Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (from catenas)

Interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Epistle to the Romans survives only in the form of Greek catenae. The commentary was probably divided into "volumes". The surviving fragments cover the text of the Epistle to the Romans with large gaps (chapters 2, 12, 13 and 16 are missing, and chapters 1, 4 and 15 are represented by single verses). The essay notes the importance of the difference between the Old and New Testaments. For example, the law of Moses is likened to a woman in labor. He is only preparing to give birth to the truth, which is not quite clearly visible in him. St. Cyril dwells primarily on dogmatic issues of a Christological and soteriological nature. He points to the “law of sin” operating in man as a consequence of the Fall of Adam. The purpose of the Old Testament law was “so that sin would increase,” that is, so that sin would become obvious, general weakness would be revealed, and the necessity of Christ’s coming would become obvious. He is the progenitor of renewed humanity, the “second Adam,” the intercessor of closeness to God, granting sanctification and justification by faith. The saint speaks about the Providence of God in relation to the Jewish people and pagans: Abraham was chosen by God to create from him a people of worshipers of the true God, but the true children of Abraham are those who imitate his faith. The comments speak of human freedom and responsibility as one of the main properties of his nature. Thus, the ancient doctrine of fate is rejected. God knows in advance who and how will respond to His call to salvation, but this foreknowledge does not in any way affect the freedom of choice of the person himself. Contents Introduction 1. Original form of interpretation 2. Date of writing 3. Contents 4. Editions and manuscripts Appendix. Fragments from Catena Vindob. Theol. Gr. 166 It is generally accepted that the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul, along with the Gospel of John, had a decisive influence on the formation of the theological thought of St. Cyril of Alexandria 1. He explained them “with rare insight, even to the point of comprehending their spirit” 2 and constantly addressed them in his creations. The key to the saint’s soteriology was the doctrine of “heading” (άνακεφαλαίωσις) of renewed humanity in Christ, borrowed from the Apostle (see Eph. 1:10), 3 and his typology of Christ as the second Adam (see 1 Cor. 15: 22.45), which became a kind of unifying principle for him biblical exegesis 4. Extensive sections of a number of his triadological and Christological treatises represent a sequence of polemically sharpened interpretations of selected passages of the New Testament, where the Pauline Epistles rank first in volume. Unfortunately, from the works of the saint, directly devoted to their exegesis, only fragments of four treatises (interpretations on Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor. and Heb.) 6 have reached us, mainly in Greek catenas 7 . But even in the form of these fragments, they represent an important part of the written heritage of St. Cyril and, very recently, have once again attracted serious attention from researchers 8 . 1. Initial form of interpretation In the published catenas on the Epistle to the Romans, the scholia (“Cyril”) belonging to the saint are only noted without indicating the source. But one fragment of interpretation (3, 31) 9 is quoted in the catena on the Acts of Sts. apostles with the inscription: “St. Cyril from (the epistle to) the Romans, second volume,” and St. Nikephoros of Constantinople in the third “Antirritik against Constantine Copronymus” cites another place (1, 3–4), introducing it with the words: “For so says he [i.e. St. Cyril], explaining (ύπομνηματίζων) the Epistle to the Romans of the divine apostle” 10. We can conclude that this was an exegetical commentary (έξήγησις ύπομνηματική, ύπόμνημα), divided into “volumes” (τόμοι), a form chosen by the saint in most of his exegetical works, including the rest Paul's Epistles. We do not have information about the total number of volumes of interpretation. External evidence that allows us to resolve this issue is unknown to us. Based on the content, there are no signs of Nestorian polemics here, which gives 429 as terminus ante quem. The presence of a number of features in triadological terminology that are characteristic of the “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity”, but absent in the earlier triadological treatise “Treasure” (6, 3–4) 11, allows us to conclude that the interpretation was written no earlier than the “Dialogues”, and gives 412 as terminus post quem 12. Nevertheless, we will make a cautious assumption that the interpretations of Paul’s epistles were a cycle consistently written by the saint. And since the interpretations of 2 Cor. and Heb. were apparently composed during the Nestorian controversy, 13 which would mean that the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was composed shortly before the start of the controversy. The surviving fragments cover the text of the Epistle to the Romans with large gaps: chapters 2, 12, 13 and 16 are completely missing, and chapters 1, 4 and 15 are represented by single verses. St. Cyril's attention is focused primarily on revealing dogmatic issues, which is quite common for his exegetical works and which is most facilitated by the interpreted Epistle itself. A number of his hermeneutical principles can be noted. Before making doctrinal conclusions, he is occupied with “grammatical” interpretation. He carefully follows the development of the apostle’s thoughts (7, 5), finds out the meaning of certain words (5, 20; 9, 14–24), notes and reveals what is omitted from the text and what is implied (8, 3–4; 9, 10) or examines possible variants of its reading (10, 2–3). Interpretation through other places of Holy Scripture (7, 5; 7, 14; 8, 20–22; 8, 30; 9, 14–24) is widely used, suggesting a view of it as the creation of a single Author. At the same time, the difference between the two Testaments, which is important for exegesis, is noted. The Law of Moses is likened to a woman in labor; he is only preparing to give birth to the truth (3, 31), which is not quite clearly visible in him. In contrast to the simplicity and brevity of the Gospel (9, 10), the Old Testament is mysterious and difficult to understand (10, 2–3). The key to understanding its mysteries is Christ, the consummation of the law and the prophets (10:4). There are examples of typological interpretation, usually suggested by the apostle himself (5, 14; 9, 14–24; 10, 4; 11, 2–4; 11, 7). The task of the exegete is to determine in each case the “goal” (σκοπός) of the sacred text (7, 1–4; 8, 3–4), i.e. the intention of the sacred author. In accordance with the content of the Epistle, the interpretation is devoted almost exclusively to soteriology, revealing the doctrine of salvation in all main points. The saint points to the “law of sin” operating in our members (5, 18–19), as a consequence of the Fall of Adam. An explanation of how sin spread to the descendants of Adam, who were not personally responsible for his crime, is the example of a plant that dries up along with the withered root (5, 14). Being passionate and mortal from birth, we already sin arbitrarily, becoming imitators of Adam’s crime (5, 11–12). The knowledge of goodness was preserved in humanity thanks to “innate movements”, which made everyone responsible before God (5, 20). The meaning of the Law of Moses is discussed in detail. The passions act in us “through the law,” not because it itself is their cause, but because of the carnal desires operating in us (7:5). The law is “spiritual” because it makes its followers spiritual (7, 14); it is like a lamp that illuminates the way for travelers at night and warns them from falling into pits (7, 7). But, exposing sin, he cannot save (7, 21), and due to the fact that a person does not have the strength to fight sin, the knowledge of sin brought by the law leads to even greater condemnation, taking away justification through ignorance (7, 8-11; 7, 13). Moreover, the prohibition established by law only strengthens the desire for the forbidden (7, 7–8). The purpose of the law was “so that sin would increase,” that is, so that sin would become obvious, general weakness would be revealed, and the necessity of Christ’s coming would finally become obvious (5:20). The doctrine of the economy of the incarnate Word is presented using the saint’s favorite concept of “heading” (10, 11–13). Christ demonstrates the love of God the Father, who gave his own Son for us. He is the progenitor of renewed humanity, the “second Adam,” the intercessor of closeness to God, granting sanctification and justification by faith (5, 11–12). In Him, “our old man” was crucified and the “body of sin” was abolished, since carnal sensuality no longer acted in His pure body, and His death on the cross has a redemptive meaning, since His flesh is no different in comparison with us and He had in Himself “the whole nature,” having abolished the ancient curse that weighed on it (6, 6). Buried with Him in baptism, we are spiritually resurrected with Him (6:3-4), and when we die to sin, we no longer need the law (7:6) and are justified in Christ through faith (7:1-4), which is “more powerful than the condemning law” (5:20). Not only do we receive justification “freely,” which takes away all our “praise” (3:27), but even any desire for justification arises from God and the Father (8:28). Through Christ, the Son of God by nature, we also become sons of God by grace (1:3-4). We commune with Him both “spiritually” (πνευματικως), through communion with the Holy Spirit, and “bodily” (σωματικως), through the “sacramental blessing” of the Eucharist, thanks to which the law of sin is condemned in ourselves (8: 6-7). It is noted that we are destined for the glorification of our earthly flesh, like the flesh of the Lord in the Transfiguration (8, 17) and the false idea that after the general resurrection we will be given a different, airy and spiritual flesh is rejected (8, 23). Touching upon the Providence of God in relation to the Jewish people and pagans, the saint notes that Abraham was chosen by God from among corrupt humanity to create from him a people of worshipers of the true God (9, 14–24), but the true children of Abraham are not his descendants in the flesh, but those who imitate his faith (9, 6–9). Once in Egypt, the Israelites became familiar with the wickedness of the pagans, so that the election of Moses was required, who was to free God's chosen people from slavery and sin (9: 14–24). Christ is the Prophet, who, according to the promise given to Moses, was to replace him as the Mediator between God and people (3:31). The chosen people did not recognize Him, fiercely opposed Him (11:9-10) and even killed Him (9:1-5). Seeking justification in the law, he was bypassed by the pagans, justified by faith (11:7). But the wisdom of God turns evil to good consequences. Just as the cruelty of the Egyptians and their disobedience to divine signs contributed to the exodus of Israel into the wilderness, so the unbelief of Israel led the world to obedience to God (11, 15). God accepted the Gentiles to make the Israelites jealous and encourage them to seek salvation in faith (11:11). He did not abandon His people (11, 1–2), who are still destined for salvation, since God’s Providence cannot be destroyed by the disobedience and bitterness of “some” (11, 25–26). The saint defends the freedom and responsibility of man as one of the main properties of his nature, rejecting the ancient teaching about fate. The words of the apostle: “For I do not understand what I do: because I do not do what I want, but what I hate, I do” (Rom. 7:15) - do not deprive a person of freedom, but indicate that the violence of carnal passions overcomes the desire for good living in him (7: 15). The question of the relationship between human free will and Divine predestination is being resolved. If God, even before their deeds, “hated” Jacob and “hardened” the heart of Pharaoh, could they resist such a definition? But God does not create anyone initially evil and leaves for everyone the choice between good and evil. Esau was deprived of his birthright because of frivolity, and Pharaoh was cruel even before meeting Moses, so they were punished justly, although God, even before their malice manifested itself, took advantage of it to turn it into good (9, 14-24). God knows in advance who and how will respond to His call to salvation, but this foreknowledge does not in any way affect the freedom of choice of the person himself (8, 30). Only in connection with soteriology are other dogmatic topics briefly presented. In one place the saint gives a succinct exposition of his mature triadology, clearly pointing out the identity of the essence and action of the Persons of the Divine despite their difference in hypostasis (6, 3-4). There is also no detailed consideration of Christology itself. It is stated that Christ is the Son of God by nature (1, 3–4). Although the sinlessness of Christ according to humanity is emphasized (5, 16; 6, 5), since His flesh from the very conception was alien to sinful impurity, its identity with our flesh is also affirmed (6, 6). The fact that Christ becomes the founder and leader of renewed humanity (3, 21–26; 10, 11–13) also presupposes the fullness of His human nature, although the saint does not delve into the consideration of this issue, as well as the question of the image of the unity in Christ of Divinity and humanity. The first edition of the collected fragments of the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans” by St. Cyril of Alexandria was completed in 1845 in Rome by A. Mai 15 based on a manuscript of the 10th–11th centuries. Vatican collection (Vat.gr.762) - the main manuscript of the catenas on the Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul of the Vatican type 16. A year earlier, J. E. Kramer 17 published in Oxford catenas on the Epistle to the Romans with fragments of St. Cyril in their composition according to a manuscript from the Oxford Bodleian Library of the 16th century. (Bodl.Auct. E.II.20), which belongs to the same Vatican type of catena 18, and according to a 13th century manuscript. Munich meeting (Monac.gr.412) 19 . In 1863, the interpretation was reproduced with some changes in Paris in the “Greek Patrolology” of J.P. Min in the collection of the saint’s works 20. In 1872, also at Oxford, the interpretation was published by F. Pusey in his collection of the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. In addition to the Vatican catena from the edition of A. Mai, he also took into account two manuscripts used by J.E. Kramer, and supplemented the interpretation with a number of new fragments, and on the other hand, eliminated several scholia that did not belong to the saint or were borrowed from his other works, accompanying the text with an indication of handwritten discrepancies 21. In addition to the main text, he reproduced fragments of St. Cyril from a 14th-century catena. Vienna collection (Vindob.Theol.gr.166) 22 - those of them that were not part of other works of the saint known to him 23. In 1991, a commentary Italian translation 24 based on this edition was published in Rome, until now the only translation of this interpretation into new languages. Our translation is also based on the edition of F. Pusey 25. In addition to its main text, the appendix provides translations of fragments from the Vindob.Theol manuscript. gr.166. As in F. Pusey’s edition, before the next passage only the initial words of the verse or group of verses being interpreted are given 26 . Direct quotations of Holy Scripture in the interpretation are highlighted in italics, and citations of the interpreted passages themselves are, in addition, marked in bold. The Holy Scriptures are quoted mainly in the translation by P. Yungerov (Old Testament) and in the Synodal translation (New Testament). In a number of cases, preference is given to other Russian New Testament translations, primarily those of Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov), or their own edition of the translation is proposed, especially in cases where the interpretation of the biblical text in Russian translations does not correspond to the interpretation of the saint. Deviations from the Synodal translation are indicated in notes 27. Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans by St. Cyril of Alexandria 28 (1, 3-4) About His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh He who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, he says, is called 29 the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, through the resurrection from the dead. After all, we too are called sons, but not by force, but by being worthy of such a name as grace and acquiring this only by the will of God the Father. Emmanuel cannot be like that, and he is far from that. But although He was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and, as one of us, is numbered among the sons of God by reason of humanity, yet in power and truth He is the Son by nature, through whom we also receive adoption as sons, if, of course, it is true to say that when we were enriched through the baptism of His Spirit, then it is we who say impeccably: Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15). Consequently, just as images relate to the prototype, so we, sons by adoption, relate to Him who is Son by nature and power and has received a true testimony of this from the Father 30 . (1, 20) His eternal power and Godhead (V) 31 How then is His eternal power known through creation? Since the nature of that which is brought into being and called into existence in time is perishable, its Creator must certainly be incorruptible and eternal; therefore, they will not find any justification on the day of judgment. (3,–4) Will their unfaithfulness destroy the faithfulness of God? (V, B) More honorable than others are those who were previously known (by God), who received the law as a teacher (cf. Gal. 3:24), who have the promises of Christ, and in fact received what was promised, who were called before others - after all, the Savior said: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) - and who became the firstfruits of those saved through faith. After all, if some, he says, have fallen from the faith due to a damaged way of thinking, how can God thereby be deprived of being true? So, although the Father sent the Son from heaven, but not everyone believed Him, is it really possible that if some turned out to be obstinate and unfaithful, God will not be true because of this? Not at all! But let God be true, and every man a liar 32. In other words, may He be thought of by us and called true, and may every person be accused of lying. For if the Divine nature is completely immutable and unchangeable, then human nature is extremely unstable and, as far as possible, every person is a liar. After all, at times a lie, like a sin, overcomes the human mind, and nature somehow perceives this illness, but it is unacceptable to think and say something like that about God, who rules over everything. Consequently, the accusation that human nature, that is, his mind, is capable of being lied to is true. This is what blessed David says: I said in my frenzy: every man is a liar (Ps. 115:2) 33. But the same reasoning regarding God and us applies to everything else. For example, about righteousness we can rightfully say: Let God be righteous, and every man unrighteous. (3, 5–8) If our untruth reveals the truth of God, etc. (V, B) The reason for such slander arose from this. After returning from Babylon, the sons of Israel, whom Cyrus commanded to build the church, perform prayers and make sacrifices, became negligent, justifying themselves by poverty and the misfortunes caused by captivity, so they were admonished by proportionate punishments, the scarcity of fruits and the lack of rain. Annoyed by these punishments, they considered foreigners and those who do not serve God blessed, as those who spent their lives in contentment, and said that they were better than them. And therefore the prophet Malachi spoke to them: “You burdened Me with your words, says the Lord, and said: “How have we slandered You?” You, He says, said: “It is in vain to serve God and what good is it that we kept His statutes and went to pray before the Face of the Lord Almighty? And now we count foreigners blessed, for all those who practice iniquity are created; they resisted God and remained unharmed.” So they said. fearing the Lord one another, and the Lord listened and heard (Mal.3:13-16) 34. For this very reason, says the apostle, some thought that the Jews were saying: Should we not do evil so that good may come out; and he said that truly righteous judgment is judgment either on those who attribute such things to the Jews, or on those who dare to say: “Should we not do evil so that good may come.” (3, 21–26) But now, regardless of the law, the righteousness of God has appeared (V, B) I know that about some it is written that both of them were righteous, walking according to all the commandments and statutes of Christ 35 blamelessly (Luke 1:6 (abbr.)), and blessed Paul said that he was blameless in the righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6). But the one who is blameless in this has not yet accomplished what will make him famous and glorified. After all, blessed Paul himself said that he considered everything in the law to be loss and considered it equal to rubbish, so that he might seek the excellence of the knowledge of Christ (Phil. 3:8). On the other hand, the law condemns criminals, and therefore in another place the apostle says: “For if the ministry of condemnation is glorious, how much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory” (2 Cor. 3:9). Since the commandments in it were numerous, it was absolutely inevitable that even a strict keeper of the law would stumble in something and become a transgressor of the law. And that this was truly burdensome, the divine disciples clearly confessed, saying: “Why are you now tempting God, (wanting) to lay on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear?” (Acts 15:10). Therefore, when the Greeks were under sin, as those who did not know the Creator, and the Jews - as guilty of breaking the law, then those living on earth inevitably needed the justifying Christ, for we are justified not by the works of righteousness that we have done, but by His mercy (Titus 3:5). For He was the One who in ancient times spoke with a prophetic voice: “I myself will atone for your iniquities and will not remember them” (Is. 43:25) 36. But justifying grace applies to everyone equally, I mean to Jews and Greeks, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But ignorance of sins and the inability by nature to sin can rightly be considered the glory of God; yet the creation brought into being yields to the advantages of the Divinity, for even some of the angels slipped. However, God was pleased to unite everything under the head of Christ (Eph. 1:10), who justifies freely by His grace, for He is made a propitiation in His Blood through faith. After all, since His own Blood became the atonement for the lives of all, He saved the heavenly places and made the heavenly God and Father merciful and favorable to us. (3, 27) So, where is the praise? Deleted 37 (V, B) After all, who will boast at all and about what, if everyone has become worthless and has turned aside from the right path and there is no one at all who does good? (cf. Rom. 3:12). Therefore, praise, he says, is excluded, that is, rejected and abolished, having no place in us. How is it excluded? We have been enriched by the forgiveness of past sins, being by mercy and grace being justified freely (Rom. 3:24) in Christ. (3:31) So, do we destroy the law by faith? (V, B) The God of all said to the divine Moses: “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put My words in His mouth, and He will speak to them as I command Him; and the man who does not listen to His words 38, which that Prophet will speak in My name, from him I will require it” (Deut. 18, 18-19). So do we not establish the law by faith, receiving the word from Him? And the Prophet, for human reasons, is called Immanuel, who, as if in the rank of Moses, is a mediator between God and people (1 Tim. 2, 5) 39. And yet, although the law was in the shadows, it is clear that it painfully gives birth to an image of the truth 40 and the truth does not abolish the prototypes, but makes them clearer. (4, 2) If Abraham was justified by works, he has praise, but not before God (V, B) “I suppose,” said someone, “that those who carefully examine this discussion about the forefather Abraham should notice the following. It was said somewhere by one of the holy disciples that without works faith is dead (cf. James 2:17), and he added to this: “But do you want to know, unfounded person, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?” (James 2:20–21). So, are these spirit-bearing men really saying the opposite to each other?” So how do we respond to this? To the one who reached old age, the God of all, against all expectations, promised a son and declared that the seed that would come from him would rival in number the immeasurable multitude of stars. He, since he honored the One who Promised, Who is able to accomplish everything, testifying to God about this, was justified by Him and acquired, as an equivalent reward for such a God-loving way of thinking, the oblivion of ancient sins. However, after some time, God gave this righteous man a prophecy about Isaac as a test. But even so, he was faithful and God-loving, since he did not put anything above the love of God. However, as the Savior’s disciple writes, faith contributed to his works, and faith was confirmed by works (James 2:22) 41. But the wonderful Paul himself said nowhere about the forefather Abraham that by faith, being tempted, he sacrificed Isaac and, having a promise, offered his only begotten, about whom it was said: “In Isaac your seed will be called.” For he thought that God was able to raise people from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). Therefore, even if they say that he was justified by works due to the fact that, being tempted, he sacrificed Isaac, but this was for him a clear proof of the strongest faith 42. (5, 11-12) And not only this, but we also boast in God (V, B) Our Lord Jesus Christ, making evident the truly amazing love of God and the Father, which He showed us, cited as proof the completion of the economy with the flesh and suffering on the Cross, saying the following: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). After all, He truly gave His own Son for us, but we are redeemed, delivered from death and sin. For it was not for any other reason that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) if only in order to, having endured the death of the flesh, triumph over the principalities and powers (Col. 2:15), and to deprive the power of Satan himself, who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14), and to take away corruption, and with it to remove the sin that rules us, and thus finally make that ancient thing ineffective the curse that human nature took upon itself in Adam, as the firstfruits of our race and the first root. After all, Adam, having violated the commandment, offended the Creator and therefore found himself under a curse and in the shackles of death. But over those who were completely lost, the Lord of all again took pity, because the Son came down from heaven, taking away the accusations, justifying the wicked by faith, transforming, like God, human nature into incorruptibility and raising it to its original state. For that which is in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), since a new root is laid. He became the second Adam, and became not like that one - the author of wrath and ancient apostasy for those who came from him, but, on the contrary, an intercessor and giver of closeness to God through sanctification, incorruptibility and justification by faith. The wise Paul explains this to us in the following speech: “Therefore, 43 just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because 44 all sinned.” After all, through sin, as I said, death penetrated into the primordial man and into the beginning of the race, and then it successively spread to the entire race. But the inventor of sin, the serpent, having received power in Adam, made the human mind accessible to vicious morals, for all deviated, and together they were indecent (Rom. 3:12 = Ps. 13:3) 45. So, having withdrawn from the presence of the all-holy God due to the fact that man’s thoughts were diligently directed toward evil from youth (Gen. 8:21) 46, we led the most reckless life, and was swallowed up by the overwhelming death (Is. 25:8), as the prophet says, and hell expanded his soul and opened his lips so that he could no longer close (Is. 5:14) 47. After all, since we became imitators of crime in Adam, since (καθ’ o) we all sinned, we were subjected to punishments equal to his. However, the heavenly realms did not remain deprived of help, for sin was blotted out, Satan fell, and death was abolished. (5:13) For before the law sin was in the world (V, B) The law given through Moses, as I said 48, was a denouncer of the weakness of those who stumbled, and not a deliverer from sin, and it rather produced wrath (cf. Rom. 4:15), for inevitably the criminals were subjected to punishments determined by the law. And where there is generally a type of crime, there will certainly be sin. And if sin is the intercessor of death, then of all necessity it should be said that along with it the death that grew from it intensified and that with its purification it is certainly destroyed and, as it were, perishes along with its mother. So, before the law, there was sin, he says, in the world, because when the law was still laid down, then the accusations of crime increased against those who stumbled 49 . But since it has already been abolished, the accusation of crime has ceased with it; When sin ceases, as I said, death will cease with it. (5, 14) However, death reigned from Adam to Moses, etc. (V, B) But if so, how, it may be asked, did death take possession of those who lived on earth even before the law? The fact is that even if some did not become guilty of transgressions of the law, since the law had not yet been established, they, however, plunged into corruption like the crime of Adam. This is almost the same as saying, for example: “Death spread, in the likeness of Adam, to the entire race descended from him, just as in a plant, when it suffers damage at the root, the shoots that came from it absolutely inevitably dry up.” After all, Adam, he says, is the image of the future, that is, Christ, although He had already appeared and completed the sacrament of economy with the flesh. Then why, we may ask, does he call Him “the future”? The fact is that, having introduced us to the first man and reminded us of the times of transgression, he named Christ as the one coming after them and as the last Adam. After all, the Savior and Redeemer was predestined in the will and foreknowledge of God the Father, and He appeared in His own times, in those times when the Master wished, and these times are the last and, as it were, at the end of the present century. So, having proposed the second as the image of the first Adam, the apostle almost questions the listener, saying the following with a question mark: (5, 15) But is not the gift of grace like a crime? 50 (V, B) 51 This is the same as saying: “We are condemned to death because of the transgression in Adam, since all human nature suffered it in him, for he was the firstfruits of the generation. But in Christ we were reborn again to life, and Adam was the image of the future, that is, Christ, who gives us grace commensurate with the depravity of our ancestors. So, is it really possible, he says, that by declaring this, I am sinning against the truth? Avoided the proper meaning? But isn’t the gift of grace like a crime? But if death became stronger through one, then life through one turned out to be weak? However, is it not true to say the following: for if through the crime of one many were put to death, how much more will the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one Man, Jesus Christ, abound for many? After all, being a lover of mankind, the Creator will least of all tolerate that death through one person would become stronger, and life through one person would be ineffective, but grace will surpass the consequences of anger.” (5, 16) And the gift is not as for one who has sinned (V, B) He seems to place the essence of the matter and the meaning of the thought on what is most befitting of God. After all, if, he says, the condemnation from one, or for one, Adam passed on to all in his likeness, for he was the root, as I said, of a generation that endured corruption, then wouldn’t it be pleasant for faith and pleasing to God that because of the righteousness of one, many should be justified from many crimes? Or is it not preferable for God to save than to destroy? Therefore, just as Adam was condemned and the Mosaic power of the curse prevailed, subordinating those who live on earth to corruption, just as Christ, the second Adam, was justified, justification will certainly come to us in the first way. And we say that Christ is justified not in the sense that He was once unrighteous and achieved righteousness through progress for the better, but because He is the first and only Man on earth, Who committed no sin, and there was no flattery in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). (5, 17) For if by the crime of one, death reigned through one, etc. (V, B) Note that again he considers justifying grace to be stronger than condemning curse. After all, no one, he says, can say that although death prevailed over those living on earth through one, life was deprived of strength. For much more will those who have grace through Christ and the gift of justification from the highest bounty shake off the dominion of death and reign together with Christ, who gives life to all. (5, 18-19) Therefore, as the crime of one, condemnation of all people, etc. (V, B) To the proposed thoughts, the divine Paul adds a kind of conclusion and says: Therefore, as the crime of one and further. After all, on the one hand, we are condemned in Adam, as I said before, and, as from the first root, what came from him passed on to everyone: the death that arose as a result of the curse. On the other hand, we are justified and blossomed into life again because Christ was justified for our sake. After all, the forefather, not keeping the commandment given to him, offended God and suffered the consequences of Divine wrath, namely: he fell into corruption. Then sin attacked human nature, and then many became sinners, that is, those living throughout the entire earth. But they can say: “Yes, Adam slipped and, neglecting the Divine commandment, was condemned to corruption and death. Why then did many become sinners because of him? And how, in general, were those who did not yet exist condemned with him? Moreover, God says: “Let not the fathers die for the children, nor the children for the fathers” (Deut. 24:16) 52; The soul that sins will die (Ezek. 18:4) 53. So what will be our method of justification? Of course, the soul that sins will die, and they became sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following way, namely: he was created for incorruption and life, and holy was his residence in the paradise of sweetness, his whole mind and always remained in divine contemplations, and his body in serenity and equanimity, because all shameful lust was at rest, for there was no confusion of obscene movements in him. But since he fell under sin and found himself in corruption, lusts and impurities entered the nature of the flesh and the raging in our members increased. law (cf. Rom. 7:23). Consequently, nature became sick with sin through the disobedience of one, that is, Adam; Thus many became sinners, not because they committed a crime together with Adam, for they did not yet exist, but because they belonged to his nature, which fell under the law of sin. Consequently, just as in Adam human nature fell ill with corruption due to disobedience and thus passions penetrated into it, so in Christ it was freed again, for He became obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin 54 . (5, 20) The law entered 55 so that sin would increase 56 (V, B) Probably, he says, someone will argue as follows, saying: Adam was the image of the future (Rom. 5:14), and just as in him they were made sinners (Rom. 5:19) because of disobedience, so in Christ they were justified through obedience. Therefore, it was necessary, says the apostle, that justification in Christ should appear to those living on earth without anything intervening. What then was the benefit of the laws given through Moses, as if by necessity? It is precisely against this that the divine Paul almost rebels, saying: “The law came in that sin might abound,” and entered means: it was introduced in the interval between condemnation in Adam and justification in Christ. And what benefit can be assumed from this introduction of the law, let them clearly hear from its words: so that sin may increase. What are you saying, Pavel? Has the law even become an accomplice to sin and has crime increased because of it? Not at all! Therefore, it is necessary to present this teaching in more detail. So, David said: “They have all turned aside, they have been indecent together, there is none who does good, not one (Ps. 13:3) 57 for all who live on earth have corrupted their way after the transgression in Adam. For this reason, they were punished, and all together, when they suffered the flood as a common punishment for all, and privately, at different times, in different countries and cities. After all, although there was no law, yet on the basis of innate movements, human nature was educated by God to the knowledge of good. So, when those living on earth found themselves in such a sad state, God took pity on them and He humanely intended to free them from the sin that oppressed them. However, He considered it necessary, and quite rightly, to first reveal to them that they were very sick, so that the extreme necessity of coming into the world of justification in Christ could finally be seen. After all, we affirm that it is not the one who is already righteous who is justified, but if someone is guilty of sins. How then was it necessary to first show that those living on earth need grace in Christ? The law came in so that sin would increase, that is, so that for those under the law, the sin would become very obvious, since, of course, there was no possibility of justification due to the weakness of nature, but as if everyone were subject to accusations of crime. Thus the law was set forth as a kind of denunciation of this universal infirmity, to show that what is human needs only healing through Christ. That is why the apostle says: “And when sin increased, grace began to abound,” because it was necessary to show that it was stronger than the condemning law. (6, 3-4) Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus, etc. (V, B) It is generally accepted that we are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28, 19). However, even if we say that we are baptized into Christ Jesus, what is said will not go beyond what is proper. After all, primarily by names, hypostases and differences of persons, the Father in some way retreats into a separate distinction 58 in relation to the Son and in relation to both of them, the Holy Spirit, for the Father is the Father, and not the Son, the Son, in turn, is from the Father by nature and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit itself. But since the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, while the Holy Spirit is in both due to the identity of essence, then even if they name one Person, by virtue of speculative ability this will indicate all Persons. Consequently, having named Christ, they will not leave the Father or the Spirit in oblivion. Since, having become a man, Jesus suffered death for the life of all, Blessed Paul necessarily moved on to what was especially useful for the teaching he proposed, because it was necessary to name the One who suffered. That is why he says: Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? After all, as if having offered Christ a good promise of a right conscience (1 Pet. 3:21) and having accepted by faith that He died for us, was buried, and came to life, we received remission of sins through holy baptism, taking upon ourselves the deadness of sin and, as it were, dying together with Him who died for us, putting to death our earthly members (Col. 3:5). After all, Christ died once for sin; and what he lives, he lives for God (Rom. 6:10). We take upon ourselves a death equal to Him and are almost buried with Him, since we carry His death in our own bodies (2 Cor. 4:10), so that we are buried with Christ. What exactly we gain from this, the apostle himself explains, saying: So that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. After all, it is necessary that we, as those buried with Him, should also rise spiritually (νοητως) with Him. And if burial with Christ means death to sin, then it is self-evident that by resurrection with Him it would be fair to understand nothing more than a life of righteousness. However, the apostle asserts that Christ was resurrected by the glory of the Father, not because He allegedly lacks strength, for He Himself is the Lord of hosts, but because the attribution of a property that exceeds the nature of man to the glory of the highest nature is the custom of both Christ Himself and His followers. Therefore, even if they say that God the Father did something, we do not remove the Son from His (the Father), aimed at all actions, because if everything came into being through Him (John 1:3), how can one doubt that the Father acted through the Son and at the resurrection of His holy body? And the Son, showing that He Himself was acting, said to the Jews: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). So notice how He promises Himself to erect His own church, although it is said that God the Father resurrected, because since the Son Himself is the life-giving power of God the Father, He revived His own church. (6, 5) For if we have become akin 59 to the likeness of His death, etc. (V, B) Divine Paul says that those who are buried with Christ should expect to be raised with him, and kin can mean something like “conformable and identical in appearance” 60 in an intelligible sense. However, it is necessary to pay attention to this: Immanuel laid down His life for us and died according to the flesh. How then, after being baptized, were we buried with Him? Did he really suffer the death of the flesh with Him? Not at all. Let us then say how we became akin to the likeness of His death. The fact is that Christ died according to the flesh in order to rid the world of sin, but we die not according to the flesh (is that possible?), but to sin (Rom. 6:2), as it is written. That is, we make sin inactive and powerless by mortifying its earthly members: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust and covetousness (Col. 3:5). So, we have become akin not only to the death of Christ in the flesh, but even to the likeness of His death. And this similarity can be considered that He died for sin, and not for His own, not at all, for God is blameless and extremely far from the possibility of sinning, but, as I said, for the sin of the world, for what He died, He died once for sin (Rom. 6:10). So, we have become akin to the likeness of His death. But we will certainly be akin and identical in appearance also to the likeness of His resurrection, because we will live in Christ and the flesh will return to life, but we will also live in another way, consecrating our own souls to Him and being transformed by the power of sanctification also to a glorious life in the Holy Spirit. (6, 6) Knowing that our old man, etc. (V, B) It is necessary to carefully consider who our old man is, what exactly the body of sin that is being abolished is, and how it is crucified with Christ. Some will probably think that the body of sin is the flesh from the earth, which is given as if as a punishment to the human soul due to the fact that the souls sinned even before receiving bodies; after all, this is how someone wants to think and reason. But let us reject this opinion, characteristic of the Hellenes, as alien to the truth. So, he calls the body of sin and our old man the body from the earth, which, as if due to old age in Adam, inevitably undergoes corruption; after all, we are condemned in it, the first, and in addition, it became sick with voluptuousness, because the flesh is such by nature due to its innate movements. Then how is it crucified with Christ? The Only Begotten became man and took on flesh from the earth, which, as I said, due to decay in Adam, is subject to death and, as it were, painfully generates in itself that innate movements incite it to sin. The law of sin subsided in the holy and most pure body of Christ, and we affirm that obscene passions did not move in the least in Him, but only those that have an impeccable movement, I mean hunger, thirst, fatigue, that is, those that our law of nature leaves without blame. However, although the law of sin did not come into motion in Christ, since it was pacified by the power and action of the dispensation-fulfilling 61 Word, yet when the nature of the flesh is considered in itself, even if it is thought in Christ, we will find it not different in comparison with us. So, we were crucified with Him when His flesh was crucified, which seemed to have the whole nature in itself, just as, of course, in Adam, when he was under the curse, the whole nature was cursed. For so we, as it is said, rose with Him and sat down with Him in heaven (cf. Col. 1:20), because although Immanuel is above us as God, yet when He became like us, like one of us, He rose and sat down with God and the Father, therefore the old man was crucified, because as a result of the resurrection the power of that ancient curse was resolved. The body of sin was also abolished, which is, of course, not the flesh in general, but the ferocity of its innate movements, which always moves the mind to shameful things and drives it, as into swamps and sewers, into the basest lusts. But how can one doubt that this too was corrected in Christ from human nature? After all, Paul clearly says: For the powerlessness of the law, in which it was weakened because of the flesh, (ceased when) God, sending His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) 62. So do you see how the body of sin was abolished? For the sting of sin was condemned in the flesh, and it was put to death in the first Christ, and from Him and through Him this grace passed to us. (7:14) Do you not know, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law) (V, B) He everywhere shows the insecurity of striving to remain under the law and exhorts that, on the contrary, they should seek and thirst with all their minds for grace through faith, that is, justification in Christ, with whom, he affirms, those who were baptized are buried, so that, having died to sin, they might live to God in righteousness. That’s why he says: “Therefore, let not sin reign in your mortal body, so that you should obey it in its lusts; And do not yield up your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. Sin must not have dominion over you, for you are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:12-14). So notice how he commanded to leave the shadow of the law and rather resort to grace in Christ. Nevertheless, the spirit-bearing man did not remain ignorant that some would certainly say or begin to reason that the fathers, therefore, deviated from the right path and from life, the law did not help them in anything and the glory of their residence was lost. After all, if the desire to be under the law is inappropriate, but this was the goal of the life of the ancients, then is it not true that it was said that they deviated from what was proper? Therefore, he enters into the struggle, having Christ in him (cf. 2 Cor. 13:3), and, on the one hand, skillfully pretends that he wants to speak at the same time as those who have spent their lives under the law. But, on the other hand, in various ways he appeals to the idea that since the circumstances of the time call for faith, then one should not strenuously strive to abide in ancient customs. That is why he says: “Don’t you know, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has power over a person while he lives?” (Rom.7:1). This general definition applies to every law and to those who are under the law. After all, although laws determine for everyone subordinate to the scepters of kings both what needs to be done and what is not necessary, they have force only for those who are still alive. And if one of those under the law is freed from life in the body, along with this life he has stripped himself of the power of the laws. After all, if he has stopped sinning, then in relation to him the law will in any case be ineffective. Therefore, he truly has power over a person while he is alive, and it must be said then what the purpose of this reasoning is. The Apostle cites two useful provisions in it, namely: we, he says, buried with Christ through baptism, having died to sin, found ourselves outside the power of the law, for we were transformed to another life, while those who were before the coming of the Savior, since they had not yet accepted the intelligible death in Christ, lived for sin. Therefore, the law ruled over them, as over the living, just like a husband over his wife. After all, just as a married woman, while her partner according to the law is still alive, will not be without guilt if she marries another, and if he has already died, he says, then she will be free from punishment, even if she wishes to arrange a new marriage in a legal way (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39), in the same way, I think, those who have not yet acquired the mortification of sin in Christ and, as if still living in him, rightly remained under the law, because it has power over a person while he's alive. But those who have already found themselves under grace in Christ, through which they have become dead to sin and deadened to the flesh, that is, to carnal passions, if they no longer conduct affairs as those living in the world (Col. 2:20), then they can freely from accusations arrange a life outside the law. For they died, as I said, by the body of Christ and became dead to the law, justified through faith. (7, 5) For when we lived according to the flesh, then the sinful passions, which acted through the law 63, etc. (V, B) He calls the carnal mind 64 flesh, as in another place he says: Those who live according to the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). But is it not true that he does not direct such admonitions to those who are instructed by him in the sacrament, since they were outside of these thoughts? And what exactly he wants to show must be considered carefully. So, when we lived a carnal life and earthly wisdom dominated in us, then the passions of the flesh acted in us through the law in order to bear fruit in death. So, it will be asked, are the passions of the flesh introduced by the law? How then can we free him from the charge? Then what do we say to this? It is not because of the law that the passions of the flesh are set in motion in us, but they arise from innate lust and take possession of a weakened mind. And he clearly presents this to us when he says: “The flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh: they oppose each other” (Gal. 5:17). Now, omitting this, he says that the flesh acts against the spirit, without placing anything in between. Consequently, it is not because of the law that the passions of the flesh come into motion in us, but naturally, and they paradoxically rebel against the desires of the law, as Paul himself says: “The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be” (Rom. 8:7). If carnal thoughts fight against the law, is it not a disorder of the mind to believe that it actuates passions that are so opposed to it? So what does Paul say? He talks with those who died to sin, being buried with Christ through baptism, and with those who have already been enriched by the mortification of passions, for whom it would be fitting that they should walk outside the law because they have freed themselves from passions condemned by the law. Consequently, when we still remained in carnal thoughts, the passions, listed and named through the law, acted in us, and we were under the judgment of the law, since sin still lived in us 65. (7, 6) But now we have been freed from the law, having died to what we were bound by 66 (V, B) We were responsible before the law, he says, since we were subjected to it by sin, but if we died for what we were bound by, that is, for sin, then with it the law will certainly be ineffective, because because of it it was established in order to convict criminals. That is why those who have died to sin do not need the law, because we have come to belong to another (cf. Rom. 7:4), and we will serve Him in the renewal of the spirit, and not in the old letter. (7, 7) What shall we say? Is the law a sin? 67 (V, B, A) Notice how wisely he discusses the law. After all, he said: “When we lived according to the flesh, then the passions of sin, which were by law, were at work in our members to bear fruit in death” (Rom. 7:5). But this speech is by no means free from suspicion, since one could immediately object to this: “It turns out that the law is the manager and instigator of sin? After all, if it is true that carnal passions act in us through it, then is it possible not to see in it the primary source? What about the secret leader? He astutely warns against this question and rejects the idea that the law is the father of sin, but, on the contrary, accuses human nature of powerlessness and the fact that through the law it is forced to fall under punishment. That is why he says: “What shall we say? Is the law a sin? Not at all. But I knew sin only through the law. After all, he did not say: “I had sin only through the law,” but: “I knew it.” Consequently, the law is not the basis for sin, but rather its indicator, presenting it clearly to those who did not know it, not so that they, having learned, would commit it, even if they had committed it before learning it in any case, since there is no one righteous, not one (Rom. 3:10; cf. Ps. 13:3), according to the saying of the psalmist, but so that, knowing iniquity, they move on to better things. And it seems to me that something similar happened among the ancients through the commandment of Moses. Let’s take, for example, a wide road leading somewhere, and let there be stones scattered in the middle and holes, if you like, dug in it. Further, let there be some people walking in the darkness of the night, constantly bumping into what is scattered in the middle, and involuntarily falling into holes. And under such circumstances, someone, taking a torch, will set it at these crossroads, clearly presenting the obstacles to these people, not so that they will stumble upon them again, but, on the contrary, so that they will step over and get rid of the disaster. So did the light really cause harm when it showed the cause of suffering? Or should we rather say that he brought them the greatest benefit and made the path much safer for them? But I think the latter is obvious to everyone. So, when those who were sinners and were subject to very numerous accusations came to know sin through the law, then the law is rightly considered and called not sin, and far from that, but rather an index of sin, as I said. (7, 7-8) For I would not understand desire if the law did not say: do not desire. But sin, taking the occasion from the commandment, produced in me every desire (A) And he represents the powerlessness of our nature, which consists in the fact that the law given to help suddenly turned out to be harmful, like the light of the sun for those who are weak-eyed. If he says that the commandment somehow became the reason for the desires, then let no one think that he blames the law, but, on the contrary, that he loudly condemned the weakness that was in us, since we were prompted to the worst by means of what through the law we were supposed to abstain. After all, the human mind is always possessed by a thoughtless inclination to lust. And when he fulfills desires, he lives the way he wants, being serene, but when he cuts them off, he withstands the fiercest pressure of passions. And no one desires what is available, but everyone desires what is forbidden. Therefore, if the law prohibited something that causes harm, the weak have a reason to desire it even more. (7, 8–11) For without the law sin is dead (V, B, A) After all, if a law had not been proposed, he says, condemning a vicious character, then evil would have been ineffective, because the law almost encourages it to enter into force. And for some, the sting of lust weakens when nothing reproaches him, and it almost softens, being enchanted by the breadth of possibilities, because where nothing at all resists, the warlike ardor subsides. Therefore sin is dead unless the law declares what ought to be done. And the secret leader says about himself that he once lived without the law; but when the commandment came, then, he claims, sin returned to life, and he himself actually died. And in these places he speaks in the first person; I think that he wants to show something like the following. After all, although it is generally accepted that a sin due to ignorance is subject to condemnation, the Savior confirms that for those who know, the punishment will be more severe, saying: He who knew the will of his master and did not do it will be beaten much, but whoever did not know and did not do it will be beaten less (cf. Luke 12:47-48) 68 . Therefore, it is indisputable that it is better to sin in ignorance than with knowledge of the law. And if someone has already found himself under the law, having once lived outside the law, then, having decided to neglect its regulations, he is convicted of sin by Scripture and falls under condemnation. It is then that he is tormented by his carelessness and almost out loud accuses the law, saying: “I once lived without the law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died.” After all, if truly sin is dead without the law, then isn’t it convincing that sin is somehow revived through the law, which even makes it obvious and seems to inspire it, although before it was unknown, even though it was in us? For we were not righteous, but in view of the fact that sin remained, as it were, dead, since it happened that there was no condemning law, we were alive, finding a convenient excuse for ourselves in ignorance, because where there is no law, there is no crime (Rom. 4:15), as the apostle said. Thus, when the commandment appeared before everyone, sin seemed to come to life and death, curse and condemnation were prepared for those who, because of their weakness, fall into crimes. And then what? Something contrary to expectation and unforeseen happened to us, because it turned out, says Paul, that the commandment given for life served for death. After all, sunlight also harms anyone who is weak-eyed, although by nature it is sweet and thrice desired, and it is not itself that harms, but the damage suffered must rather be seen as an indictment of the illness from which they suffer. In the same sense, I believe, he says, that the commandment was given as a reason for sin, allowing it to deceive and lead to death. But we can say it another way: voluptuousness very readily resists the provisions of the law. And vicious morals, when they are suppressed by abstinence, come forward even more strongly and sometimes captivate the mind, overthrowing it into crime and leading to punishments imposed by law, although it was the law that had the reason for this enmity. That is why, being wise, Paul says that we were deceived by the commandment and died because of it, because it almost killed, encouraging the lusts in us to rebel in the above-mentioned way. (7:12) Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (V, B, A) The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good, because it shows as holy, righteous and good those who decided to keep it, so that accusations of crimes could no longer overtake them from anywhere. But this was almost inaccessible, for, as it is written, who can understand the Fall? (Ps.18:13) 69. (7, 13) So, has goodness become death for me? 70 (V, B, A) The law is holy, but the commandment is holy and good. Why then did he say: The commandment is for life, it became my death (Rom. 7:10) 71? So, tell me, has the good become the intercessor of destruction? Not at all 72, he says. After all, here he least of all questions the law, but acts as an accuser of sin. For he so subjugates human nature and has taken possession of our thoughts that the very law given to us for salvation and life, the truly holy and good commandment, has become the reason for death for those who bear his yoke. How or in what way? The fact is that if retribution always accompanies those who break the law, and we have finally reached such weakness that we are always drawn into crimes, then it is almost clear that it is in this way that the saving, holy and good law has come to seem like the fetters of sin and the path to death for those who are under sin. And most likely, the apostle says, so that sin through the commandment becomes excessively sinful 73 . After all, those who were ignorant of the Lord’s decrees will certainly be punished, since they committed lawlessness, even if they did not know about it. However, I think they also have some not devoid of convincing grounds for defense, for they will present their ignorance. But to those who are in the law, it is in vain to say that they do not know the sovereign will. Therefore, if someone who decides to live wickedly appears, he will no longer be accused of ignorance, but of extravagance and, ultimately, extreme hostility towards God. So we can say that sin is excessively sinful, because although the one who sins in ignorance is sinful, he is not at all called and is not excessively sinful. (7, 14) For we know that the law is spiritual (V, B) He calls the law spiritual because it makes its followers spiritual. It is not the one who lives according to the flesh who is considered spiritual, but, on the contrary, the one who is inclined to desire to follow the desire of the spirit. Blessed David also said: The Law of the Lord is immaculate: it converts souls; The testimony 74 of the Lord is true: He makes children wise; the fear of the Lord is pure and endures forever (Ps. 18:8.10) 75. Therefore, just as the law is called blameless because it can make people blameless, testimony is called faithful because it shows them to be faithful, and fear is called pure because it produces purity, so here accept what is said about the law that it is spiritual, as revealing those who follow it to be spiritual. For although he is in shadows, he also has the image of truth. So what about Paul? He insists that the law is spiritual, and accuses human nature of being extremely susceptible to sin. And he tries to make sure that since the law is spiritual, it is especially burdensome for human nature. “For what, tell me,” he says, “if the law is spiritual, and I am carnal, 76 that is, I am under the power of carnal thoughts? Do you see how contrary to desires is what is indicated by them? After all, some see the desire of the spirit, and others - the flesh, for they are opposite to each other (cf. Gal. 5:17) and will never agree to agree on the same thing. Therefore, when a person is carnal, and the law is spiritual, how can those who are so sick with sin endure it? And this is very reasonable, because if he is carnal, he can be considered as if he were captured and enrolled as slaves 77 . (7, 15) For I don’t understand what I’m doing (V, B, A) Some ignorant people probably think that he wants to substantiate the fable of the Hellenes, which they, God knows how, learned to honor, misleading and being mistaken (2 Tim. 3, 13). After all, by inventing at their own whim some kind of fate and destiny and attributing power over our circumstances to these non-existent things, they deprive a person of what is most suitable for him, that is, the need to live freely, having a spontaneous and voluntary inclination to choose what ought to be done. By subordinating, as if out of necessity, the boundaries and lots they define for those who are in this life, they harm them immeasurably. For according to them, if someone goes towards what he should not, it will be impossible for him to avoid the call of fate, even if he may not want it. And in general, no prudent person can blame him, even if it is clear that he is sinning. After all, if he is caught as having committed something that was inevitable and was done against his will, this will certainly be beyond blame and punishment. On the other hand, it would be prudent not to praise too much a virtuous and decent person, because what if he became so not of his own free will, but was brought to this by the beckons of another, or rather, fate presented him with an irresistible predestination? Therefore, it is completely incongruous to believe that the teacher of the most beautiful teachings was carried away by the intricacies of the Hellenes, or to believe that the one who became for us the manager of the divine sacraments followed their absurdities, even if he, as it turns out, says: “For I do not understand what I am doing: because I do not do what I want, but what I hate, I do.” After all, even if someone began to insist on this and decided to think that the apostle ascribed power over our circumstances to fate and destiny, would he not have asked him with good reason, roughly speaking: “If by harsh and intolerable predestinations we are tied to what we should do or should not do, have become powerless over nothing, but, on the contrary, we yield to others as those who possess us, even that from which we, by our own intention, withhold, why then did you yourself write to us: “Don’t you know, brothers (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has power over a person while he lives?” (Rom.7:1).” So, the law has some kind of power over the living, for for those who have died it will inevitably be ineffective. It is established not for them (how is that possible?), but for those who spend their life in the body. And he crowns with praise the one who has the skill to achieve good fame, but awards punishment to the wicked. How, in this case, will the Lawgiver be a righteous Judge, punishing those who have sinned if they fell into it against their will under the compulsion of fate? Moreover, why was the law established at all? After all, those who have the power to do what they want are punished justly by the law, if, given the opportunity to gain approval by devoting their minds to good deeds, they preferred the shameful and attributed what was condemned by the law as better. But it is useless, I think, the decree of the law for those on whom hangs the yoke of predestination and who always turn where those who rule them deign. However, would it not be true to say that He who knows everything would not have imposed on us the burden of the law, which precisely determines what is pleasing to Him and guides us to what is useful, if He had known that we were captured in the nets of fate? Let the opponents either say that God did not know this, or, if they decided to think right, be extremely afraid to proclaim ignorance of the unspeakable glory. But they affirm that He established the law, and clearly confess that He has determined punishments for those who sin. He, of course, knows that nothing prevents a person from leading his life according to free intention and being able to go wherever he wants by voluntary impulses. That is why the divine Paul said that the law has power over a person while he lives. Consequently, he does not say this in the sense that human thoughts are subject to the influences of others, but he reasons with wisdom and carefully examines the passions of human nature. He almost unearths the diseases subtly hidden within the mind and describes the body, which is characterized by innate voluptuousness, very skillfully putting on himself the guise of one who still suffers from love for the body. After all, although he himself is crucified to the world, as the world is to him (Gal. 6:14), and truly deserves surprise, he wisely considers it necessary to keep in mind not his own talent, but to consider the weakness of someone who has not yet become like him as a necessary basis for speech. Therefore, when you hear: For I do not understand what I am doing, think about some extremely sinful people who believe that they lead an excellent life and that nothing can be compared with the luxury and vanity of this world. After all, they have an aversion to a virtuous lifestyle, are proud of their pleasures and uncontrollably indulge in them. And about them, I believe, Paul says nowhere: “They mind earthly things, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame” (Phil. 3:19) 78. Such, insofar as they perform a wicked deed as something very praiseworthy, can rightly say: For I do not understand what I am doing. Therefore, let them hear: “Be sober, you drunkards, from your wine” (Joel 1:5) 79. After all, just as drinkers and those addicted to wine, having damaged the accuracy of their thoughts due to this passion, cannot understand what they did while intoxicated, so those suffering from disordered thoughts from love of the flesh and shameful lusts can never understand what they are doing. Thus, Paul explains to us the disease of the human heart when he says: “For I do not understand what I do.” And if there is someone, although he has a heart more susceptible to the convictions of his conscience and is annoyed that he is sinning, but is still overcome by sinful pleasures and, as if against his will, going to sin, he will rightly say: “Because I do not do what I want, but what I hate, I do.” How many and how often, although they admired abstinence, but, even having begun to practice it, were overcome by the urges of disgusting lust and, due to the fact that their mind was relegated to the worst, they committed sin, being filled with despondency after this. It would be fitting for such people, and with full justification, since they almost against their will fell into weakness, to say this: “Therefore, I no longer do this, because sin lives within me” (Rom. 7:17). (7, 16) If I do what I do not want, then I agree with the law that it is good (V, B, A) He again turns the precision of speculation to the nature of the body and considers the strength of the diseases inherent in it. After all, aspirations that lead to every possible passion and accusations of a voluptuous life have their source in the flesh. And this is precisely what the Savior’s disciple assures us of, saying: “Where do you have enmities and strife? Is it not from here, from your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1). (7, 18–20) Because the desire for good belongs to me 80, but to do it, this is not 81 (V, B, A) “Because the desire for good is mine,” he says, “but to do it, this is not there,” and so on. To clearly demonstrate that the flesh itself painfully gives birth to sin, he wisely admits that although good is due to us, there is still no opportunity to fulfill it, because the flesh forces the mind to involuntarily retreat, even if it does not want it. Consequently, as for what the mind desires, he would be outside sin, but since he undergoes inevitable violence, it would be natural to place the blame for this not on him, but on what causes the violence. That is why he says: “If I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that lives in me.” (A) But one can say: “What if some wicked barbarians, having ravaged a city or country and then carried away one of the captured inhabitants, impose the yoke of slavery on them, and those who have undergone this, due to inevitable captivity, submit to the laws of those ruling over them? Will they really be worthy of censure and condemnation for the fact that they do not rise above compulsion and do not try to do what is pleasing to themselves, not paying attention to the power of the oppressors? However, I believe that no one will rightly blame them, because those who are in slavery have no opportunity to free themselves and, as I said, they yield to an involuntary coincidence of circumstances. Although they are tormented by the fact that they are deprived of freedom, but, having forcibly yielded to those who are stronger than them, they are in slavery, without even wanting it. And if this is really not far from a fair judgment, let the human mind be freed from the accusation of the infirmities of the flesh. But it was up to him, they will say, not to even accept what he does, because he himself has the reins of desires, so let him be above violence and not subject to sins. If the nature of the flesh is intolerable and unfavorable, opposing the mind with uncontrollable lust, and the law is powerless to help, because it does not have the ability to mortify sins, then no one can justly blame it for the fact that the mind does not act in the best way, allowing something shameful, even if it has the reins of our desires. (7, 21) So, I find the law 82 that when I want to do good, evil is present to me (V, B, A) Notice again with what wisdom and skill he accepts the law: not because it has the power to dull the sting of sin, and not because, of course, it can kill the sin that is in us, but only because it instills in the mind the knowledge of what is useful. For if the law tells me that evil is present because it dwells in the flesh, then it, of course, declares it evil. He gives help and can be considered an advisor, but still not a deliverer. However, those who are possessed by sins need not only exact knowledge of what they should do better, but also the ability to do what is good and what is decreed by the law. Just as, of course, for those who want to achieve success in battles, mere knowledge of the art of military leadership is not enough in itself, but if they also have strength, then they can, and not without difficulty, be brilliant and glorious. Therefore, if the law teaches skill in good deeds, but at the same time does not in any way help those suffering the violence of sin, weakening it, then although it is a good teacher, it rightly cannot be considered equal to the grace given by Christ, Who is able to make us wise and make us stronger than evil. (7:22-23) For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man (V, B, A) As I have already said, the mind craves freedom, wants to get rid of what it hates, and crowns with the highest honors the law, which is the teacher of the most beautiful truths. But the nature of the flesh forces him to ugly pleasures, since he wages war and is pressed by the law of sin. The law of sin he calls the innate movement and what one might think is the passion of the love of the flesh, and also, of course, the law of the mind he calls its inclination and will to good. (7, 24–25) Poor man I am! who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank my God Jesus Christ our Lord (A) Hitherto he laments and complains about the flesh. And he calls the earthly and voluptuous body the body of death, since it suffers within itself from the law of sin. But he says that he is looking for One who is able to deliver from these disasters, in order to thereby promptly introduce us to the Redeemer, that is, Christ, to whom he gives all gratitude. For through Him we are redeemed, not from the body, but from the body of death; not having died, but having been freed from the death that is in our members, that is, from the indomitable lust operating in our members. For Christ has made us stronger than lust and sin. (7, 25–8, 1) So, with my mind I serve the law of God, and with my flesh the law of sin. There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (V, B, A) His reasoning was extensive, because he subtly analyzes everything that is in us, and those manifestations of violence that a person’s thoughts usually undergo when faced with evil. He argued that although at times the minds of those who are more virtuous grieve under the tyranny of passions, are in extreme confusion and are ashamed of infirmities, they cannot in any way remove the burden of involuntary sin, since lust heavily attacks it. Therefore, he does not have the strength to resist, receiving absolutely no help in this through the law. Therefore, the divine Paul speaks the truth if he claims that with his mind he serves the law of God, and with his flesh the law of sin. And this, I believe, is what he said: “The desire for good is mine, but to do it is not” (Rom. 7:18). So, although previously, as I said, it was possible for us, as far as the mind and the will in it are concerned, to prefer serving the law, the flesh forced us to sin, as if opposing our own will. Consequently, there was condemnation for those who wanted to do good, but were not yet capable of this due to the tyranny of passions. However, in Christ condemnation, that is, the violence of carnal movements, ceased 83. (8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life is in Christ Jesus (V, B, A) To accurately reveal the meaning of these words, I think, it is necessary to say the following, namely: just as he calls the law of sin and death carnal thoughts, which lead us to every kind of depravity, so the law of the spirit of life is the spiritual will, that is, the inclination of thoughts towards good; but if “he who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, then he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:8). Consequently, although the law of the spirit of life, that is, the will of the mind, attracting to life, was in us before, because with the mind we served the law of God (cf. Rom. 7:25), but it became ill with the inability to resist 84 and, yielding to carnal lusts, was condemned by the law. After he cast off this illness, he became stronger thanks to Christ, because through Him we were sealed with the Holy Spirit and clothed with power from above (Luke 24:49). Thus we have received redemption and are no longer under the yoke of evil, but are called, as I said, to free dignity. Therefore, the law of the spirit of life, that is, the will of the mind, inclined towards good deeds and drawn to life, when it was enriched by grace through Christ and freed from ancient infirmity, then despising the evil that had arisen from sin and overcoming the law of the flesh, freed me, says the apostle. Moreover, it was not he himself who gave me freedom, but rather, he became an intercessor for the freedom given through Christ. But just as those who were under the law of sin were inevitably bound by the snares of death, so those who found themselves outside it and freed through Christ must, in turn, be outside death, seen as superior to corruption and living in sanctification. (8, 3-4) For the powerlessness of the law, in which it was weakened because of the flesh 85 (V, B, A) Although the secret leader is worthy of admiration and is very refined in contemplation, he calls himself ignorant in words (cf. 2 Cor. 11: 6). That is why we are not at all ashamed to say that the combination of the proposed words lacks something small to fully reveal their meaning. After all, one should say: “For the impotence of the law, in which it was weakened because of the flesh,” for example, is destroyed or ceased, and then add an explanation of this circumstance and add the method of this destruction, adding in turn that “God, having sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh,” and the following. And since the combination of words is like this, let’s consider the method of healing given through Christ: how the powerlessness of the law ceased, and what generally should be understood by this powerlessness of the law, and what kind of law; after all, the divine preacher tells us all this in detail. So, he agrees that he helps those who know him, the law, I mean of course, the written law, but also the law of the spirit, according to which we became able to desire good, even if we probably did not have the opportunity to fulfill it. After all, he says: “Because the desire for good is within me, but in order to do it, this is not possible” (Rom. 7:18) 86, since, obviously, he overcame sin, and the law of the flesh turned the mind, even against the will, to things inherent in itself. But in the same exact way, I think, it would be fair to understand the powerlessness of the law - written, given through Moses, as I just said, and also innate in us, according to which even the pagans, although they do not have a written law, apparently by nature do what is lawful and are their own law, because “they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:14-15), as it is written. But it’s time to experience what powerlessness there is in both laws. The fact is that although the written law was a teacher of decency and a mentor of virtue, it gave absolutely no justification to anyone. The law innate in us, which the Apostle calls the law of the spirit (Rom. 8:2), although inclined towards good, was too susceptible to the law that called for shameful things. Consequently, powerlessness, that is, the weakness of either the written or innate law, ceased through Christ. After all, in view of the fact that the flesh has been mortified in some way and lust has been abolished in us, in no way will the law of the spirit or mind be weakened. And let us tell you, if possible, how sin has been put to death in us. The fact is that God’s Word, by the good pleasure of God the Father, was found in the likeness of the flesh of sin, in order to condemn sin in the flesh. After all, He became a man, reducing Himself to exhaustion; and that His body is of the same kind and of the same nature (όμοειδές καί όμοφυές) with our bodies - can one doubt? However, if the bodies of other people can be called the flesh of sin because they are naturally sick with the appearance of absurd lusts, then about the body of Christ it can be argued that it is not the flesh of sin, far from it, but that it is rather a similarity to the flesh of sin. That is, although it is similar to our bodies, it no longer knows the disease of carnal impurity, because this divine church is holy from the mother’s womb. And as for ideas and concepts relating to (human) nature, everyone will say without hesitation that since it was flesh, it could have had in itself an innate movement characteristic of it. But since the Word, which sanctifies all creation, has taken up residence in it, the power of sin has been condemned in it, so that this achievement may also pass on to us. After all, we have become involved in Him both spiritually and physically, for when Christ is established in us through the Holy Spirit and through the mysterious blessing 87, then the law of sin is certainly condemned in us. It is true, then, that the impotence of the law, in which it was weakened because of the flesh, came to an end through Christ, who condemned and abolished sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. After all, the justification of the law, that is, the power predicted by the law, or the will turned to virtue, is fulfilled, since the law that is in us, as I said, no longer fails in us due to the fact that it undergoes the violence of innate lusts. So, the justification of the law is fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh, but, on the contrary, want to live spiritually 88. (8, 6–7) Because the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace 89 (V, B, A) He calls the mind of the flesh death, and very correctly, and the mind of the spirit - life and peace, because truly the mediator of death is love for the flesh, and the mediator of eternal life and the highest blessings is the choice of spiritual life 90. Because if the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God, because it cannot stand obedience to the divine laws, and it cannot do this, for how can shameful and nasty lust please God? - then the mind, untainted by impurity and passions, as far as possible for human nature, is certainly at peace with God. (8, 8–9) Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you 91 (A) When the mind of a man is taken over by earthly lust, then he is in the flesh, as one mindful of the things of the flesh, and he cannot please God. If the mind has been enriched by grace through Christ, filled with power from above, burns in spirit and hastens towards virtue, then such a person is considered to be not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and he easily does what is pleasing to God. (8, 9-10) If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (A) If anyone is in the spirit, he will also be in righteousness and in life, when the body of sin is almost dead and every foolish lust is quenched; for it is impossible for there to be righteousness and lawlessness, sanctification and uncleanness, at the same time. By spirit in the words spirit is life 92 we understand the human spirit, quickened by the grace of the Holy Spirit and enriched in communion with Him with righteousness, because in this way we are partakers of the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1, 4) 93, for Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit 94. (8, 11) If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus 95 from the dead dwells in you (V, B, A) Our Lord Jesus Christ was raised up by the Father, and life around His body was brought into action by the Holy Spirit, Who is Spirit of Christ 96. After all, about the fact that He Himself revived His own church, He says to the Jews: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Therefore, even if it is said that He was raised by the Father, yet He Himself was the One who raised (this church) through the Holy Spirit, therefore Christ will raise our bodies from the dead 97. (8, 14-15) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (A) Those who live by the Spirit 98 - they are those led by the Spirit, since they are sealed by the Holy Spirit and have been delivered from slavery under the law and writings and, moreover, have passed on to freedom, received the testimony of the Spirit of adoption that they are the sons of God, and by this Spirit of adoption they cry: “Abba, Father!” 99 (8, 17) If only we suffer with Him, so that we may be glorified with Him (V) Good is not accomplished without labor, but for saints, labor is not without great hopes, because nothing earthly is promised to them, but endless glory and participation in that which is above mind and words. For those who neglect earthly things are worthy of even the highest rewards, and those who have previously worked with courage and patience will enjoy incomparably sublime crowns, because work for virtue means nothing in comparison with the honors that follow it. He speaks of the glory of the saints, since the righteous will shine in due time like the sun (Matthew 13:43), finding themselves in honor, glory and incorruptibility, when their body changes, just as Christ was transfigured on the mountain. (8, 19) For the hope of creation awaits the revelation of the sons of God 100 (V, B, A) Aspiration is hope, as well as waiting and looking out for the outcome of events. But creation does not expect the revelation of the sons of God, of course, as if it itself knows about the future - for how is this possible? - but in view of the fact that, according to the ineffable economy, everything is directed towards the best of God, this is how it will come to an end. After all, since the children of God seem to be transformed into glory from dishonor and from corruption to incorruption, that is, those who have lived a commendable life, in that way the creation itself will be corrected for the better. And this is exactly what the divine Peter does not allow us to doubt, saying: “We are waiting for the new heavens and the new earth and what He promised” (2 Pet. 3:13) 101. (8, 20–22) Because creation was subject to vanity (V, B, A) Here he calls vanity those who live in vanity, that is, in carnal thoughts, about which one can say, quite rightly: “Man is like vanity” (Ps. 143:4) 102 – and even that he “has become equal to foolish beasts and has become like them” (Ps. 48:13) 103, for truly vanity is the life of such people. Creation submits to them, and, of course, in no way voluntarily - from where? can we really say that? - after all, the sensually perceived and visible creation knows absolutely nothing that relates to us, for it is not rational. But if we still admit the idea that it can do something, then it would not tolerate such shameful slavery and would not want to submit and serve those who decided to spend their lives without any necessary or good purpose. However, in the hope that the saints and elect will be saved in due time, says the apostle, it still submits, because God binds it and, as it were, preserves it in freedom, so that it serves only His children and is devoted to the needs of the elect. After all, it is almost in confusion, tormented and grieving, and if it had the ability to know anything about our circumstances, it would, perhaps, even cry out loud. But, yielding to divine beckons, it in some way awaits, as I said, the revelation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19) 104. (8:23) And not only (it), but we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we groan within ourselves (V, B, A) To prove what has been said, he accepts what happens in us by nature, namely: “we ourselves,” he says, “having the firstfruits of the Spirit within us, we groan dejectedly, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.” After all, it is true that “the corruptible body burdens the soul, and this earthly church suppresses the over-anxious mind” (Wisdom 9:15). And although the Spirit once appeared in us and He recreates in us the desire for virtue, it is as if the love of the flesh comes out to meet us and the law that has struck our members, inciting us to absurd lusts, fiercely rises up. That is why we groan, considering the redemption of our body to be adoption, because we do not thirst for the laying down of the body, and we do not say that this is what redemption consists of. But we expect that the body will be spiritual, that is, forever casting off carnal and earthly thoughts and the sting of sin; This, we affirm, is the spiritual body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44). If the grace of adoption has the redemption of our body, then let some not slander us about the resurrection and do not reach such madness as to say that the flesh becomes rejected and that it will completely disappear, falling into the ground, and something else will be resurrected, I mean spiritual and airy; after all, this is how they understand this spiritual 105. (8, 24–25) For we are saved in hope (V) We believe that our bodies must become stronger than death and corruption, but this is set aside for us in hopes not as something that already exists, but as something that will certainly and in every possible way happen, and we wait for this, enduring suffering in patience, in order to receive such a sacred gift. (8, 26) Likewise, the Spirit strengthens us in our weaknesses, etc. But the spirit itself 106 intercedes for us with unutterable groanings (V, A) The spirit intercedes for us with unspeakable groanings, obviously ours, because at times we groan, trying to make prayers to God. Therefore, we learn this too in the Holy Spirit, for He is wise, just as the Son is. And since the apostle says that we do not know what to pray for as we should, let us examine this, although exactly how we should pray, we were first taught by Christ, Who clearly says: “Pray like this: “Our Father who art in heaven!” Hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9-10) - and everything that follows. So, since we have been taught how to pray properly, what then, tell me, can be the meaning of this apostolic writing, or what can be said in the voice of Paul refer to? So, we say that when we pray, then we strive to ask for good things, and first of all for those things that serve the glory of God and thanks to which we could walk the path of life properly and achieve a truly commendable life. And “having the firstfruits of the Spirit, we groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). And in this particular respect, we do not know what to pray for, as we should,” because if “the eye has not seen, the ear has not heard, and the things that God has prepared for those who love Him have not entered into the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2:9), then what will we ask when we begin to pray? Or how would we know what we did not see, or rather, what is even beyond the mind and unknown to human hearts? But what can be the redemption of the body or what is it? for transformation and how the body is recreated for incorruption and glory, only the Artist Himself can know this. Somewhere the disciple of the Savior said to some people who did not know what to pray for as they should: You ask and do not receive, because you ask not for good, but to use it for your lusts (James 4:3). as it should." And with unspeakable groanings we ask in the spirit of that for which, although we believed that it would be, we do not know at all how it will be. (8:28) Moreover we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to foreordainment 108 (V, B, A) All things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to dispensation - according to whose purpose then? And how can this be understood by pre-establishment? Obviously, by predestination means “according to the will”; In this case, by whose will were those in question called? Is it the One who called, or the called ones themselves? Of course, every impulse that leads us to righteousness comes to us from God the Father, because Christ said nowhere: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). However, it is precisely here that the one who says that some became called by the predestination of both the Caller and themselves 109 will not evade proper understanding. (8, 29) For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be like them, etc. (A) Although there are many, he says, who are called according to predestination, yet not all are chosen, but only these who are worthy of honor, about whom it was foretold of God that they would be conformed to the image of His Son. And what is meant by the image of His Son is again explained by Paul himself, saying: “And just as we have borne the image of earthly, let us also bear the image of heavenly things” (1 Cor. 15:49). After all, those who neglected carnal lusts became imitators of the image of Christ, that is, living in sanctification and life. For just as we call life in disobedience and sins the image of the earthly, that is, Adam, so we call the image of the heavenly, that is, Christ, sanctification, righteousness and obedience. So, those about whom it is foretold that in due time they will become like and imitate the life of Christ, as far as this, of course, human nature accommodates, they are called. (8, 30) And those whom He predestined, those He also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, those he also glorified (V, B, A) It is not surprising that unbelief is excused by some who are overcome by ignorance and say: “If those whom He foreknew by foreknowledge and predestined were called, then this does not apply in any way to us who have not yet believed, since we are not called and not predestined.” To them we will say that although the one who was organizing a wedding feast for his son sent servants to gather those invited, they did not want to come (Matthew 22:2-3). But after them those who were called according to their own predestination entered, and thus the bridal chamber was filled with those reclining (Matthew 22:10). Therefore, it is clear that nothing prevents those who wish to enter and foreknowledge does not harm anyone at all, however, it does not bring benefit to anyone. However, let them explain whether those who by their disobedience offended the God who called them were not themselves foreknown. But some were called and rushed to the wedding, but they did not become chosen and were neither justified nor glorified. For what reason? Because they were not dressed in clothing appropriate for a wedding feast (cf. Matt. 22:11-14). In addition, we will find that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself openly said: “Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Now He is already calling everyone to Himself, because, having said: That’s it, He thereby does not drive anyone away at all 110. (8, 31–32) What can we say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His Son (A) For those who decide to do good deeds, everything works together, since God protects them. After all, if He did not spare the Son by nature in order to save those in danger and deliver them from troubles, then how does He not give us everything 111 with Him? (8, 33-34) Who will accuse God's elect? The Justifier is God 112, who condemns? (A) Quickly and prudently Paul does not allow the minds of those who are called to be perplexed, but teaches that they will be delivered from ancient sins by the hand of God. After all, even if every sin contains a transgression of the law and condemns the one who was imprudent, but if the Lord of the law Himself forgives, then who condemns the sinner? (9:1-5) I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bears witness to me. (V, B, A) 113 God considered Israel to be the chosen one in ancient times and even called him the firstborn (cf. Ex. 4:22). But they became arrogant and impudent, and, which goes beyond all limits, they also became murderers of the Lord. That is why they died, because they were expelled and rejected and completely fell away from intimacy with God, placed behind the pagans; but they turned out to be alien to the hope of the fathers. And since blessed Paul was appointed a minister of the divine gospel (cf. Rom. 1:1) and proclaimed Christ to the pagans, saying everywhere that those who are descended from the blood of Israel have fallen away, and asserting that those who were once in demonic darkness became called ministers according to the predestination and foreknowledge of God, so that any of the ignorant would not think that he was almost trampling on those who had been defeated from the race. (Israel) and mocks the fallen, he utters the necessary word in defense and says: “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie” - and the following. However, one can grieve for those who have reached such recklessness that they have retreated from the love of God and then suffered punishment for this; and it would not be unreasonable to shed tears for kindred love for them, or rather, this is the fullness of love. But to want to be excommunicated from Christ for them is, finally, beyond the bounds of love, because no one, unless, of course, he is in his right mind, would dare to resist God for the sake of saving others and not put his own life at anything, but prefer that others have it. Then what does he mean by offering his own salvation as a ransom for the salvation of the Jews? It is obvious that this speech is hyperbolic and contains an expression of the most perfect love: “I would like,” he says, “to be excommunicated from Christ for my brothers, my kin according to the flesh.” After all, this is as if he were saying: “If through my opposition to Christ Israel would be saved again, I myself, who said to those justified in faith: “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) - and declaring to everyone: “Who will separate us from the love of God: tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword" (Rom. 8:35), would prefer to take upon himself such a terrible evil and go to destruction alone for all." Thus, he captured the Jews into obedience, and repelled the slander of the insane, because some of the Jews thought that the divine Paul, having lost his mind, was opposing the laws given through Moses. That is why he said, addressing the message to those who believed: “For if we have lost our temper, then for God; if we think sensibly, then for you” (2 Cor. 5:13) 114. So, I would prefer, he says, and very willingly, in order to again save those who came from the blood of Israel, to be excommunicated from Christ 115. And he does not stop there, as if discovering that the reason for mourning for them is not at all unimportant, as long as it can produce such a disposition in him that it does not seem to him something painful and absurd to say that he is offering his own as a ransom for the lives of others. After all, firstly, he says, they are Israelites, to them belongs 116 the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,” and from them, according to the flesh, is Christ Himself. However, if they had been one of those who had recently come to know the nature and truth of God, if they had not had the law given through Moses, which crowned them with closeness to Him, if they had not sprung from the root of the holy fathers and were not appointed heirs of their glory, if they had not been the first to learn the ways of serving God, then the sorrow for them could have become more moderate. But if these are their fathers and so on, and they, despite the fact that their affairs were almost with a tailwind, strayed to an unexpected outcome and did not achieve what they hoped for, then isn’t what happened to these unfortunate people truly terrible? 117 (9, 6–9) But it’s not that the word of God did not come true (V) This speech is accurate, for he says that God’s word was not in the least deceived, that is, could not deviate from the truth. After all, it is well known that God initially announced to Abraham that he would be the father of many (see Gen. 17, 5), and also: “When I multiply I will multiply your seed like the stars of heaven in abundance” (Gen. 22, 17) 118, therefore, it was necessary that Abraham should be proclaimed the father not only of those who are from Israel, because there was not one people who came from him, but myriads throughout the whole earth, who determined to be the children of Abraham, if they are truly children according to the promise and walk in the footsteps of his faith, which he had in uncircumcision (Rom. 4:12), as it is written. For as Blessed Paul himself writes somewhere: “The promise of being an heir of the world was not given to Abraham or his seed by law, but by the righteousness of faith, for if those who are established in the law are heirs, he says, then faith is vain, the promise is ineffective” (Rom. 4: 13-14). Therefore, when the seed from Abraham is recognized as in Isaac, that is, by promise, and the word of promise is: At this same time I will come, and Sarah will have a son, then it may be quite obvious that “not the children of the flesh” will certainly and in every possible way be considered the children of God, but rather the children of the promise, that is, the children of faith, will have such glory in themselves. (9, 10) And not only, but also Rebekah, who had seed from one, from Isaac our father 119 (V, A) It is necessary to understand that the thought (σκοπός) of this statement is in no way complete, but, most likely, is dependent on something else and needs some kind of brief addition, that is, completion at the expense of the implied, so that it can be seen that it is not lame. And what I mean is this: earlier, on the basis of the fact that Isaac was given to Abraham according to the promise, the apostle showed that it is not at all natural children that can be considered his seed, but it would be fitting for him to be called the father of children according to faith and according to promise (cf. Rom. 9: 8). Next, he takes Rebekah and what happened to her and says: “And not only - that is, not only the birth of Isaac is covered by my speech - but also Rebekah, who had seed from one, from Isaac our father - and here it was necessary to add, say, “will be included for proof and certification” or “will be an image (ύποτύπωσις) and designation (είκονισμός) calling and grace according to election and foreknowledge.” After all, if you add something like that, then his speech would finally seem to have been executed properly. However, I don’t know why, omitting this, he immediately moved on to what was said and happened at the birth of Isaac. (9, 14–24) 120 What shall we say? Is it really not true with God? No way, etc. to the words: “He called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles” (V, A) Since there was a possibility that some of those who loved to find accusations thought that Jacob and Esau 121 had been subjected to an unconscious inclination of will, and God deigned to love one by his own grace, and to hate the other, the apostle, forced in advance to refute such an understanding as harmful, tries to stand up for the highest decrees, as if countering his words with an apparent objection. After all, if indeed, he says, even before the babies did anything and before the very testing of their actions, one was awarded love, and the other was hated and assigned to be the slave of the younger one, then it turns out, perhaps, that God is even unrighteous. And isn't this nonsense? After all, if Jacob did not become a good man, if Esau was not wicked, then it could rightly be said that foreknowledge went astray and the determination regarding both was a matter of rash inclination and not infallible wills. But if Esau was extremely ignorant, and Jacob was wise, then Divine foreknowledge could not at all be unjust, admitting even ahead of time that those who are good in morals should be loved, and those who are not like that should be condemned. After all, it was not at all difficult for God to show patience and wait for the time of accomplishments, so that everyone would manifest themselves according to the deeds themselves. But since it was necessary to give us a type of the sacrament of grace by election and bestowal by foreknowledge, God, the best organizer of such things for our benefit, almost seizes the opportunity and, when children appear, certifies Isaac that, being the one and only descendant of Abraham, he will become the father of countless Gentiles, who are to be called by promise and by faith. And if He, as God, as a result of knowledge, pities those whom He, perhaps, chose by virtue of His knowledge, or, rather, even those whom it would justly be fitting to have mercy, - after all, He nowhere said to Moses: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy; whomever I have pity, I will pity" (Rom. 9, 15 = Exodus 33, 19) – then wouldn’t this be far from all slander? But the apostle, clearly foreseeing, I think that some will perhaps think that by Divine gestures some are good and others are disobedient, of necessity he himself brings up the objection characteristic of their ignorance and says: “So, not from him who wills, nor from him who runs, but from God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). After all, if Esau was truly hated even before he did something bad, Jacob was honored even before he came into existence, and God, in turn, has mercy on those whom he has mercy on, then shouldn’t we finally understand that the one who desires or strives, that is, who strives to do something good, does not bring any benefit, but everything that concerns us depends on God’s beckons? Further, he draws to this what is capable of confirming such an opinion and says: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: for this very reason I have raised you up, to show My power over you” (Rom. 9:17; cf. Ex. 9:16), and to this he adds a kind of conclusion to the question posed and says: “So he has mercy on whomever he wants; and he hardens whomever he wants. You will tell me: what else is he blaming for? For who can resist His will? (Rom.9, 18–19). So what was his method of justification? Very unclear and even seems rather to defend the questions raised by opponents. However, it is sufficient to ensure that nothing can happen with God without a proper reason. After all, He distributes to everyone what is due, pities and has mercy on those whom it would be proper to have mercy, and subjects the guilty to punishment, and anger does not follow immediately and not in the near future, but rather, long-suffering invades first, so that someone even thinks that God neglects those living on earth. So, Paul takes up arms and rebels against those who say such things, applying the meaning of the speech to the persons mentioned above, I mean Esau and Pharaoh. Therefore, he said, as if addressing both: “And who are you, man, that you argue with God? Will the product say to the one who made it, “Why did you make me this way?” (Rom.9, 20). That is, by a clear example, he shows that it is extremely painful to condemn the judgments of God. After all, if anyone decided to think sensibly, he would leave it to the omniscient God to judge everyone according to what He knows, and would not doubt at all that this is holy, no matter how He decides to act, according to His power creating for everyone what will happen. Thus, he decisively accuses those who generally direct their minds to Divine gestures, inquiring whether they are good or not, because, he says, they should rather imitate what is made by the hand of the potter, and endure in silence what comes from God, for “the statue will not tell the sculptor why you made me like this?” (Rom. 9:20) 122. But, probably, in response to this, someone will say: if God, like a potter, sculpts according to what He wills, in order to “make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor” (Rom. 9:21) 123, then will not such speech encourage anyone to think that what appears will certainly and in every possible way have the disposition according to which it was created? So one arose for honor and received by his lot precisely such a nature, and the other was created hardened or appointed such that, as God Himself says, “His name might be preached throughout the whole earth” (Rom. 9, 17 = Exod. 9, 16). What then can be the charge against those who stumble? After all, this is why they arose. But precisely to this we can answer that there is absolutely no reason to say that in this place the meaning of thoughts indicates to us the difference in natures. After all, the apostle did not say that some were created rude and bitter, or vessels of honor and dishonor, and that such a nature was generally destined for them. But, rather, he encourages us to think that some things are sculpted, exactly like earthen vessels, one for honor and the other for dishonor, and an example of this kind is taught to us from the prophetic speeches. So, how some are sculpted as if from clay, some for honor, others for dishonor, this can be learned by reading the words of Jeremiah. It is written like this: “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there you will hear My words. And I went down to the potter's house, and there he was doing his work on the stones. And 124 the vessel which he had made of clay with his hands fell; and he again made of it another vessel, whatever it pleased him to make. And the word of the Lord came to me, says the prophet, and said: “Shall I not do like this potter to you, O house of Israel? The Lord said, “As clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.” Sometimes I will say about a people or a kingdom that I will take them away 125; but if they turn 126 this people from all their wickedness, then I will repent of the disasters that I thought to do to them 127 . And sometimes I will speak about a people and a kingdom, that I will build and plant them. But if they do what is evil in My sight, and do not listen to My voice, then I will repent of the good 128 which I promised to show them” (Jer. 18:2-10). Do you see how someone is created for honor and for dishonor, not receiving the nature so created, but receiving for everything they do a suitable and fitting reward? Consequently, if the Creator of all things punishes those who have departed from good morals to shameful ones, and crowns those who have moved from shameful ones to better ones with honors, then is it not correct to say that it is not at all by nature that they became, or that some are sculpted by Him as worthless? But they became dishonest vessels rather because, although they had the opportunity to receive good glory from God, they voluntarily fell ill with a tendency to evil. But He Himself hardened, it is said, the heart of Pharaoh (cf.: Ex. 9, 12; 10, 1.20.27; 11, 10; 14, 8) and even said to him: ... for this very reason I raised you up, to show My power over you (Rom. 9, 17; cf. Ex. 9, 16). Therefore, if He hardens someone and raises them up to be true vessels of wrath, which, as they say, are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22), then what else does He accuse them of? For who can resist His will? How then would one become good who is hardened by Him? So what could we say to this? In order to know the truth, it is enough to have the following conviction and way of thinking: God can never be the creator of anything bad, because “everything that He has created is very good” (Gen. 1:31). Now, if they insist that this Egyptian 129 is not a man and is not endowed with a nature identical with us, then let them show it, and we will remain silent. If he was like us, then let them either openly blame the divine voice, which does not notice what is good and what is not, or, if they are afraid of this, let them confess that what He brought into existence is good, because in this way they will discard this extremely unreasonable opinion. The words: for this very reason I created you, spoken to Pharaoh, do not mean “created” or “created,” but rather “called you to voluntarily oppose Me,” and not at the beginning of birth, but when Moses was sent to deliver Israel. And why and for what reason, the wise Paul will explain this to us, namely: God, wanting, he says, to show anger - and so on. The whole earth was in error, because some served the creation, while others made the object of veneration what they pleased, and only Abraham was called to knowledge, and thus a race sprang from him, disposed to serve God. After they themselves descended into Egypt, and then spent a long time in it, they were carried away by deception and served the local gods, but God remembered the promises given to their fathers and prepared Moses for the messengership to free Israel from slavery. However, those called to His service and all those living on earth needed not only to learn that after a long time the God of the Jews was revealed, but, moreover, through extraordinary miracles, to strengthen their faith in Him and glory, that He is not dumb and powerless, like other gods, but rather Himself directs everything and that those who resist His gestures are struck with wrath. However, it was necessary, in turn, to see that God, wanting to work miracles, does so with sufficient reason. Therefore, according to the economy, Pharaoh was raised to confront, and he became embittered against divine power. Thus, his punishment was not unjust, because he was a wicked idolater and cruelly oppressed Israel with clay and bricks (Ex. 1:14), and instead of payment he imposed labor on them. That is why he was inevitably called a vessel of wrath and destined for destruction, that is, he reached such a degree of depravity that henceforth he was a vessel of wrath and destruction. God used this to manifest His inherent power, that His name might be preached throughout all the earth, and that Pharaoh might be seen to have suffered, being worthy to suffer, for he must have suffered because of his former sins, even if he had not suffered it because of his subsequent ones. Therefore, let all blaming and empty chatter against God cease, for He, desiring to show His wrath and to demonstrate His power, with great long-suffering spared the vessels of wrath, which were ready to perish, in order to benefit the vessels of mercy, that is, those who had received mercy through faith, since we were called not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles (Rom. 9:22-24). (9, 25) As Hosea says (A) But even the worshipers of idols, not knowing God by nature and truly, were not his people. However, they received mercy through faith, came under His protection, were called through grace, and were justified and sanctified through Christ. (9:27) Even if the children of Israel were as numerous as the sand of the sea (A) Therefore, even though Israel were as numerous as the sand, a remnant would be saved, 130 that is, those justified through faith in Christ. And this happened when God had mercy on them. (9, 28) For fulfilling the word and shortening 131 (A) He saved, says the apostle, fulfilling the word and shortening it, that is, showing us the Gospel sermon in a convenient, short and, so to speak, abbreviated way. After all, the law and the prophets, through a wide range of words, hardly present to us, through what is written, the meaning of what was said. And the gospel sermon is both simple and short. (9, 31-32) And Israel, who sought the law of righteousness (A) So, presenting the reasons why not all the Jews were saved, he immediately weaves surprise into his speech and says: “Oh, what a wonderful thing! The multitude of those who were in error and had no intention of doing good deeds were justified, but Israel, although they were taught by the law of Moses, did not achieve what they expected and were not involved in this gift.” What is the reason is clear, because they did not accept salvation through faith and righteousness in Christ, but considered that it was enough for them to boast about what was in the shadows 132. (9, 33) Stumbling block (A) We do not say, of course, that because of this Christ was placed in Israel, but since this was previously known to God, the future was inevitably proclaimed that He would be the cause of the offense in the foundations of Zion and some foolish people would have to encounter Him, and they would suffer so because of disobedience. This prediction was made for the benefit, not so that they would stumble, but so that, knowing about it in advance, they would become stronger than this evil. Therefore, although Christ was set up as a precious stone, yet for those who stumble through disobedience, the punishment was destruction, but for those who believed, the gain was life and righteousness. (10, 2-3) For I testify to them (A) So, he testifies to them of their zeal for God, but exposes them as erring, because Christ should have been amazed at what He did as God by nature, but they said: “We do not want to stone You for a good deed, but for blasphemy and because You, being a man, make Yourself God” (John 10:33) - and the like. They did not understand the righteousness that comes from God, that is, Christ, or the righteousness that comes through faith in Him. But thinking that they were interceding for the law given through Moses, they remained disobedient, because they did not seek the Son who is able to set free, who justifies the wicked and economically reduces the barely attainable righteousness of the law, 133 in order to deliver from hardship and weariness. (10, 4) Because the end of the law is Christ (A) So, first a law was introduced, which was to be a guide to the mystery of Christ and which, through riddles, revealed the truth. After all, this is how we define that Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, and absolutely correctly. Or is it impossible to rightly consider the truth to be the fulfillment of any obscure riddle? Although can one doubt this? Therefore, it is not the cancellation of what was given through Moses that produces the transition from what is in the shadows to the truth, but the meaning of this is most obvious. (A) When things at last changed their course to the truth, and those represented in images and riddles took a change for the better, then the law, we affirm, was not abolished, but was realized at the time when the truth, that is, Christ, shone before us. After all, the end of the law and the prophets is Christ, who could not lie when he said: I did not come to abolish the 134 law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). For just as the previously depicted shadows are not at all eliminated by the multi-colored paints applied at the time, but rather they present them as most obvious to the eye, and in the same way, we affirm, the shadows of the law are not overthrown, but rather they were realized in this transition to the truth. (10:5) For Moses writes about righteousness under the law, etc. (V) “For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law,” he says, “that the man who fulfills it will live.” However, there was no one at all capable of fulfilling it impeccably, for who can understand the fall? (Ps. 18:13). Therefore, better is grace, which justifies and frees us from the accusation of the law 135. (10:6) But the righteousness of faith says this It is also usefully determined how faith could arise in us if it accepted what is with God as impeccable and very well-ordered. After all, doubt in everything and the tendency to worry, leading to inactive double-mindedness, must be completely rejected. But it is equally unnecessary and extremely unsafe to consider it necessary to inquisitively study that which, in its superiority, is beyond the limits of any word and mind peculiar to us. For how can that which is skillfully created by God in an ineffable way be evident? But is there such an eye of the heart as to be able to discern God? Or rather, who will understand, even if they decide to talk to him and tell him about something that is much higher than us? After all, our Lord Jesus Christ once offered Nicodemus the teaching of a new spiritual birth and even said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, 136 unless someone is born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3.5). Then to this He added the following words 137. But since he understood absolutely nothing, it was then that Christ, noting that the stupidity of the human mind is extremely far from the subtlety of these thoughts, says: “Truly, truly, I say to you 138: We speak of what we know, and testify of what we have seen, but you do not accept Our testimony” (John 3:11). Therefore, that which is higher than us cannot be tested. After all, if it is true that even what is at hand, we find with effort (Wis. 9, 16) 139, as it is written, then aren’t we forced to understand that in that which is higher than words, faith is much more useful, which is not accompanied by research, and empty searches are not introduced? For such objects are best 140 respected by prudence 141 . (10, 11-13) Whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame, etc. (V, A) Let not Israel make salvation through faith its own good, for whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, whether he is a Jew, whether he is a Greek, whether he is a slave, whether he is a freeman, God will save everyone without distinction, since all things belong to Him. Thus, we say, everything is headed in Christ (cf. Eph. 1:10). (11, 1-2) Has God really rejected His people? Not at all (V, A) Paul wisely does not allow Israel, although suffering from darkness, to become even more hardened by complete despair, but as if skillfully entreats them with soft speeches. Just now he accused Israel as disobedient, but he does not deprive him of the highest hope and says that he is not completely driven out of intimacy with God. And the proof of this he makes clear by offering himself, who was an Israelite and of the seed of Abraham, very appropriately calling them the people still of God, and adding “by no means” to the words of his rejection. It was as if he was caressing and gently creeping towards those who were determined to be disobedient, and thereby returning them to a pious and pliable state. Therefore, if it is clear that he was called to the apostleship and appointed as the celebrant of the mysteries of the Savior among the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 15:16), preacher and apostle (cf. 1 Tim. 2:7), although he was from Israel, then it is obvious that God did not reject His people. (11, 2-4) Or do you not know what Scripture says in the story of Elijah? (V, A) Very timely, as a kind of image of what happened to Israel, he brings up the story of Elijah. After all, one can easily see from the similarity with the circumstances of that time that Israel itself, through its own fault, fell into a drunken riot, namely: when Ahab reigned over Samaria, Israel paid homage to the products of their own hands in an absurd way, and there were sacrifices and sanctuaries everywhere. And the followers of God were in complete fear and endured such unbearable persecution that the prophets hid even in caves and recesses of rocks (cf.: 1 Kings 18, 13; Heb. 11, 38), when Elijah himself fled into the deep desert and fell to God, saying: “Your altars were destroyed, Your prophets were destroyed 142, I was left alone, and my soul are looking for" (cf. 1 Kings 19, 10.14), but immediately heard in response to this: “I have kept for myself seven thousand people who did not bow the knee to Baal” (cf. 1 Kings 19, 18). But just as then it was not God who plunged Israel into such terrible wicked deeds, but rather they themselves crawled, indulging in their own madness, so now, in turn, when God and the Father offered salvation to everyone through Christ and did not alienate anyone at all, they voluntarily fell into apostasy, rejecting the Redeemer. Consequently, God did not reject His people (Rom. 11:2), because, as I said, He invited them, if they, of course, accepted it, to participate in salvation through Christ. (11:6) But if by grace, then not by works, etc. (V) “But if by grace, then not by works,” he says, “otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Where one can hope to succeed by works, he says, both the name of grace and grace in practice will be completely vain and superfluous. After all, “the reward of the one who works, he says, is imputed not according to grace, but according to debt” (Rom. 4:4). Therefore, if grace is due to works, then it would no longer be grace. (11, 7) What then? What Israel seeks, it has not achieved (V, A) He said that “God has not rejected His people” (Rom. 11:2). However, there was a possibility that someone would object, putting forward and saying something like the following: “But how did God not reject the people if Israel fell away, even if not all and not completely, but still fell away in part? After all, only the remnant is saved, and even that by election (Rom. 11:5).” And the apostle again very judiciously anticipates this and says: “What then? What Israel seeks, it has not achieved; the elect achieved it, but the rest were hardened 143. After all, Israel sought justification from the law, then how could it be justified, says the apostle, if the law did not bring anything to the end? Therefore, although Israel sought justification through the type, it did not achieve it. However, those who were singled out by election for obedience achieved, because they were justified through faith. And others are bitter, that is, disobedient and stubborn. (11, 9-10) And David says: let there be their table, etc. (V, A) “Let there be,” he says, “a meal of theirs,” etc. (Ps.68:23). To prove what he said, he also cites the prophetic writings of not one, but two prophets 144 for confirmation, “so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word might be established” (Matthew 18:16). After all, their meal became cursed, and quite rightly, that is, the unfriendliness and cruelty that they showed to Christ during the crucifixion. For when He was thirsty, they presented Him with vinegar mixed with gall (cf. Matt. 27:34), so they darkened their minds 145 and bowed down, imagining only earthly things. (11, 11) So, I ask: did they really stumble in order to fall? Not at all (V, A) I admire your condescension, O divine Paul, because you skillfully use the words of economy. Not for the reason that we strive to call the pagans so that Israel would completely fall away from hope in God, stumbling over Christ as if over a certain stone, but rather so that, being jealous of those who, contrary to expectation, were accepted, they preferred to unlearn the shameful thing and think better than before, and thus accepted the Redeemer. I will present this speech with a small example, namely: it happens that small and minor children perceive the grief characteristic of infants and then, running a little away from their father or mother, shed inconsolable tears from their eyes. But by this they immensely depress the parents, because this is what the law of natural love leads to, and they, skillfully driving away infantile cowardice and foolishness, simply grab whatever child they have and present him with their gifts, arousing their own jealousy and, as it were, inciting him to return and gain their love. The divine Paul, I think, did something like this, not allowing Israel to despair, even though they fell. (11, 12) If their fall is wealth to the world (V, A) After all, if, he says, the world has been enriched by closeness to God because Israel has fallen, and precisely because the Israelites lack a good way of thinking, the Gentiles have been accepted, then what will their acceptance finally be, if not the destruction of death and life from the dead? (Rom.11, 15) 146. (11, 14) Shall I arouse jealousy in my flesh 147 (V, A) So, he draws to unanimity and peace the believers from the pagans and Jews, so that they do not become arrogant, but give thanks to God as having granted forgiveness of sins without any rancor. And he says that he glorifies his ministry (Rom. 11:13) not because he desires vain glory, but to arouse jealousy in my flesh 148, again calling Israel his flesh, that is, the race according to the flesh. Consequently, it is as if he were to say: “I affirm that my apostleship is glorious, significant and very pleasing to God, and it is extremely necessary for those who live throughout the entire sunflower world, not so that it seems that I am crowning my head with empty honors and absurd boasting, but so that I will save my race according to the flesh, almost piercing, as if with some kind of sting, their jealousy and exciting them to the need to choose justification by the grace given through Christ." (11, 15) For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, then what (will there be) acceptance if not life from the dead? (A) Therefore, since Israel could not be commended on the basis of faith or manner of life, he comes to the words of dispensation, and says that their unbelief became an intercessor for the world for its nearness to God. And he is trying to say that thanks to the fact that they fell, they, perhaps, even became benefactors of the world, and as if crowning the fallen Jews lying on the ground. After all, life, he says, is the acceptance of them, if it is not false that their rejection became the reconciliation of the world 149. (A) The apostle’s speech is skillfully constructed, because he corrects Israel, who has deviated from what was proper for him, and encourages him to do what is useful and to strive for his own root through faith in Christ. He says that the pagans were honored by God and exhorts them to be firm in faith and piety. After all, if you remain in this state, you will remain a noble branch of the holy root, and if you are disobedient, then you yourself will find yourself outside the root. (11, 25–26) Until the fullness of the Gentiles enters 150, and so all Israel will be saved (V, A) Again, notice and think about this: he says that the fullness of the Gentiles will come in and all Israel will be saved. But what if they say to this: “However, many of the Gentiles died in unbelief, how then did the fullness of the Gentiles come in? But all Israel will not be saved, if, of course, it is true that the Jews will accept the son of lawlessness (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8), neglecting their love for Christ. After all, He Himself said this: “I came in the name of My Father, and you do not receive Me; but if another comes in his own name, you will receive him” (John 5:43). The wise Paul also said: “Because they did not accept the love of the truth for their salvation. Because of this God will send them strong delusion, so that they will believe lies" (2 Thess. 2:10-11)." What then should we say in response? We affirm that if God generously offered grace to all and excluded no one at all, then did not the fullness of the Gentiles enter in, if, of course, the intention of the Caller is concerned? After all, if some slipped and shied away from such a gift, this does not mean that we will find those who lied the word of Scripture. For they had the opportunity to become partakers of what was once given, why did they make a voluntary retreat? Consequently, as for the meekness and love of mankind of Him who called, the fullness of the Gentiles entered, and all Israel was saved. And since they turned out to be adamant, he says that the bitterness happened to them in part. (11, 26) As it is written: The Deliverer will come from Zion 151 (V.) That even rejected Israel must be saved in due time, the apostle confirms this hope by presenting a sacred maxim; for Israel will be saved in due time, being called last after the calling of the Gentiles 152 . (A) So far as the preaching of the gospel is concerned, they became enemies, because they fell through wickedness towards Christ, but for the sake of the nobility of the fathers, who were venerated as saints and lovers of God, they may be considered beloved because of them. Nevertheless, they became enemies so that this could be brought before the unbelievers to provoke jealousy. (11, 30–32) Just as you were once disobedient to God, etc. (V, A) He shows that both were subject to equal charges, and that by one grace both the Gentiles and Israel were healed. After all, Israel at one time was called through Moses and taken away from the suffering that happened in Egypt. But the servants of the demons, that is, the pagans, since it was they who were understood by the Egyptians, were hitherto disobedient to show mercy to the people of Israel. After all, they did not believe the divine signs given through Moses, they did not want to know the God of the Jews, but with difficulty the people of the Jews were sent away to perform sacred acts in the desert. They themselves held on to the ancient deception, but now they have received mercy, when Israel fell, who became disobedient in order to have mercy on the Gentiles, so that he himself would be shown mercy in due time. So, as I said, the charges to which both were subject were equal, equally in need of the help of the One who spares. But, he says, they were all imprisoned in disobedience by God, so that he might have mercy on everyone. And we do not at all believe that someone’s disobedience was a matter of Divine will, so that those who fell into this would be spared. But, rather, God concluded them in disobedience, thereby revealing that they were subject to accusations of disobedience and, as if by the circumstances themselves, were exposed that they had finally reached such misfortune as to need mercy and mercy 153 . (14, 14) I know and am confident in the Lord Jesus, etc. (V, A) “I know and am confident,” he says, “in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in itself,” and so on. A witness is trustworthy who claims that he knows and is confident, but he also adds: “in the Lord Jesus,” so that the truth of this is even more reinforced and the listeners would follow it with faith without any doubt. He, of course, remembered what Christ said: “Not what is included in the mouth, defiles a person" (Matthew 15:11), and that all food, although it passes into the belly, is expelled into a latrine (cf. Matthew 15:17), and such is its nature and use. Therefore, as regards its own nature, there is nothing bad or unclean from what is consumed as food, "because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" ( 1 Timothy 4:5) We also remember that God, having brought everything into being, saw that He said that it was very good (Gen. 1:31), and blessed it (cf. Gen. 1:28). But if God praises His creatures and even blessed them, then who will dare to claim that they contribute to uncleanness and defilement, and will not bring accusations against Him who brought them to Him. existence? Therefore, among created things there is absolutely nothing unclean by nature, and if anyone thinks that something is unclean, then because of this he himself becomes unclean and in his judgment he becomes ill with defilement. After all, everything is pure, but a lack of faith in something defiles an unbeliever, but not the very thing that he considers to be unclean. After all, for those who are perfect in mind, one is by nature God and no one else before Him, but is not something in the world and an idol, just as something sacrificed to idols is considered nothing (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4), because who does not know an idol, how can he know something sacrificed to idols? But for those who think that there are many gods, there will certainly be something sacrificed to idols. In the same way, for believers, what is undefiled and pure is that which is from God; there is absolutely nothing unclean by nature, and the free use of food is completely permissible. However, for those who have not yet come to such a conviction, it is still not purely in accordance with what seems right to them, but it is bad, because their mind seems to be lame in relation to the truth. (14, 16–17) Let not your goodness be blasphemed (A) Let not the greatness of those who have a good reputation despise the weak, and let not your goodness, that is, your admirable faith, be blasphemed by anyone. For success in a godly life is not achieved through food, and the one who is worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven as a worshiper of God is not the one who indifferently partakes of what is offered, but the one who condescends to the weakness of his weak brothers and abstains. After all, if he blamed Peter for living like a Jew because of those who came to Antich from Jacob, it was not because he condescended to the weakness of those who were circumcised and abstained from food. But he blamed him for the fact that he, being a person worthy of trust, gave many pagan brothers a reason to think that they needed to live according to the law, and there was a danger that his preaching would turn into nothing; for he was a teacher of the pagans. (14, 20–21) All is pure, but it is bad for the man who eats because he is tempted (A) After all, although you can eat meat and drink wine, freedom in this is not entirely harmless. However, it is also useful to abstain, so that we do not fatten the flesh with food and thereby arouse in it the ferocity of passions against ourselves. Therefore, if we abstain from them for our own sake, then much more for the sake of our brother, so as not to give temptation in view of what has been said: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13, 9 = Lev. 19, 18; Matt. 22, 39). (15:7-9) Therefore accept one another, just as Christ accepted you to the glory of God (V, A) We are one body, being many, and members of one another (cf. Rom. 12:5), as it is written, since Christ bound us into unity with bonds of love, for He made both one and destroyed the barrier that stood in the middle, abolishing enmity by His flesh, and the law of commandments by teaching (Eph. 2, 14-15). Therefore, we must be of one mind with one another (cf. Rom. 15:5), and if one member suffers, all members suffer with it; If one member is glorified, all members rejoice with him (1 Cor. 12:26). Therefore, he says, accept one another, just as Christ accepted you to the glory of God. Let us accept one another, choosing to be like-minded, bearing one another’s burdens (Gal.6:2) and maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph.4:3). This is how God accepted us in Christ, for it is true who said that the world was so loved by God and the Father that the Son Himself was given for us (cf. John 3:16). For He was given as a ransom for the lives of all, we had the price of death, and we were redeemed from death and sin. And the apostle makes clear the purpose of the economy, saying: Christ became a minister for the circumcision for the sake of the truth, etc. 154. After all, since God promised the fathers of the Jews that He would bless the seed that would be from them, moreover, like the stars of heaven in multitude (Heb. 11, 12) 155, the Word appeared in the flesh and became man, being God, although He Himself supports all creation and bestows goodness on beings like God. And He came into this world with flesh, however, not to be served, as He Himself says, but to serve and give His soul as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). And He really clearly confessed that He had come to fulfill the promise given to Israel, because He said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Consequently, Paul would not lie when he said that He became a minister for the circumcision in order to fulfill what was promised to the fathers and, in addition, He was appointed by God and the Father for mercy to the pagans, so that they too would glorify the Savior and Redeemer as the Author of existence and the Artist of all things 156. After all, it was necessary, it was necessary in view of the fact that those of the circumcision, due to much disobedience, wickedly insulted Him and did not accept the atonement He gave, so that the inexpressible grace of God would not seem ineffective, since very few from Israel were saved and believed. That is why the highest Lordship seemed to spread to everyone and the pagans were accepted, so that it is clear that the sacrament of wisdom in Christ did not deviate from its goal aimed at meekness, for by the mercy of God, instead of those who slipped, those in heaven were saved. And that the sacrament was foretold by the voice of the saints, who foresaw the future in the Spirit, he presents this in the clearest way, setting out the prophecies 157. Application. Fragments from Catena Vindob. Theol. Gr. 166 (1, 1) Paul, servant of Christ Jesus And he calls himself a slave of Jesus Christ, as God by nature, even if Christ is spoken of as a man. After all, even having appeared in the flesh, He remains what He was, is and will be - God, although He is thought of by man. So, certifying the evidence of His Divinity, he calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, that is, the Only Begotten who appeared in human form (μορφή). (1, 1) Called Apostle Or he calls himself called, so that they will not say that he voluntarily took upon himself the name of apostleship and apostleship itself, stealing this honor, like the so-called false prophets, about whom it is said: I did not send prophets, but they fled; I did not speak to them, but they prophesied (Jer. 23:21), but being called to the apostleship by the Spirit. (1, 1) To the gospel of God And he immediately calls the gospel God’s, that is, Christ’s, because, having named Christ Jesus, he says that preaching about Him is the gospel of God. (1, 2) Which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures And the preaching of Christ is not something recent, but, on the contrary, it was observed in the foreknowledge of the Father and was announced by the voice of the saints, in the psalms, in the book of Isaiah, in the gospel given through Gabriel. After all, God foretold and proclaimed the birth of Christ, and the word about Him among the holy prophets was long. (1, 3) About His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh Moreover, the apostle does not limit the thoughts of those instructed in the sacrament to humanity, but raises them to the divine dignity of Him who was born for our sake as we are, and among us. After all, about the Only Begotten Son, ineffably born by nature from God the Father, Who, like God, surpasses becoming (του γενέσθαι), it is said that He was also born from the seed of David according to the flesh. Thus, He, of course, revealed to His own the church from the Holy Virgin and truly assimilated, that is, united with Himself what He had received, so that they would not think that He dwelt in man, but that He actually became man 158 . (1, 18–19) Those who suppress the truth with unrighteousness Cyril from the Scholium 159. And they suppressed the truth with untruth, where truth is knowledge from God, and untruth, in turn, is an error wickedly intended against His glory, since it is more than appropriate to believe that it is untrue that honor is given to the creation. But those who do this and want to gain superiority over the truth through the tricks of untruth bring punishment on their own heads. After all, for those who peer into the beauty of truth and comprehend the Artist of all this, it would be better to strive for adherence to Him alone, and not simply believe that what everyone pleases is God. And why this is so and how, the apostle explains in the following words: “For what can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has revealed it to them.” Let's look at what exactly we can know about God: although we believe that there is a God, it is not allowed to know for sure that He exists by nature, or rather, it is impossible, and investigating this is not harmless. But from what we believe is inherent in Him by nature as the superiority and dignity due to Him, we are directed even to our participation in His ineffable nature. Therefore, it was revealed to them that it was possible to know about God, that is, that it was they who were able to think about Him, of course, to the extent that this is accessible to man. This consists in, as I said, knowing about the existence of God, but not also searching for how or in what way He exists. So, he calls God invisible His wisdom and power, for they are visible through viewing creatures. After all, one can say to anyone who is in error: “You are so surprised by man that he has spread in great numbers throughout the entire earth, which, as they believe, is like a certain center established in the very middle depths of the air. And he, I think, confesses that the circle of the sun, its radiance and running, are worthy of all glory. You will certainly add to this the moon and the brilliant round dance of the stars, but you will not leave without surprise what is on earth. Therefore, shall we not say that this was brought into being, without any doubt, by the wisdom and power of God? That is, every artist is not conformed to the nature of those things that he would begin to create, but necessarily belongs to another nature, superior to them. Then is it possible to doubt that if something that has received the beginning of being and is called into existence in time has a perishable nature, then its Creator will certainly and in every possible way be incorruptible and eternal? (1, 21–23) They, having known God, did not glorify Him as God So, they will not find any justification on the Day of Judgment, because, having come to know God, that is, having seen the glory of God through the very greatness of created things, they did not glorify Him as God, but became futile in their speculations and their foolish hearts were darkened. For although they very carefully, as they think, examined the nature of things, they, he says, became fussy, following empty speculations, proclaiming in their lives polytheistic error and “the glory of God,” most unreasonably changing into an image similar to corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and reptiles. After all, although the highest nature is not subject to quantitative measurement and does not take either shape or form, they compare it not only with man, but have fallen into such reckless thoughts that they even liken it to birds, four-legged animals and poisonous reptiles. (1, 24-26) God gave them up in the lusts of their 160 hearts to uncleanness, so that they polluted their own bodies For this reason, he says, they are devoted, as if to some kind of enemy, to the unclean lusts of the flesh. After all, just as those suffering from eye disease run away from the sun's rays and chase darkness, so those who have damaged the correctness of their thoughts certainly rush into intelligible darkness and fall into absurd deeds, inflamed by the innate lusts of the flesh, not because we have an essential or hypostatic evil, but because the desire of the flesh and the movement of innate lusts are always in some way turned towards evil. And if God saves, then sin becomes ineffective, but if He weakens the defense, then passions overcome and, as if taking some captive, enslave the mind to their desires. This means being given over to impurities, shameful passions and a corrupt mind, not because God desires this, allowing people to choose an ungodly life. After all, if God wanted this, He would not rejoice over those who repent and turn from evil to virtue; for He always unrepentantly remains in joy about good, and not as if at one time He rejoices in good, and at another in evil. Catena in Acta ss. Apostolorum e cod. Nov. Coll. /ed. J. A. Cramer. Oxford: Oxonii e typographeo academico, 1838 [ r Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967]. Catena in Epistolas Catholicas, accesserunt Oecumenii et Arethae commentarii in Apocalypsin, ad fidem codd. mss. /ed. J. A. Cramer. Oxford: Oxonii e typographeo academico, 1840 [ r Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967]. Catena in s.Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos ad fidem codd. mss. /ed. J. A. Cramer. Oxford: Oxonii e typographeo academico, 1844 [ r Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967]. Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1964. (SC; vol. 97). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinite I / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1976. (SC; vol. 231). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinite II / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1977. (SC; vol.237). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinite III / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1978. (SC; vol.246). Patrum nova bibliotheca/ed. A. Mai. Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1845. T.3. Patrum nova bibliotheca/ed. A. Mai. Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1849. T.5. S.P.N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Euangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph.E.Pusey. Oxford: Oxonii e typographeo academico, 1872. Vol.2, 3 ['Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1965]. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. Genesis/ed.J.W.Wevers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Vol.I. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. Deuteronomium/ed.J.W.Wevers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Vol.III, 2. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. Sapientia Salomonis / ed.J.Ziegler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Vol.XII, 1. Pauluskommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche / hrsg. K.Staab. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1933. Cirillo diAlessandria. Commento alla Lettera ai Romani / trad.V.Ugenti. Roma: Citta Nuova, 1991. St. Cyril of Alexandria. Replies to Tiberius the deacon and the brethren / translation from Syriac and notes by E.A. Zabolotny, M.G. Kalinin; translation from ancient Greek, preface and notes by Hierom. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2015. No. 18–19. Vol. 3–4. pp.342–379. St. Cyril of Alexandria. Explanation of dogmas / translation from ancient Greek, preface and notes by Hierom. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2016. No. 20–21. Issue 1–2. pp.298–326. Creations of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M.: Pilgrim, 2001. Book 2. Creations of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M.: Pilgrim, 2002. Book 3. Works of Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. M.: Pilgrim, 2003. Creations of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. St. Petersburg: SPbDA, 1903. T.9. Book 2. Works of St. Nikephoros, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 1. M.: STL, 1904. (TSO; v. 65). Works of St. Nikephoros, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 2. M.: STL, 1907. (TSO; vol. 67). Nikulin M., priest. "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews" by St. Cyril of Alexandria: issues, review of sources, publications and studies // Kh. 2017. No. 4. P.55–66. Tkachev E.V. Catena // PE. M.: Central Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2013. T. 31. P.696–750. Theodore (Yulaev), priest. and others. Cyril, St., Archbishop of Alexandria // PE. M.: Central Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2014. T. 34. pp. 225–291. Jouassard G. L'artivité littéraire de St. Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusquà 428. Essai de chronologie et de synthese // Mélanges E. Podechard. Lyon, 1945. P.159–174. Margerie B., de. Introduction à l'histoire de l'exégese. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Vol.1. P. 270–303. Χρήστου Π. Ελληνική Πατρολογία. Τ. Δ'. Θεσσαλονίκη: Margerie B.,de. Introduction à l'histoire de l'exegese. Paris, 1980. Vol.1. P.270; ΧρήστουΠ. Ελληνική Πατρολογία. Τ.Δ’. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1993. Σ.366. Jouassard G. L'activite littéraire de St. Cyrille d’Alexandrie jusquà 428. Essai de Chronologie et de synthèse // Mélanges E. Podechard. Lyon, 1945. P.173. Theodore (Yulaev), priest. and others. Cyril, St., Archbishop. Alexandrian // PE. M., 2014. T. 34, pp. 271–272. Wilken R L. Cyril of Alexandria, Biblical Exegete // Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity / ed. Ch. Kannengiesser. Leiden; Boston, 2004. Vol.2. P. 856–861. CyrillusAlexandrinus. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 32 // PG. 75. Col. 453 508; Idem. Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide 22–215 // ACO. I, 1, 5. P. 70–117; Idem. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide 5–43 // ACO. 1, 1, 5. P. 28–58. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in s.Pauli epistulas (CPG 5209). About this genre of commentary on Holy Scripture and its handwritten tradition, see: Tkachev E. V. Catena // PE. M., 2013. T.31. pp.696–750. There is also a special section on Greek catenas on the Epistles of St. Paul (pp. 727–728). In 2015, a critical edition of the “Commentary on 1 Corinthians” was published, prepared by K. Zawadski (Doctor of Theology, Faculty of Theology in Trier): Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1 Korintherbrief / Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung, Einzelanalyse von K. F. Zawadski. Leuven; Paris; Bristol, 2015. (Traditio exegetica graeca; 16). He is currently preparing a critical edition of the Commentary on 2 Corinthians. Priest M. Nikulin, Master of Humanities and Social Sciences (Practical School of Higher Studies, Paris) and graduate student of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, in 2017 published a Russian translation of part of the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Nikulin M., priest. Translation of the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews” by St. Cyril of Alexandria (On Hebrews 1) // Works and translations. Issue 1. 2016–2017 academic year, St. Petersburg, 2017. pp. 183–205) and a number of articles devoted to the analysis of this monument. In 2018, he successfully defended a dissertation on this topic at St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (Aka. “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews” by St. Cyril of Alexandria as a source on theology of the first half of the 5th century. St. Petersburg, 2018). Here and below, for reference to a specific fragment of interpretation, the verses of the Epistle interpreted in it are indicated. Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus. Antirrheticus III, 30 // Patrum nova bibliotheca / ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1849. T.5. P.94. Rus. trans.: Works of St. Nikephoros, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 2. M., 1907. P.169. See the note below for the translation of these passages. If we accept the dating of J.M. Durand, the publisher of the works of St. Cyril in the series “Christian Sources” (SC). If we agree with the alternative hypothesis of G. Zhuassar, then the earliest possible date for writing the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans” can be specified in 423. See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. Cyril, St., Archbishop. Alexandrian. P.241, 244. Right there. pp.243–244; Nikulin M., priest. Translation of "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews." pp.61–62. For more information about the exegetical method of the saint in the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans” and the theological content of this monument, see: Cirillo di Alessandria. Commento alla Lettera ai Romani / trad. V. Ugenti. Roma, 1991. P.18–35. Patrum nova bibliotheca/ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1845. T.3. P.1–47. CPG C160. The most ancient catenas on the Epistles of St. Paul is usually divided into three types, the names of which correspond to the main manuscripts - witnesses to the text (Tkachev E.V. Catena. P. 727). Catena in s.Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos ad fidem codd.mss. /ed. J. A. Cramer. Oxford, 1844 [r Hildesheim, 1967]. The Bodleian manuscript, like a late one, has a large number of errors (Tkachev E.V. Catena. P.728). Contains interpretations up to Rom. 9, 1–5 inclusive. Contains interpretations starting from Romans 7:7. This major manuscript of the Munich catena type on Paul's Epistles (CPG C161) and J. A. Kramer's edition based on it are “entirely trustworthy” (Ibid.). S.P.N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Euangelium. Accedunt fragments varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo / ed.Ph.E.Pusey. Oxford, 1872 [r Bruxelles, 1965]. Vol.3. P.173–248. As K. Zawadzki’s research has shown, F. Pusey’s publication cannot be considered definitive in terms of textual criticism, so the publication of a strictly verified text of the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans” that meets modern requirements remains a task for the future. Compare: Ugenti V. Op.cit. P.36. Cirillo di Alessandria. Commento alla Lettera ai Romani / trad.V.Ugenti. Roma, 1991. V. Ugenti translated only the main text, without the fragments of the Vindob.Theol catena published by F. Pusey. gr.166. Somewhat earlier we published a Russian translation of the initial part: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (from catenas). Part I (Rom. 1, 3–8, 1) / translation from Greek, preface and notes by Jer. Theodora (Yulaeva) // Collection of works of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Moscow Academy of Sciences. 2017. No. 4. P.27–84. Here we offer a complete translation of the monument, with the correction of some inaccuracies noted in the previous publication. Before each scholia we indicate its sources, using the following designations of the three main manuscripts used in the edition of F. Pusey: V – Vat. gr.762 (= Mai A. Op. cit.1845. P.1–47). B – Bodl. Auct. E.II.20 (= Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.1–162). A – Monac. gr.412 (= Cramer J.A. Op. cit.1844. P.163–529). The following editions of texts and translations of the Holy Scriptures were used. 1) Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes / ed.A.Rahlfs. Editio nona. Vol.1–2. Stuttgart, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Rahlfs); 2) Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 27 ed. Stuttgart, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as NA); 3) The New Testament in the Original Greek. Byzantine Textform/ed. M. A. Robinson and W. G. Pierpont. Southborough (Massachusetts), 2005 (hereinafter referred to as RP); 4) Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Anniversary publication dedicated to the two thousandth anniversary of the Nativity of Christ. M., 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Sin.); 5) The Bible, that is, the Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments with parallel passages. Second embossing. St. Petersburg, 1900 [M., r 2009] (hereinafter referred to as Elizave); 6) Books of the Old Testament translated by P.A. Yungerov. Great prophets. M., 2006; 7) Books of the Old Testament translated by P.A. Yungerov. Prophet Daniel. Minor prophets. M., 2006; 8) Books of the Old Testament translated by P.A. Yungerov. Educational books. M., 2012 (hereinafter referred to as Yungerov); 9) New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ / translation from the Greek original, edited by Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov). M., 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Bishop Cassian); 10) New Testament translated by K.P. Pobedonostsev. St. Petersburg, 1906 [M., r 2009] (hereinafter referred to as Pobedonostsev). Our title. There is no specific title for this treatise in the sources available to us. όρισθέντος. Wed: “opened” (Syn.); “installed” (Bishop Cassian); “named” (Elizab.). The meaning of this participle here is usually chosen between two options, of which the first, reflected in the Synodal translation, corresponds to the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom: “indicated, revealed, recognized” (lohannesChrysostomus. In epistulam ad Romanos. Hom. 1 (CPG 4427) // PG.60. Col.397. Russian translation: Works of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in Russian translation. T.9. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 492). The second option is “appointed, assigned,” which is preferred in the translation of the bishop. Cassian (Bezobrazov), does not look very successful, since it can give the idea that Christ “became” the Son of God only after the Resurrection. But this excludes the general context of the Epistles. Paul, who clearly taught about the original divine glory of Christ (cf.: 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 1:15-19), so that His resurrection was not a change in His relationship to the Father, but only a revelation of His sonship addressed to people (cf. Phil. 2:9) (Sanday W, Headlam A.C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5 Edinburgh, 1902. P.7-8). We give a version of the Slavic translation, since it, without contradicting this understanding, better corresponds to the interpretation of St. Kirill. This fragment, indicating that it is taken from the interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Epistle to the Romans, quoted in the 3rd Antirritique against Constantine Copronymus by St. Nikephoros of Constantinople (Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus. Antirrheticus III, 30 // Patrum nova bibliotheca / ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1849. T.5. P.94; Russian translation: Works of St. Nikephoros Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 2. M., 1907. P. 169). In manuscript V, a scholia is given here, the initial words of which coincide with the ending of the fragment quoted by St. Nicephorus: “Consequently, just as images relate to the prototype, so we, sons through adoption, relate to Him who is the Son by nature and “power” and received a true testimony of this from the Father “according to the spirit of holiness through the resurrection from the dead.” He is called the Son and according to humanity. But He is also by nature the Son of God, and “in power.” testified “by the spirit of holiness, through the resurrection from the dead, that is, from the fact that He is able to abolish the power of death” (Patrum nova bibliotheca / ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1845. T.3. P.1). In manuscript V, this scholium begins with words omitted from F. Pusey's edition: “It is usually considered (that these words have a predicate) “visible” (Ibid. = PG.74. Col.776A). The explanation is appropriate, since in the Greek text this verb comes before the words being interpreted. Translated by Bishop Cassian. Wed: “No way. God is faithful, but every man is a liar” (Syn.). In the text, the interpretation is exactly this (του Χριστού) instead of the usual and more appropriate reading: “by the Lord” (του Κυρίου) (NA, RP). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “Where is there something to boast about? destroyed" (Syn.). In the synopsis: “My words” in accordance with the Masoretic text, while in the Septuagint the usual reading: “His words”, which in some ancient authors under the influence of Acts 3, 23 is replaced by: “That Prophet” (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Deuteronomium / ed. J.W. Wevers. Göttingen, 1977. Vol. III, 2). The proposal is also given in the “Catena of Presbyter Andrew” on the Acts of Sts. Apostles (CPG C150), where it is subtitled “St. Cyril from (the epistle to) the Romans of the second volume” and is given in a somewhat expanded form: “And the Prophet, for human reasons, is called Immanuel, who, as if in the rank of Moses, is a mediator between God and men and brings to us the ineffable will of his own Father” (Catena in Acta ss. Apostolorum e cod.Nov.Coll. / ed.J.A.Cramer. Oxford, 1838. [Hildesheim, 1967] P.67). ώδίνων... της άληθείας την μόρφωσιν. Described in similar terms, the likening of the law, ready to give birth to the truth, to a woman in labor, still remaining “in the shadows”, undergoing torment, is repeatedly found in St. Cyril in many exegetical works and in several “Easter Epistles”. In the text the interpretation is exactly like this: “was confirmed” (έβεβαιώθη) instead of the usual reading: “reached perfection” (έτελειώθη) (NA, RP = Sin., Bishop Cassian, Pobedonostsev, Elizave.). An abridged exposition of the previous scholia was included in the Catena of Prester Andrew on the Council Epistles (CPG C176) as an exposition on James 2:20 with the inscription “Cyril from the Epistle to the Romans”: “Since blessed James says that Abraham was justified by works, offering his son Isaac on the altar, and Paul says that he was justified by faith, this The apparent contradiction should be understood as follows. Although he believed even before he had Isaac, and received Isaac as a reward for faith, nevertheless, when he brought Isaac to the altar, he not only did the work that was prescribed, but did not depart from the faith, since in Isaac his seed was to multiply like the stars. For he thought that God was able to raise people from the dead. However, Paul makes blessed David a witness and helper for his words (Rom. 4:6-8), a man who was famous for piety, who wisely prepared, speaking in the Spirit, the remission (of sins) and proclaimed it to all people, for he knew that it would come in Christ in due time" (Catena in Epistolas Catholicas etc./ed. J.A. Cramer. Oxford, 1840 [ r Hildesheim, 1967]. In the text, the interpretation is ούκοϋν instead of the usual reading: διά τοϋτο (NA, RP). έφ’ ω. Wed: “(because) in Him” (Syn.); “in Nemzha” (Elizab.); “since” (Pobedonostsev); “because” (Bishop Cassian). We give a translation of this controversial expression according to the interpretation of St. Cyril. Lane Pobedonostseva. Wed: “all have turned aside from the path, one and all are worthless” (Syn.); “everyone has lost their way and at once fallen into disrepair” (Bishop Cassian); “everyone has shied away, everyone has become completely worthless” (Yungerov). See above, interpretation on Romans 3:21. That is, St. Cyril here understands the words “before the law” to mean “until the end of the law” in exactly the same way as the blessed one. Theodoret of Cyri in his “Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans” (Theodoretus ep. Cyri. Interpretatio in XII epistulas S. Pauli 2 // PG. 82. Col. 100BC; Russian translation: Works of Blessed Theodoret of Cyri. M., 2003. P. 129). Compare: “But the gift of grace is not like a crime” (Syn.). All our other translations also see a positive statement here. The fact that St. Cyril understands this phrase as a question standing in direct connection with the previous verse is a unique case in patristic exegesis (Ugenti V. Op.cit. P.54. Note 14). In manuscript B, the scholia opens with words omitted by F. Pusey: “Having put the first in a second image (τύπος), he almost probes the listeners, addressing them separated by a comma with the question: “But the gift of grace is not like a crime?” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.47). Compare: “Fathers should not be punished with death for their children, and children should not be punished with death for their fathers” (Syn.). In a similar way, the saint explains the inheritance of sin from Adam in the 6th chapter of the treatise “Explanation of Dogmas,” focusing on another consequence of the Fall - death. There is also a parallel between Adam and Christ, and also based on the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15, 21–22 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De dogmatum solutione 6 // Pusey Ph.E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.560–561; Russian translation: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Explanation of dogmas // BV. 2016. No. 20–21. Issue 1–2. παρεισηλθεν. Wed: “came after” (Sin., Bishop Cassian). We give a translation that seems to better correspond to the interpretation of St. Cyril, since he sees in this verb an indication of the appearance of the law, as it were, in the interval between Adam and Christ. Wed: “privnide” (Elizav). Wed: “and thus the crime increased” (Syn.); “so that sin may increase” (Bishop Cassian); “and with the law the sin increased” (Pobedonostsev). ίδικήν έτερότης. This expression is found in the saint in the 2nd chapter of the treatise “Responses to Tiberius”, written after 431 (CyrillusAlexandrinus. Responsiones ad Tiberium 2 // PuseyPh. E. Op. cit. Vol. 3. P. 580; Russian translation: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Answers to Tiberius to the deacon and brethren // BV. 2015. No. 18–19. Issue 3–4. P. 360) and in the late (c. 437) Christological dialogue “On the fact that Christ is one” (Idem. Quod unus sit Christus // SC. 97. P. 370). From the works of the period before the Nestorian dispute - in the dialogues “On the Holy Trinity” (Idem. De s. Trinitate II, VII // SC. 231. P.330; SC. 246. P.174). In the earlier “Treasure” (Thesaurus (CPG 5215)) they are not there, nor is there such a clear distinction between the terms “essence” and “hypostasis” in triadology, again clearly made in the “Dialogues”. σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν. Wed: “we are united with Him” (Sin. translation, Pobedonostsev); “we found ourselves united with Him” (Bishop Cassian). However, the direct meaning of the speech, like the interpretation of St. Cyril, rather presupposes our identity (conformity) not with Him, but with His death. Compare: “considered (note: “planted”) were in the likeness of His death” (Elizab.). σύμμορφοί τε καί ταυτοειδεΐς. The same expression is found in St. Cyril in the dialogues “On the Holy Trinity” to describe the natural unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, into which we are transformed by virtue of adoption (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De s. Trinitate. III // SC. 237. P.98. οίκονομοϋντος. Since the term “economy” (οικονομία) can also mean the Incarnation itself, it is permissible to translate: “by the power of the Word incarnate.” Wed. Latin translation: “inhumanati” (PG. 74. Col.795C). We give a translation according to the explanation of St. himself. Cyril in the present interpretation below (8, 3). Compare: “As the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (as a sacrifice) for sin and condemned sin in the flesh” (Sin. trans.); “For due to the impossibility of the law, powerless through the fault of the flesh, God, having sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Bishop Cassian); “What the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, God did, sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh” (Pobedonostsev). Our translations introduce additional words for clarification: “sinful passions (detected) by the law” (Syn.); “sinful passions (raised) by the law” (Pobedonostsev); “sinful passions (caused by) the law” (Bishop Cassian). We give a literal translation so that the problematic nature of this passage, which requires interpretation, is visible. Compare: “sinful passions, even the law” (Elizab.). φρόνημα (Rom. 8, 6.7.27). Wed: “philosophy” (Elizav., Pobedonostsev); “thoughts” (Syn.); “thought” (Bishop Cassian). Manuscript B contains the ending of this scholia (Cramer J. A. Op.cit.1844. P.80), which coincides almost word for word with (7, 6) and was rightly excluded by F. Pusey from the text. νυνί δε κατηργήθημεν άπό τοϋ νόμου, άποθανόντες έν φ κατειχόμεθα. Compare: “But now, having died to the law by which we were bound, we have freed ourselves from it” (Syn.); “But now we have been freed from the law, having died to it, by which we were bound” (Bishop Cassian). These translations, like many commentators, take “law” as the antecedent for “έν φ.” But this does not correspond to the interpretation of St. Cyril, according to which we died, in fact, not for the law, but for sin. St. agrees that the former bonds here mean the sin for which Christians died. John Chrysostom and Blessed. Theophylact of Bulgaria. Such an understanding is considered acceptable by interpreters of the New Age (Sanday W., Headlam A.C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. P.175). We give a literal translation that does not contradict the interpretation of the saint. Compare: “Now we have been abolished from the law, having died, we keep it as our guide” (Elizab.). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Wed: “What shall we say? Is it really sin (from) the law? No way. But I'm not otherwise knew sin as through the law” (Syn.). The quotation is given in abbreviation and with some changes. Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “So, has what is good become deadly to me?” (Syn.). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “And thus the commandment (given) for life served me for death” (Syn.). Compare: “so that sin becomes extremely sinful through the commandment” (Sin.). “so that sin through the commandment becomes sinful beyond all measure” (Bishop Cassian). In the lane P. Yungerova: “revelation”. In manuscript A there is no such scholia, but instead there are two similar in content: 1) “Or as he makes spiritual those who obey him, they consider spiritual not the one who lives according to the flesh, but who immaculately follows the desire of the spirit”; 2) “And being carnal, as being in the power of the carnal mind, since one is the mind of the flesh, and the other is the spirit, which are contrary to each other. After all, although the law is spiritual, that is, it wants what belongs to the spirit and seeks what is useful for the soul, but I, pursuing carnal desires, am carnal. And he did not say: “You who use the law and transgress it,” so that the speech would not be cruel and painful, but: “I,” depicting what is characteristic of them as relating to himself. And subsequently he does the same, smoothing out the severity and power of words by applying them to himself” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P. 185 = Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.201. Note). παράκειταί μοι. Wed: “the desire for good is in me” (Syn.). We give a literal translation of this word, as is done in the Synodal translation just below (Rom. 7:21). Wed: “but I don’t find it to do it” (Syn.). Although in F. Pusey’s edition the ending of the verse before the scholium is given in its traditional form: “I do not find (ούχ εύρίσκω)” (= RP, Elizabeth), from the interpretation itself it is clear that in the New Testament text the saint did not have the last words (= NA, Bishop Cassian), so we give the verse in this form here too. From the interpretation it is clear that St. Cyril believes that the word “law” is still here points to the “law of Moses”, like many interpreters, starting with St. John Chrysostom (Sanday W., Headlam A.C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. P.182). Another scholia in manuscript A with an interpretation of this place, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.210), extracted from his treatise “Treasure” (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit.Vol.3. P.210. Note). For the translation of this verse, see above (6, 6). Regarding the text of this verse by St. Cyril and its translation, see above (7, 18–20). That is, through the Eucharist, the purpose of which, according to the saint, is “to bodily (σωματικως) infuse Christ into us through the communion and communion of His holy Flesh” (CyrillusAlexandrinus. Commentarii in lohannem 10, 2 // S P.N. Cyrilliarchiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Euangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Vol.2. Oxford, 1965]. The idea of ​​a twofold, spiritual and physical, unity with Christ is encountered more than once in the saint. See for example: “We became co-partners (σύσσωμοι) with Him through a mysterious blessing. We are united with Him in another way, since we have become partakers of His Divine nature through the Spirit: for He dwells in the souls of the saints” (Idem. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. In Genesim. Lib. I // PG.69. Col. 29BC; Russian translation: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Book 2. M., 2001. P.16). Further in manuscript A there are two more scholia inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.218, 220). The first is extracted from his treatise “Treasure”, the second - from the “Commentary on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul” by Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3.P.213. Note). In manuscripts V and B, the scholium ends with these words (MaiA. Op. cit. 1845. P. 27; Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P. 125); F. Pusey gives the ending from manuscript A (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3.P.221). Translated by Bishop Cassian (v. 10). Wed: “the spirit is alive” (Syn.). Further, in catena A, two more fragments of St. Cyril are presented (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P. 228–229), which are extracted from his other works: the 7th dialogue “On the Holy Trinity” and “Treasure” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol.3.P.214. Note). Bishop Cassian. Wed "resurrected" (Syn.). Lit. "His." We translate according to context. The saint often emphasizes that the Holy Spirit was the “Spirit of Christ,” which was important for him both in his early creations, in polemics with Arianism, and in later ones, when refuting Nestorianism. In catena A there are three more scholia inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P.233–234). They are also borrowed from his other works: the first two from the “Treasure”, the third from the 7th dialogue “On the Holy Trinity” (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.215. Note). If we take into account (8, 8–9), we are talking about the spirit of a person who has received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Another scholia for this place in manuscript A, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P. 240–241), extracted from his treatise “Treasure” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 3. P. 215. Note). For the convenience of translating the interpretation, we give a literal translation of this verse. Compare: “For creation awaits with hope the revelation of the sons of God” (Syn.); “For the creation waits with tension for the revelation of the sons of God” (Bishop Cassian); “And all creation with ardent hope awaits the revelation of the sons of God” (Pobedonostsev); “For creatures long for the revelation of the sons of God” (Elizab.). Compare: “We, according to His promise, await a new heaven and a new earth” (Sin.). That is, instead of the usual reading “κατά το επάγγελμα αύτοϋ,” the saint says “καί τα επαγγέλματα αύτοϋ.” This option is found in a number of New Testament manuscripts. See: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. P.614. Note The two scholia that follow in manuscript A (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.250, 253) are also taken from the treatise “Treasure” (Ibid.P.217. Note). Probably, the saint is polemicizing here with the extreme spiritualism of the Origenists, who denied the resurrection of the earthly body, which was also denied by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in Ankorata, ch. 87–100 (Ugenti V. Op. cit. P. 91. Note 28). According to the interpretation of the saint, we write this word with a lowercase letter. In Russian translations (Sin., Bishop Cassian, Pobedonostsev) this word is capitalized, because it is implied that we are talking about the Holy Spirit. In manuscript B there follows a continuation of this scholium (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.144), but since in manuscript A these words are attributed to St. Gennady of Constantinople (Ibid. P.260), F. Pusey excludes them from his text (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol.3. P.220. Note). κατά πρόθεσιν. Compare: “according to (His) will” (Syn.). We take the translation of this phrase from Bishop Cassian for the convenience of translating the interpretation, especially since the clarification of the Synodal translation, as if we are talking about the will of God, is not entirely consistent with the interpretation of the saint. Following A. Mai (PG.74. Col. 828), V. Ugenti sees an anti-Pelagian place here (Ugenti V. Op.cit. P.93. Note 34). In manuscript V, the scholia continues: “Of whom He had long known what they would be, says the apostle, He determined to be partakers of future blessings, He called them, so that they tasted justification by faith in Him, not then committing sin, but glory gave all this to them, once and for all finding themselves in incorruptibility and immortality. (The Apostle says this) in relation to the words: “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God” (Rom. 8:28), wanting to show that God forces them to undergo trials in present circumstances not because He neglects them, for is this possible? Having called them to partake of such blessings, not now, but long ago and very long ago from what they have, by His ineffable foreknowledge, knowing them what they would be, even before they appeared. For initially knowing that they would be exactly like this, he has long arranged benefits commensurate with their location. Therefore, could He neglect them, Who, even before they appeared, prepared for them a reward for their will and called them to (receive) the benefits expected by faith in Him? (MaiA. Op. cit. 1845. P.32–33). F. Pusey places this fragment interlinearly, believing that this fragment belongs to St. Gennady of Constantinople (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.222. Note). But in the newest critical edition of fragments of St. We do not find Gennady on the Epistle to the Romans (Pauluskommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche / hrsg. K.Staab. Münster i. W., 1933. S.383), so his attribution remains in question. The scholium inscribed with the name of St. Cyril in manuscript A for the same place of the Epistle (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P. 282) is extracted from his 4th dialogue “On the Holy Trinity” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 3. P. 222. Note). That is, “if God justifies,” etc. We give a literal translation of this verse, taking into account the interpretation of the saint. Compare: “Who will accuse God’s elect? God justifies (them)” (Syn.); “Who will accuse God’s elect? God the Justifier? (Bishop Cassian). 113 In manuscript A, the scholia begins with the words: “But let us speak of these sayings again, with another application...” (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P.308 = Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol.3. P.223. Note). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “If we lose our temper, it is for God; if you are modest, then for you” (Syn.). Here is the ending of this scholium in manuscript A (Cramer J. A. Op.cit.1844. P.309). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “that is, the Israelites to whom it belongs” (Sin.). Below in manuscript A are three more scholia extracted from other works of St. Cyril with a correct indication of their source: “Glafirs on the Book of Genesis” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.312–316, 325–328) and “Treasure” (Ibid. P.318). The addition “multitude” (τω πλήθει) is not in the Greek text of the book of Genesis, but it is in Heb. 11, 12, containing an allusion to this place. With the same addition, Gen. 22, 17 is quoted from the blj. Theodoret of Cyrus, in Origen's homilies on Genesis (in the Latin translation by Rufinus), in the Life of St. Pachomius" (in the Latin translation of Dionysius the Lesser). See: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. I. Genesis / ed. J. W. Wevers. Göttingen, 1974. S.217. Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “And this is not the only thing; but (it was so) with Rebekah, when she conceived at the same time (two sons) from Isaac our father” (Sin.). V. Ugenti rightly notes that this passage is one of the most complex in the entire Epistle to the Romans (Ugenti V. Op.cit. P.99. Note 12) and points out that there is a thorough review of its patriotic interpretations, which has not yet lost its significance: Weber V. Kritische Geschichte der Exégese des 9. Kapitels, resp. der Verse 14–23, des Römerbriefes bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus einschliesslich. Würzburg, 1889. In the “Glafira on the Book of Genesis” the saint considers Isaac as a prototype of Christ, Rebecca - the Church, and their sons, Esau and Jacob, as prototypes of two peoples: the firstborn Israel, called through the law of Moses, and those who came later, called by the faith of the pagans. The character of the brothers also anticipates the traits of these two peoples: cruelty, intemperance, attachment to earthly Israel and meekness, modesty, purity and simplicity of the pagans (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. In Genesim. III // PG.69.Col.157A–164B; Russian translation: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Book 2. M., 2001. P.96–100). In manuscript A slightly higher, in the interpretation of Romans 9, 13, there is a lengthy scholia containing exactly this passage from the “Glafira” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P. 329–333). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Wed: “Will the product say to the one who made it: why did you make me like this?” Compare: “to make for honorable use, and the other for low” (Syn., Bishop Cassian). fell (επεσε): crashed (διέπεσε) (Rahlfs = Yungkrov, Elizab.). + and I will destroy (Rahlfs). Compare: “I will uproot them and destroy them and scatter them” (Yungerov = Elizave). they will turn (έπιστρέψουσι): they will turn (έπιστραφη) (Rahlfs = Yungerov, Elizave.). Compare: “I will cancel all the disasters that I thought of doing to him” (Yungerov). Wed: “I will cancel that good” (Yungerov). The apostle quotes Is.10:27. We give according to Yungerov’s translation (the apostle quotes Is. 10:23 here), which is literally accurate. Russian translations of this passage of the Epistle to the Romans imply a different interpretation than that of the saint. Wed: “For the matter is finished and will soon be decided” (Sin.); “for he will fulfill his word to the end and without delay” (Bishop Cassian). In manuscript A there is a continuation of this scholia (Cramer J. A. Op.cit.1844. P.364–365), and above is another scholia inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Ibid. P.362). Both of these fragments are supposedly attributed by F. Pusey to St. Photius of Constantinople, according to their inscription in the catena Icumenium (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol.3. P.233, 234. Note). This attribution is also accepted in the newest critical edition of catenary fragments on Paul’s Epistles (Staab K. Op. cit. S.522–523). See above interpretation on Romans 9:28. According to the translation of ep. Cassiana. Compare: “violate” (Sin.), “ruin” (Elizav., Pobedonostsev). The next two scholia in catena A, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P. 375, 376), are omitted by F. Pusey. The first of them, in his opinion, does not belong to the saint, the second is partially borrowed from the “Treasure” (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol. 3. P. 236. Note). to you: to you (NA, RP, Sin., Bishop Cassian, Pobedonostsev, Elizave.). F. Pusey, without any explanation, puts this sentence in square brackets, probably believing that this is a remark by St. Nikephoros. to you: to you (NA, RP, Sin., Bishop Cassian, Pobedonostsev, Elizave.). Our translation “With effort” (μετά βίας) instead of the usual “with difficulty” (μετά πόνου) is a rare reading, attested, it seems, only here. See: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. Vol.XII, 1. Sapientia Salomonis / ed. J. Ziegler. Göttingen, 1982. S.125. Lit.: “brilliant” (λαμπρως). This scholia is not found in the Greek catenae. Compare: Mai A. Op.cit. 1845. P.40. The fragment is preserved in the “Great Protective Word” of St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, indicating that it was taken from the interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria to this place in the Epistle to the Romans (Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus. Apologeticus maior // Mai A. Op.cit. 1849. P. 137–138; Russian translation: Works of St. Nikophorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 1. M., 1904. pp. 371–372. The saint gives a quote with exactly this word order. Wed: “They killed Your prophets, They destroyed Your altars” (Syn. = NA, RP, Bishop Cassian, Elizave, Pobedonostsev). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Wed: “What? Israel did not receive what it sought; the elect received it, but the rest became hardened” (Syn.). The point is that just above (v. 8) the apostle cