who submits to their power will suffer the same thing - he will subject his soul to suffering. Tell me how many worries, how many sorrows those who are wounded by them have! You can’t even say that.” Let us make a short extract from the conversation of St. Chrysostom, based on the interpretation of previous texts. “Let us avoid this root of evil (the love of money) and we will avoid all evil. For what evil does not come from money, or, more correctly speaking, not from money, but from the evil will of those who do not know how to use it. Because money can be used, you can, with its assistance, inherit the Kingdom. But now we turn what is given to us to help the poor, to glorify God and please Him, not for the benefit of these unfortunate ones, but to harm our souls and through this we insult God. - So, what evil does not come from love? Isn’t this where theft, screaming, hostility, abuse and disputes come from? Do not those possessed by this passion stretch out their hands even to the dead, even to fathers and brothers? Do they not overthrow the laws of nature, the commandments of God, and everything in general? So, if there is no love of money, war will cease, fighting will cease, enmity will cease, discord and the love of arguing will cease. The selfish people should be expelled from the universe, like destroyers and wolves. People greedy for money lead everything into complete disorder. A person greedy for money does not know a single friend. What am I saying, friend? He doesn't even know God Himself. - Open his soul, and you will find that it is armed not with one sword or two, but countless; She doesn’t respect anyone, but she gets mad at everyone - she attacks everyone and barks at everyone; she kills not dogs, but human souls and loudly spews blasphemy to the very sky. Everything perished from the frantic love of money. And I don’t know who I’m going to blame; to such an extent did this evil take possession of everyone - it is true, some to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent, however - all. And just as a strong fire, being thrown into a forest, overthrows and devastates everything, so this passion destroys the universe: kings, rulers, private people, beggars, women, men, children - all are equally enslaved to this evil. As if, due to some darkness that has enveloped the universe, no one comes out of intoxication. True, countless accusations are made against covetousness both in private conversation and among the people; however, we don’t see any corrections anywhere. What then? Is there really no way to extinguish this flame? Yes, even if it rose even to the sky. We just have to want it, and we will undoubtedly extinguish this flame. For just as it was strengthened as a result of our desire, so it will be destroyed by desire. Was it not our free will that lit it? Consequently, free will will be able to extinguish. Let's just wish it. But how can such a desire arise in us? If we pay attention to the vanity and uselessness of wealth, to the fact that it cannot accompany us there, that even here it leaves us, that although it only takes place here, the ulcers from it go with us there; if we look at how great the ready-made wealth is there, so that if we compare earthly wealth with them, it will seem more insignificant than dirt; if we notice that it is exposed to countless dangers and its very fleeting pleasure is mixed with sorrows; if we fix our eyes on other wealth, that is, that which is prepared for eternal life, and through this we generate contempt for earthly wealth; if we consider that the latter, without increasing in the least glory, health, or anything else, nevertheless plunges us into the abyss of destruction; if we accept that, despite the fact that here! Some people are rich and have many servants, but when they go there, they go there alone and naked. If we often repeat and hear this from others, then perhaps our health will return to us and we will get rid of this grave punishment.” ββ ) Run now ( 1 Tim. 6:11–16 ) The image of the bad consequences of being in love already repelled him; despite, however, Saint Paul considered it worthwhile to add: X) a direct suggestion: “flee these” (1 Tim. 6:11) - and, in contrast to worries about vain acquisitions, indicate: Z) tireless (“drive” (1 Tim. 6:11)) concern for the acquisition of every virtue in the hope of a blessed eternity (1 Tim. 6:11, 12), adding: Y) a spell in the name of God to fulfill this commandment without shame until the coming of the Lord (1 Tim. 6:13–16). These lessons are given to Saint Timothy not, of course, in the sense that he has a need for them, but in order to give him guidance on how to turn his flock away from covetousness and where to direct them instead. One might think that in the person of Saint Timothy these lessons are given to all Christians, and especially to pastors and archpastors. X) Direct suggestion (1 Tim. 6:11) 1 Tim. 6:11. You, oh man of God, run away from these. "Man of God". “Great dignity! True, all people are God’s, but mostly righteous, not only because they are God’s creations, but also because of their closeness to God” (St. Chrysostom). “A man of God is a great praise. This is how the great Elijah was named, and many of the Prophets are also named this way, not because others are not men of God (for all are God’s creatures), but those who have retained (or restored) the original features of creation are truly called men of God. So everyone is God’s servants, like creatures; for the wicked Nebuchadnezzar is God’s servant; but he is a slave by nature, and Abraham, and David, and Paul, and those like them, are slaves by commitment. For it is said: “Abraham for the sake of My servant” (Gen. 26:24), and: “David for the sake of My servant” (1 Kings 11:13), and: “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:1)” (Blessed Theodoret). The man of God is driven by the fear of God and tries in every possible way to please God. Of these, especially the people of God are those who are entrusted from God with certain special matters, which not only belong to the house of God, belong to God, but are also assigned as rulers of the house. Saint Timothy also belonged to these people. Why is he called a man of God? In this name there is already hidden an incentive to: “run away from these things,” - to run away from covetousness and the wrongs and anxieties associated with it. since you are a man of God, it is not at all fitting for you to chase after acquisitions. You have a Lord, rich in everything, and in Him a much-caring Father. If you begin to chase after acquisitions, you will blaspheme your Master and Father. And you have no time to do this. You have something to do that should absorb all your attention and fill all your time. “If you are a man of God, then do not seek what is unnecessary and does not lead to God, but on the contrary, run away from it” (St. Chrysostom). “If you are a man of God, then do not seek what turns you away from God (and the work of God), but - what? Run away from this” (Blessed Theodoret). “He instills and commands the man of God to flee covetousness, so that he may be safe here and receive a rich reward in the future. For it is not unjust to crown one who despises what so many cling to and are attracted to” (Amvrosiastes) - So for you, man of God, it is inappropriate to burden yourself with covetousness, even if this were a permissible matter. But when you know that it is disgusting to God, that God turns away from it as from idolatry, then you should not quietly retreat, but run from it. Speaking about other teachers, he wrote: “fall back” (1 Tim. 6:5). Having mentioned “women’s fables,” he added: “deny” (1 Tim. 4:7). “Flee” from covetousness and love of money, he says, as from fire, as from certain destruction. Ζ) Instruction to take care to acquire virtue (1 Tim. 6:11, 12) 1 Tim. 6:11. Drive away truth, piety, faith, love, patience, meekness. “Run” - not heading into the void, but rushing towards the opposite of what you are running from: “chase the truth” - and so on. There: “run”, - here: “drive”. “Do both with intense zeal” (St. Chrysostom). “He did not say: retreat and approach, but: “run” - and: “drive” (Blessed Theophylact). “Drive,” he says, and points out various virtues as the goal of persecution. since this “drive” is the opposite of “run” - and running commands covetousness: then all these virtues must be understood here - insofar as they are opposite to covetousness, or insofar as non-covetousness gives their manifestation and exercise a spacious field, or insofar as their acquisition leads to non-covetousness and confirms it. “The Apostle commands the man of God to flee the covetousness of his mother-in-law after truth, piety and other things that he remembers, because it cannot be avoided without clinging to what is opposite to it” (Ambrosiastes). "Drive away the truth". Be hungry and thirsty for righteousness, as the Savior commanded (Matthew 5:6). Strictly observe the laws of justice in everything - in thoughts about others, in relations with them in words, in transactions with them and in conflicts - and even more so in courts. Give your due to everyone. There is no law on mercy; but truth has its own definite measure, deviation from which, even a small one, leads to untruth. You cannot follow such a course of action when you are covetous. It will tie your hands and confuse your legs at every step. With him, the scales of your truth cannot stand right, and everyone will tilt towards falsehood. Only non-covetousness will give you complete freedom of action; Only with her can your truth bloom and your deeds will be unimpeded by “mother-in-law” in her way. “He instills the truth, so as not to take advantage of anyone, as those who want to get rich do” (Blessed Theophylact). "Piety - drive away." “Piety” is the mood of the heart in relation to God in the spirit of faith. since it receives its direction from faith, then it contains the “content of dogmas” (St. Chrysostom, Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). But in itself it is actually composed of feelings and dispositions towards God, arising and maturing under the influence of sincere heartfelt faith. Such a mood is natural for a non-acquisitive person, but it cannot be for a covetous person, just as a bird cannot fly with frozen wings. The non-covetous person has a heart detached from the material and created, and the spirit is free. As he by nature seeks to live in God, then, having received freedom, he rushes to God, and begins to live in Him, and, from this height, approaching his heart, fills it with reverent feelings for God, in diverse shades, depending either on views towards God in different relationships (the being of God, properties, actions), or on his different states. The totality of all of them is piety, the sign of which is nothing other than the presence and movement of those feelings. Covetousness, on the contrary, burdens the heart with “the sorrows of this life” (Luke 21:34) and burdens the mind with much care (Wis. 9:15). Attention to the demands of the spirit fades away, and it becomes deaf. Along with it, all feelings for God are drowned out, and piety remains only in its visible manifestations by the established order in the Church. The whole internal structure of a person is then earthly: he crawls on the ground with his breasts and feeds on the earth. "Drive away the faith". Faith here is not a confession of dogmas, but confidence in God, with which one who is filled believes that God will not abandon His servant, who works for Him wholeheartedly. Why does he not torment himself with worry about the morning, as the Savior commanded (Matthew 6:25-34). He who begins to work for God properly places his life in the hands of God and never returns to caring for himself. He does not lie idle; but has no worries, but rests in God, being content with what God gives - both a piece of bread and even nothing. Self-care is a disease of an unbelieving heart. It is revealed from a sense of necessary needs, not guided by faith. It starts small, but does not stand on one thing, but grows and quickly grows into a lot of concern. As care grows, so does love. When simple care becomes much care, then at its basis there is already complete covetousness. With much care and covetousness, faith fades. In their final stages, not a trace of it remains. Faith does not take away labor and obtaining what is needed, but sanctifies and guides them, keeping the heart free from partiality and attachment to gain and what is acquired, and at the same time driving away laziness and idleness. In this mood, even if wealth flows, faith will not allow the heart to attach itself to it. She will preserve the heart of God's steward, rich in feelings, God's steward. In this spirit, the commandment below is given to the rich (1 Cor. 6:17–19). "Drive away love". Love “does not seek its own” (1 Cor. 13:5); Why doesn’t he begin to win over to his side what should belong to another, and in response to the request of someone in need, he doesn’t say: “I need it for myself.” Her nature is completely opposite to covetousness and covetousness: for she does not like to collect and hold for herself, but to squander and distribute. Why, whether you acquire love, you extinguish covetousness, or, if you drive away covetousness, you pave the way for love. Start helping others out of your own and doing good, - you will relax the bonds of love and perceive the beginnings of love. Continue to be rich in good deeds (below: 1 Tim. 6:18), - the bonds of covetousness will completely subside and love will reign. If, on the contrary, you begin to be stingy, you will tie yourself tighter with the bonds of covetousness and you will experience a hardening of the heart. Continue such a life, your heart will harden towards everyone, and those bonds will begin to strangle you, bringing you to the point where you will be sorry to spend anything on yourself. And where does envy, enmity, searches, trials, mortal hatred, murder and all kinds of disorder come from? Everything is especially from love. Where there is love, there is no place for all this. By melting the bonds of love, she removes all the bad consequences. "Have patience". He who does not seek much is naturally content with little; and this requires patience. Why should one who intends to be non-covetous be stocked with patience, making it the basis of his good determination? Why are they looking for so much? From self-pity, from the fact that it is a pity to deny yourself; but it’s a pity to refuse yourself, because refusal causes sorrow; grief in case of refusal comes from inability, unpreparedness and unwillingness to endure. Having decided not to chase after much in advance, he has already looked through all these sorrows, deprivations, hardships - and the fits of self-pity that arise in connection with them - and decided to endure everything. That is why no sorrowful accidents, depending on the lack of much, do not bother him, but are complacent and easily tolerated. That’s why the Apostle said: “drive patience,” in the thought that if you catch up with it and master it, you will cut off all the germs of self-pity, and with this you will turn away any excitement of urges to polynomy. – But the requirement of non-acquisitiveness is not a requirement of not having anything, but only of non-predilection for possessions and methods of acquiring it. And he who has a lot can be non-covetous. But for such a person to retain non-covetousness within himself and to act in its spirit, patience is even more necessary. And here the strongest helping hand is given to him by love, which “endures everything” (1 Cor. 13:7). "Drive away meekness." Meekness is the opposite of anger, resentment and any feelings of displeasure towards others for whatever reason. This feeling arises from everything that somehow disturbs our pride; but the widest field for the distribution of this potion is covetousness. Don't touch it, it's mine. This is the law of covetousness. If anyone touches you, displeasure, anger, anger, enmity, and hatred will follow. Whoever is impartial to acquisitions is free from all such worries, although he goes through the same everyday accidents that extremely outrage others. Apparently, therefore, meekness is naturally combined with non-covetousness. Why in the words: “drive away meekness” we must see a lesson together: be non-covetous, because otherwise you cannot be meek. But meekness can also have other sources - love, devotion to the will of God, and the like. - Having entered the heart, she, together with her parents, cuts down covetousness. Why can meekness be seen as a remedy against this passion? Drive away meekness, and it, having settled in your heart, will help you to calmly maintain non-covetousness. 1 Tim. 6:12. Fight the good fight of faith, eating for eternal life; you were called in need, and you made a good confession before many witnesses. The lesson continues. Therefore, these words should be considered in the same direction as the previous ones, that is, in their relation to non-covetousness or covetousness. - “Fight the good fight of faith.” The feat presupposes not only intense work, but also a struggle to overcome obstacles internal and external, when it is necessary not only to cope with a matter, but at the same time to overcome oneself and everything that rebels against it, and to resist others, and to prevail over the flow of circumstances. In relation to faith, asceticism is belief, because one must bend one’s mind and will under the yoke of faith, and renounce the former faith, and separate from one’s former co-religionists; An even greater feat is to establish both one’s internal and external ones in the spirit of faith, which always requires a considerable restructuring of the order of one’s established life; then the feat is to stand firm both in belief and in life according to faith - which feat is especially difficult and high during persecution and attacks on faith and believers. All these are feats common to all believers; but there are also special feats of faith that only lie on some individuals, namely the spread of faith and the guidance of others in the work of faith - the apostolic and pastoral feat. What is meant by the feat of faith in this place? Everything, excluding the feat of faith; but especially the last one is Apostolic and pastoral. Saint Timothy believed long ago and knew the faith in all its breadth; there is nothing to mention about this. But the feat of maintaining faith and living in the spirit of faith, the feat of enduring temptations because of faith, and for a shepherd the feat of teaching and guiding his flock never ceases. All of them can be understood in the present place, as our interpreters do. Saint Chrysostom speaks at this point about the feat of maintaining faith and living in its spirit. “Not only is confession required (acceptance of faith, belief), but also standing in it in order to constantly remain in the accepted confession; and for this, in all fairness, great feats and considerable labor are needed, so as not to deviate from the right path; because there are many temptations ahead, many obstacles. As a result of this, this path is narrow and deplorable. Therefore, we must protect ourselves from everywhere, we must properly arm ourselves on all sides. Countless lures appear from everywhere that attract the eyes of the soul, namely pleasures, money, seduction, laziness, fame, pride, power, lust, and they appear with a bright and pleasant face, capable of attracting those who submit to their influence and do not really like the truth, for it is harsh and does not contain anything pleasant. Why? Because she promises all kinds of consolations only in the future, while these objects already now promise honors, pleasures, peace, which, of course, is not true, but has only its outer appearance. As a result of this, everyone who is voluptuous, effeminate and weak-hearted cleaves to them, fleeing from the labors associated with virtue.” – Ecumenius writes about enduring temptations for the sake of faith: “the feat of faith is everything that is said (in verse 11: truth, piety, etc.), and courage in temptations for the faith.” Blessed Theophylact also remembers the labors of shepherding: “fight,” he says, “the good fight of faith,” “that is, stand firm and unshakable for the faith and be zealous for it both with the power of the word and the purity of life.” How such exploits serve as an antidote to covetousness and a strong foundation for non-covetousness is self-evident. The spirit of life by faith is detached from everything and, therefore, unloving; temptations for faith, like fire that purifies metals from foreign impurities by refining, burn out all attachments to earthly things; Pastoral concerns, apart from this, do not leave time to engage in acquisitions. That’s why the Apostle wrote about exploits: “strive and abstain from everything” (1 Cor. 9:25) and: “No one... an experienced warrior is obliged to purchase the purchases of life” (2 Tim. 2:4). “Eating for eternal life.” This directly denies covetousness. To take hold of eternal life means to seek it with all your soul and with all your heart. In this case, there is no longer anything to seek for acquisitions: both thoughts and desires are all transferred to the region of eternal life; There is no longer any strength left to acquire anything temporary. And the Savior said that God and Mammon cannot work. These works are mutually exclusive. Why, take hold of eternal life, and you will extinguish covetousness, accepting non-covetousness instead. In addition, having taken up eternal life, one must direct one’s actions exclusively towards acquiring it - and they all rest on self-sacrifice and love - active ones - which both are for covetousness “a consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24). “In nyuzha you were called.” The promise of eternal life was included in the first catechumen of those who came to faith. The preachers, on the one hand, imagined to the mind: “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18), - on the other: “we proclaim to you the eternal life” (1 John 1:2). From there fear, from here sweet hope, attracted people to faith, offering in it a means to immediately get rid of anger and become heirs of eternal bliss. And at all times, these two motives have attracted and are attracting to faith, kept and are kept in it not by cold, but by inspired lovers of it. The Apostle reminds Saint Timothy: do you remember what attracted you to faith? Sweet hope of eternal blessings. They were promised to you on behalf of God, so that you were called directly into eternal life, and, having been baptized, were written down as heirs of this life - heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). So it is not fitting for you, who exist as such, to be covetous: for this would mean exchanging gold and precious stones for rubbish and tares. – We can remind everyone of this. For “everyone who approaches baptism into eternal life is called” (Ecumenius). “And you made a good confession before many witnesses” - “Confession” - of course, faith, which is good when done fearlessly, with boldness, without any hesitation, with complete confidence in the truth. What confession is being mentioned? Confession occurs at baptism; confession is proclaimed before the tormentors; it is also given before ordination. What is it here? Least of all the latter. The first is appropriate; It is suggested by the previous: “thou art called” - and by the fact that Saint Timothy was recommended to the Apostle Paul by all the believers in his homeland, as an ardent zealot of the faith (Acts 16:2). And the second is even more appropriate. Accompanying the Apostle, Saint Timothy demonstrated his confession of faith everywhere; so that the whole universe was a witness to his confession. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle here praises the boldness and courage of Saint Timothy; “You, he says, have demonstrated your good confession in all places.” Blessed Theophylact writes: “he praises his boldness and courage, as one who confessed Christ in the midst of dangers. Or he talks about the confession that happens at baptism, when we confess that we renounce Satan and are united to Christ.” What is such a confession for covetousness and non-covetousness? The same as a good fight of faith. Moreover, he who confesses Christ in the face of death, internally and essentially, renounces everything; but at the same time he is filled with indescribably pleasing feelings from this effective communication with the Lord, Who is nearby. The memory of this does not go away later; deliberate remembrance of this restores both complete renunciation and all-blessed eating of the Lord every time. Where can such a person get taste for perishable acquisitions?! Y) Spell in the name of God (1 Tim. 6:13–16) 1 Tim. 6:13, 14. I command you before God, who gives life to all things, and through Christ Jesus, who testified under Pontius Pilate to the good confession: that you keep the commandment. A testament is given in the presence of the omnipresent and all-giving God. This is tantamount to a spell in the name of God, which binds the conscience and obliges the exact fulfillment of what has been bequeathed. In the present place it is further strengthened by a reminder of the second coming of Christ and the especially impressionable properties of God - Almighty, inaccessible and invisible - all-seeing. St. Timothy hardly needed such intense suggestion. It is done to demonstrate the importance of the subject - the non-covetousness of shepherds, and in the person of St. Timothy the Apostolic spirit embraced all shepherds until the end of the century and among very many of them who urgently need such inspiration. Ambrosiastes writes: “with great impressiveness and insight into the distant, the Apostle gives instructions to the shepherd of the Church; for in his person is the salvation of the entire flock. He expresses himself so strongly not about Saint Timothy, but about his successors, so that they, guided by the example of Saint Timothy, would faithfully observe what their ordination obligated them to do, passing on this example in themselves to the successors who follow them.” “I bequeath you before God.” “Again he calls God as a witness, just as he did this shortly before (1 Tim. 5:21), - at the same time increasing fear, and making his disciple unshakable, and revealing that these are not human orders, so that Saint Timothy, receiving this commandment as if from the Lord Himself, and so that always having in mind the witness from whom he heard it, would bring in remembrance of this shaking your soul" (Saint Chrysostom). “Before God, who gives life to all things.” The thought of God, who is omnipresent, all-containing, who gives existence and life to everything, gives the most powerful stimulation of moral energy; for it revives the feeling of all-round dependence on God, on which the fear of God, the source of active wisdom, is affirmed and lived. If we recognize non-covetousness as the subject of the will, then we can assume that the reminder of the All-Reviving God is given in order to restore the conviction that “man does not live on bread alone” (Matthew 4:4), and thereby take away the strongest support and worries about acquisitions; for it is supported especially by fears for life in the absence of anything. “The Apostle says here, as if to put it this way: do not be afraid of death, for you are a servant of God, who can revive everything” (St. Chrysostom). If we generally recognize the subject of the testament as the faith of Christ and zeal for its spread and maintenance, then the reminder of the God who gives life to everything is given “as encouragement in the dangers associated with this: for if God gives life to everything, then why should we be afraid of exploits for the faith?” (Ecumenius). Perhaps it was meant to bring thoughts to the future resurrection (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact) and to recall the word of the Lord: “believe in Me, even if he dies, he will live” (John 11:25). It is not inappropriate to admit this as a precursor to the subsequent speech, which speaks of the second coming of the Lord. “And (before) Christ Jesus who testified under Pontius Pilate a good confession.” This is the second reminder to excite and strengthen moral energy. Christians live and breathe Christ the Lord. Why does a reminder of the Lord Savior always evoke the most exciting and enlivening thoughts? It was made here for this purpose. “He also takes his leadership instruction from the example of the Teacher. What he said has the following meaning: as He did, so, He says, you should do. For He testified (the good confession) for this purpose, so that we might follow in His footsteps in (this) good confession. The Apostle inspires the same thing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying: “Looking at Jesus, the author of our faith and perfecter, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, neglecting the shame, and sitting at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2); and again: “Consider the reproach of the sinner who suffered from you, so that you do not feel cold in your souls” (Heb. 12:3) (St. Chrysostom). But what does such a reminder excite and imitate? Is it the kindest confession, that is, its content, or the unshakable courage with which it is given in the face of death? - Both. The subject of the good confession of the Lord is the assurance that He is the Son of God incarnate in order to establish the truth among people. Saint Chrysostom asks: “What does the Apostle call here the good confession of the Lord?” And he answers: “that, having been asked by Pilate: “Are You a King?” - He answered: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37). Either this is why he says this, or because he is asked: Is He the Son of God? - said: “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70). Such testimony was given before Pilate - only not in a word, but by not answering a question or by silence and then spoken words (John 19: 7-11).” The ecumenium here directly means by confession that the Lord “testified that He is Christ, the Son of God.” But this is the essence of our faith, which accomplishes the salvation of people. Why does Blessed Theodoret write: “The Apostle called the salvation of the universe the good confession of the Lord. For the Lord endured suffering for her salvation.” From here Ambrosiastes suggests: “He reminds the Lord of the suffering of Christ in order to instill fear, instilling in him that in justice he should be found guilty of this suffering who despises what Christ suffered for.” After this intention of the Apostle in reminding and goodly confessing Christ Jesus before Pilate, it can be expressed this way: confessing Christ Jesus as the Son of God, who became incarnate and suffered for our salvation, be ready to endure everything, even death, for faith in Him for life according to His Spirit. This is the same thing that St. Peter writes: “For Christ who suffered in the flesh for us, arm yourself with the same thought” (1 Pet. 4:1). Applying this to the subject of speech, we see here a strong incentive both for non-covetousness, and for the fearless confession of faith in word and deed, and for good shepherding. Blessed Theodoret sees the latter here, writing: “the Apostle presents such a testimony (of Christ) to his disciple (as an example), so that he, too, with great zeal will instruct his disciples,” fearlessly and tirelessly testifying before them and before everyone, what is the truth about Christ Jesus our Lord. 1 Tim. 6:14. You shall keep the commandment undefiled and without shame, even until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. What commandment? This, that is, the commandment of non-covetousness. This makes one understand the flow of speech. One can give the same meaning to the words of Blessed Theodoret, who writes: “Keep the commandment for you” - that is, this is the very thing I am writing about. - It is written that ahead there is a warning against covetousness in the commandment: flee from this, but pursue all virtue - and then lessons are given about the saving use of wealth. Consequently, it is completely appropriate to understand the commandment here as a suggestion - to keep oneself uninvolved in this disastrous passion of covetousness. But all our other interpreters here understand by commandment faith and life by faith. And blessed Theodoret sees a lesson in the obligation to keep the commandment undefiled and unshameful: “do not mix alien things with the Divine teaching,” that is, keep the Christian teaching pure. Others add an immaculate life to pure faith. Saint Chrysostom says: “keep the commandment undefiled” - that means: so that you do not incur the slightest reproach for your beliefs or for your life.” Ecumenius and Theophylact: “so that you do not stain yourself with anything either in dogmas or in life.” Accepting this thought, it will be necessary to recognize this entire testament of the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:13–16) as the final word of the Epistle; the speech of the Apostle that follows this is a postscript, with its relation, however, to the previous word against covetousness. Having finished his testament with a prayerful appeal to God, the Apostle remembered that not everything has been said regarding acquisitions - namely, that it is not acquisitions that are to blame for their destructiveness, but their improper use, and added how wealth should be used not to harm salvation, but to contribute to it. Having said this, he seems to repeat the testament, saying instead: keep the commandment - “keep the tradition” (1 Tim. 6:20), which word can also be recognized as an interpretation of the previous one: “keep the commandment.” “The commandment is undefiled and undefiled.” The commandment is always pure, undefiled and blameless, no matter how much someone breaks it. But whoever violates it defiles himself by doing what is contrary to the commandment, and thereby becomes shameful. "Even before the appearance of the Lord". It does not mean that Saint Timothy was predicted to continue his life until the coming of the Lord, but it is only expressed: forever, until the end of his life; for for everyone the transition from this life to another is the moment of appearing before the Lord and, therefore, the appearance of the Lord to him, επιφανεια. Saint Chrysostom says: “until the appearance of the Lord,” that is, until your death, until your exodus. He did not say so (literally), but said: “even before the appearance of the Lord,” in order to encourage him more,” in order to “more revive and arouse his jealousy by reminding him of the appearance of the Lord, reminding him of that terrible glory” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact), both that which has to accompany the Lord appearing at the judgment, and that which, according to the judgment, will become the inheritance of the believers, worthy of the blessed life. - Or in the same sense the Apostle said this, in which the Lord said to the Apostles: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). In the person of the Apostles, the Lord saw all believers and blessed them with such a promise. And here the Apostle, in the person of Saint Timothy, saw all the archpastors and shepherds and made it a law for them to carefully observe this commandment (whether the faith of Christ is meant here or only non-covetousness) until the appearance of the Lord, until His second coming, the general resurrection, judgment and final decision of the fate of all, instilling in them this warning: “Watch, for you do not know at what time your Lord will come" (Matthew 24:42). 1 Tim. 6:15. And in due time the blessed and only mighty One will appear, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Having remembered the appearance of the Lord and thereby brought to mind other things in contact with it - the resurrection, judgment, eternal bliss and eternal torment - to excite vigilance and vigilance in observing what was commanded, the Apostle, for the same purpose, now depicts the properties of God, who has to bring about all this, at the same time deepening the conviction that this will definitely happen. Why the Apostle does this, Saint Chrysostom explains this way: “The Apostle did well in proposing such theology. This is what was needed. For since he called God as a witness, he speaks a lot about this witness in order to more deeply impress the thought of Him” - and thereby increase vigilance and zeal. And Blessed Theodoret writes that the Apostle, by depicting what “is characteristic and belongs to God, had the intention of confirming the doctrine of resurrection, judgment and retribution” - to revive and strengthen the conviction of this for the same purpose - that is, to revive zeal; for nothing can so strongly support moral energy as the memory of the latter. The appearance of the Lord will be revealed by God, the Trinitarian God. The Son will appear incarnate, according to the will and good pleasure of the Father, in communion with the Holy Spirit, as was the first appearance for the establishment of salvation. “In due time” - at that time, which is kept in the secret of the Divine and known to Him alone - “that is, at the proper time, due” (St. Chrysostom), - “predetermined” (Ecumenius, Blessed Theophylact). The Apostle said this in order to stop the attempt, so characteristic of human weakness, to determine the moment of the appearance of the Lord and instead set up - to expect Him every minute. The Lord will undoubtedly appear and decide the fate yours forever. What do you need to know, whether it will appear today or tomorrow? Be prepared - that’s what you need! For this, the most impressionable properties of the Deity are depicted. The bliss of God comes first. Blessed is God Himself in Himself and worthy of blessing from all different creatures, that is, all-pleased, all-perfect, the fullness of everything, and therefore all-praised. “He is self-bliss” (Saint Chrysostom). If He is all-bliss, then He desires nothing more than to please everyone, to make everyone blessed. The appearance of the Lord is terrible, for it will be accompanied by a terrible judgment; but it is also immensely joyful, for it will mark the beginning of an all-blessed life, “where there will be no more sorrow or sighing” (St. Chrysostom). Just be prepared - “do not look at the blessings here that seem pleasing, but fix your gaze on the One Who is self-bliss” (Blessed Theophylact), “from Whose face all sorrow and sorrow flees” (Ecumenius), so that here you will begin to taste bliss, which will be revealed in all its strength only after the appearance of the Lord. “And there is only one strong one,” δυναστης, – one Ruler. Everything is in His right hand. Consequently, He not only wants, but is also able to please everyone. If we take into account everything that is recalled by the appearance of the Lord, it will be: powerful to resurrect everyone, to gather them into one, to carry out judgment, to divide on the right hand and on the left, and to please some and to consign others to eternal torment - and to seal all this for all eternity with His unchangeable decision and determination. For who can resist His will? There are also among creatures those who are endowed with royal and dominant power, but they are all in His power. For He alone is “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Be so trustworthy that every promise of God will be fulfilled without delay. Just as no one forced the promises, and they are the essence of God’s free benevolence, so no one can interfere with their fulfillment; and God’s determination about them will not change, for God is unchangeable. So be trustworthy; but be afraid at the same time. For if everything is in His power, then you have nowhere to escape and hide from Him if, through misfortune, you anger Him and earn condemnation. Focus all your zeal on doing one thing that is pleasing to Him and in the end appearing pleasing to Him. “Do not be afraid of any earthly rulers or kings” (Blessed Theophylact), if they threaten to deviate you from what is pleasing to God. 1 Tim. 6:16. The only one who has immortality and is unapproachable in the living world, whom no one has seen, is from man, who can see below: To Him is honor and eternal power. Amen. ““Immortality” is called incessancy” (Blessed Theodoret) – or, more fully, that He is the One, the ever-present, the source of life, having in Himself, borrowing nothing from henceforth and never being exhausted by anything. From Him everything else has being and life. He is “who gives to everyone life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). Ecumenius asks at the same time. question: “how does he say about God that He alone has immortality, when Angels, souls, and demons have immortality?” And he answers: “These do not have immortality in themselves, but they participate in immortality through the grace of Him who alone is immortal by nature. For this - to be immortal - was given to them from God. God is from Whom we partake, both of everything else that is best represented, and of immortality.” The Apostle mentioned this property, according to Blessed Theodoret, in order, together with an indication of omnipotence, to deepen the conviction that such a one is able to accomplish both the appearance of the Lord and everything in contact with him. But if we raise our thoughts to the general content of the Apostle’s speech, to non-covetousness; then we can say that he mentioned this property in order to inspire: this is Whom you should cleave to or Whom you are jealous of to acquire, leaving behind everything perishable. “In the world the living is unapproachable.” “This light is inaccessible, because, due to its immeasurable brilliance, no one can approach it” (Blessed Theophylact) - approach and look; for the power of light darkens vision. This does not indicate the material light - although it is possible to imagine that God, somewhere in the universe, showing His Divine presence to creatures in its possible greatness, reveals it in the immeasurable brilliance of light - but this is a figurative expression of the incomprehensibility of the Divine nature: “due to the impossibility of exploring the very nature of God, he pointed to the inaccessible light around this nature” (Blessed Theodoret). The Holy Prophet David expresses the same thing with the word: “darkness”: “cover the darkness” (Ps. 17:12). Saint Chrysostom says: “Is He Himself a different light, and another is the one in which He lives? (“but this is not applicable to God; His nature is indescribable, and if He lives in the light, then He is described by the light” [Blessed Theodoret]). Is He really determined by place? Not at all. Not for the purpose of making us think this, but to show us the incomprehensibility of the Divine nature, the Apostle said that God lives in unapproachable light, explaining the teaching about God as much as it was possible for him. Do you see to what extent our tongue is weak when it wants to proclaim something great? “The apostle sings songs to God as much as possible and stretches out his gaze as far as he can reach” (Blessed Theodoret). “If the light around Him is unapproachable, then how is it possible to see Him? Why did he add: “What no one has seen is from man, but below he can see” (Blessed Theodoret). Not only humans, but also all the orders of Angels - Archangels, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim - do not see the Divine nature. They also see only the manifestation of Divine greatness, as much as they can bear, but not the nature that is hidden. Everywhere God is by nature and everywhere hidden. When the Savior says that the Angels see the face of the Heavenly Father, then the face means the close and impressionable manifestation of the Divine presence to the Angels, as much as is possible for them, and the intelligent, inseparable contemplation by the Angels of the Divinity, as much as this is achievable for them. His nature is not visible to anyone. “God is nowhere to be seen” (John 1:18). For all creatures “He laid His darkness closed.” Saint Chrysostom adds: “and no one has seen or can see the Son.” “That is, according to Divinity,” explains Blessed Theophylact, “He was (and is) visible only according to humanity.” “And no one saw the Holy Spirit of the Divine, as the Father and the Son,” adds Ekumeniy. The Apostle speaks about the properties of the Divine nature, or the Trinitarian God, the One Indivisible. “To him be honor and eternal power” - may it be given and written down from us. “His honor is always, His power always abides” (St. Chrysostom). Our duty is to reverently honor Him and sing songs, at the same time surrendering entirely to His sovereignty, incomprehensible, but always beneficent. “Glory to Him! we can only say this, we can only do this, without experiencing that He exists in Himself” (St. Chrysostom). “We can only do this impeccably, that is, glorify Him, and not curiously explore Him” (Blessed Theophylact). One might even think that with these words the Apostle turns attention from the darkness that covers the nature of God to the darkness that hides the ways of Divine providence. He seems to be saying: do not be embarrassed that not everyone honors the Trinitarian God, and even more so the Son of God incarnate. This does not diminish either Divine honor or the glory of the incarnate economy. Here and here, the honor of God remains unchanged. Also, do not be embarrassed if in universal phenomena and in the course of human affairs and situations others do not see God’s omnipotence, and perhaps even for you, the finger of God is not clearly visible, moving everything and ruling everything. The power of God is not stopped. Believe and rest in God, without raising unsolvable questions about what this is for, what it is from. “Suppose that something is not being fulfilled at the present time, His eternal power nevertheless abides” (St. Chrysostom). γ ) What exactly should we teach the rich? (1 Tim. 6:17–19) The word of the Apostle about this is brief, but complete. Teach,” he says, “so that the rich: αα) do not become arrogant (1 Tim. 6:17), so that: ββ) do not trust in wealth, but in God (1 Tim. 6:17) and so that: γγ) are rich in good deeds, hoarding for themselves through this foundation good things for the future (1 Tim. 6:18, 19). αα) So that the rich do not become arrogant (1 Tim. 6:17) 1 Tim. 6:17. Forbid the rich in this age not to become arrogant. “Forbid”, παραγγελλε, - say, command, command - that is, use not only conviction, but also power. Because nothing is so contrary to the spirit of Christ as those bad dispositions that wealth introduces when treated unreasonably. And according to the Apostle, in the host of Christians everyone should be holy and full of the spirit of Christ. He who did not have this was cast out. So that there is no need to do this to the rich, as was done to fornicators, the Apostle orders us to warn against this, commanding the rich not to allow the evil in the heart that is generated by wealth in those who do not pay attention to themselves. “Forbid not to be arrogant.” “He commands this, knowing that nothing arouses arrogance, pride and arrogance more than money” (St. Chrysostom). Arrogance is the first product of an unreasonable attitude towards wealth. God gives wealth, and if He does not deign to give, you will not become rich, no matter how hard you try. Meanwhile, the way God gives is invisible, but his own efforts are visible, tangible and sensitive. By focusing on the latter – one’s own – and forgetting to see underneath it the first – God’s, another ascribes everything to himself, and naturally begins to think highly of himself. – Also, wealth provides ways to surround yourself with contentment and splendor, in the house, clothing, maintenance and in everything. This tinsel representativeness, which has nothing significant in itself, nevertheless conveys the idea that just as everything external is good, so the one who possesses it is good in himself. This thought then turns into a feeling of personal goodness, or well-being, from which a new offspring of a high opinion of oneself is immediately given, and from this all manifestations of pride. “In addition, there is also the honor that everyone involuntarily shows to wealth. For when others honor, how can one not honor oneself? Some people begin to honor themselves as some highly worthy person and look down on others. That's arrogance. Thus, wealth is a very slippery slope, and in itself represents many obstacles to retaining the spirit of Christ, as the Savior defined: “It is not convenient for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom” (Matthew 19:23). “It’s not convenient” - and not: it can’t. “The Apostle guides him towards this, clears the way for him to the Kingdom.” First, don’t be arrogant. Wealth is not yours; it is fluid, today it exists, but tomorrow it will no longer be there; it is outside of you and is not your personal dignity. Why is it extreme foolishness to become arrogant about wealth when it is nothing? Just as it is difficult for the richest person to retain such wise thoughts, it is the duty of the shepherd to remind him of this more often. Trumpet, good shepherd, “the rich should not be arrogant.” Those rich who are rich in the present age, that is, with perishable goods that only take place in the present age. But by adding this word, the Apostle made a hint of wealth that exists outside the present age, valuable even beyond it, acquired, however, in this age. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle said well: in the present age; for there are others who are rich in the age to come.” Blessed Theodoret adds: “for there are rich people of the future age, possessing abiding and permanent wealth.” These are the “righteous,” add Blessed Theophylact and Ecumenius. The Apostle indicates how to acquire such wealth for the rich, a little lower, namely: through perishable wealth, turning it into charity. ββ) So that you do not trust in riches (1 Tim. 6:17) 1 Tim. 6:17. We cannot trust in perishing wealth, but in God we live, who richly gives us everything for our enjoyment. The second product of an unreasonable attitude towards wealth is reliance on it. Wealth gives strength to the rich, both among people in general and before the authorities, not by its essence, but by the same weakness of covetousness; and the rich man, having managed to do one or two things with the help of wealth, begins to feel that wealth is power, that with it you can do everything and achieve everything; repeated success encourages him to rely on wealth, and then to fully rely on it. And wealth became God for him. This is the ruin. For with such an attitude towards wealth, the internal order required and determined by human nature is perverted: it becomes at the head of what should have been at the feet. By nature, man must live in God and, having surrendered himself to Him, trust entirely in Him; nevertheless, to have created things under oneself, or near oneself, either as completely unnecessary, or as a secondary means, a help. But for the rich, this unnecessary, insignificant, waste has become where it is appropriate to have the One God. - And he began to look like someone walking on his head upside down. This is internal harm from relying on wealth, the idea of ​​which is conveyed by the word: “trust.” But the Apostle, in deviation from it, further presents a more tangible impulse - the unfaithfulness and fragility of wealth: “have no hope for perishing wealth,” μηδε ηλπικεναι επι πλουτου αδηλοτητι, - and relying entirely on unfaithful wealth, or on unfaithful wealth. ' Ηλπικεναι. - to hope, to rely on all hope. ' Αδηλοτης – obscurity, invisibility, obscurity. Is it clear what will happen to wealth in a day or even an hour? No one knows this, no one can say this for sure. But in this case, does it make sense to rely on it? You see that it is fragile and fickle all around: “now it comes to one, then it goes to another” (Blessed Theodoret), and leaves everyone at the door of the tomb. “Why do you hope in a thing that is fragile? Why do you put your trust in something you can’t put your trust in?” (Saint Chrysostom). – Do you see how he denounces those who rely on wealth as senseless? For who of the wise will trust in what is false? (Ecumenius). – Our Slavic translation expressed the Apostle’s thought well: “on perishing wealth.” It is already dying, even though it seems to be standing: it is about to collapse. So, rich man, feel that you are walking through a quagmire, or on fragile ice, or on a weak pole over an abyss. Just look, you will collapse and be swallowed up. Wealth is an extremely fragile support, “unfaithful, easily destroyed, unstable” (Blessed Theophylact). “But a rich man’s wealth clouds his eyes, and he does not see this; it is the shepherd’s job to lead him to see this.” Interpret, he says, to him more often, so that he does not rely on wealth. But just as a person cannot live without hope, because the feeling of his weakness lies deep within him, the Apostle does not leave the rich man unsupported and helpless; but, having driven out the hope in perishing wealth, he orders it to be transferred to where it should be placed - “living in God.” The soul is naturally God-trusting, and if passions, especially addiction to wealth, do not upset it, then it always shows its trust in God. Such hope awakens, supports and enlivens, attention to how our life flows. The Apostle suggests these experiences in order to convince us that he is not offering anything difficult to believe, saying: “Let them trust in the living God,” when He “gives us everything abundantly for our enjoyment.” “He said well: “all abundantly,” pointing to the sky, water, air, light, various plants and everything else. Do you see how abundantly and with what generosity He provides us with all this?” (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact, Ecumenius). From this given and received, understand the rest. Saint Paul more than once turned in his speeches to these natural bounties of God, so as to revive faith in God and trust in Him in those who hear. So, convincing the Listrians to turn to the living God, he said that God “has not left Himself untestified, doing good, giving us rain from heaven and fruitful times, filling our hearts with food and joy” (Acts 14:17). In the same way, he explained to the Athenians that God, although invisible, “gives life and breath and everything to everyone,” that He is “not far from the only one we are,” and one cannot help but feel Him in the natural bounties that flow from Him to us. “In Him we live, we move, and we are” (Acts 17:25, 27, 28). Coming into the world for a temporary living, we are like a wanderer who enters the house of a rich owner, where he finds shelter, food, peace, service and everything he needs, and where, in case of any special need, he is informed: if you need anything else, contact the owner; he will deliver everything. Seeing such care for himself, what wanderer, being in his right mind, would not be disposed to have complete trust in such an owner? So we, entering the world, find everything necessary for life already prepared for us in advance, and we have a promise from the Lord of the world Himself that He is ready to fulfill everything, whatever we ask. After this, will it be reasonable if we place our trust not in this Lord, much merciful and all-generous, but in something else? γγ) So that they may be rich in good works (1 Tim. 6:18, 19) 1 Tim. 6:18, 19. Do good, get rich in good deeds, be gracious, sociable, treasure up the foundation of good for the future, so that they may receive eternal life. Thus rebelling against the unreasonable attitude towards wealth, the Apostle, however, does not say to throw away wealth, but only inspires to use it well, so that in this way the very skill of having a lot and being rich can be given a different, soul-saving direction. If you are accustomed, he says, to being rich and having your treasuries filled, be rich, but in good deeds—treasure, but in heaven for the next century. “If you want to get rich, get rich in charity” (Blessed Theophylact). “If you are looking for wealth, look for that which remains firm and unchanging, which comes from doing good deeds” (St. Chrysostom). You will do both by using your wealth to benefit your neighbors. It is the shepherd’s job to instill all this in the minds of the rich. Inspire, he says, “to do good,” αγαθοεργειν, to do good. Let him be ready for every good deed, and, as soon as the opportunity presents itself, do it. Just as a hungry man only thinks about how to get something to eat, and when he sees something to eat, he uncontrollably rushes at it, so let a rich man only think about how to do good to someone and where, and as soon as he thinks of it, let him rush to do this. This way of acting will ensure that he will continually “get rich in good deeds.” To be rich in good deeds and to do charity means the same thing - to increase the amount of good deeds that are visibly revealed. But just as bad dispositions can hide under this good appearance, the Apostle adds: “be gracious, sociable.” “The first relates to money, and the last to love” (St. Chrysostom). Let them do all this from the heart, let them not only do good to their hands and feet, but even more so to their heart. Gracious is one who gives willingly and according to the need of the needy. His heart is detached from wealth and does not shrink when he is dependent on it, but is glad. If he does not give everything to one person at once, it is not the compression of his heart that forces him to do so, but prudence, guided by good goals. Realizing that he is God’s steward, he gives his life allowance to everyone, that is, having delved into the need, he satisfies it willingly, with joy. The Apostle says: ευμεταδοτους - to be well-transmitted, as if someone else’s is being conveyed, without clinging to what is being conveyed with the heart in order to hold on to it. “Sociable”, κοινωνικους, - that is, “talkative, friendly” (St. Chrysostom). “Condescending, cordial” (Ecumenius). A sociable person not only considers everything of his own to be common, but also everyone in general as his own, does not stand apart from anyone, does not shy away from anyone, everyone is like family to him, he is cordial and friendly with everyone, and gives everyone not only things and money, but also his heart, and this is evidenced by the tone of his speech, and the look of his eyes, and his face, and every movement. For this reason, everyone considers him one of their own and turns to him as their own, with warm trust and confidence that they will meet with heartfelt sympathy. “Holding up for yourself the foundation of good for the future.” - “Hardening”, αποθησαυριζοντας, - putting aside as in a treasury. Whoever puts something into a treasury is confident that what has been deposited will be safe and sound. Saint Paul had this security and strength in mind when he used this word. Benefactors treasure up. themselves, firmly and reliably lay a good foundation for the future, εις το μελλον, - for the future, for their future destiny. “Where there is a solid foundation, there is nothing unstable, but everything is firm, immovable, indestructible, abiding” (St. Chrysostom) “Since deeds of virtue undoubtedly strengthen the future, the Apostle remembered this.” this about the foundation” (Blessed Theophylact). “A treasured foundation” is the same as a solid foundation” (Ecumenius). “May they receive eternal life.” This is the future, for which good deeds of charity lay a solid foundation - the receipt of eternal, blessed life. Doing good deeds, in the spirit of the faith of Christ, ensures an inheritance of eternal blessedness. And this should be the final goal of our aspirations and labors. “We must strive for this in every possible way in order to lay a solid foundation for a future blessed life. How can this happen? If we lay this foundation by doing good here, in this life. For the Apostle called the doing of good deeds the foundation of the future life, and it will greatly give us pleasure in this life” (Ecumenius). “The true life is that which will be in the next century, which does not know the West and is not determined by time, for it is eternal, which is why it is rightly called true. Real life is only a way of life, and not its truth. But by the very fact that it is an image of true life, it is not nothing at all (inanitas - a ghost), but on the contrary, it is something that makes it possible to acquire true life. By this temporary one we acquire that eternal one, when we hurry along this path to that one. How does this happen? When we do not become attached to the blessings here, but through them we try to enrich ourselves with good deeds. For this reason, let us set ourselves the goal of becoming rich in good deeds and, through earthly treasures, acquiring spiritual treasures for ourselves; Let us sow on earth to reap in heaven, where from the good sown on earth an eternal treasure is formed” (Ambrosiastes). You might be interested in: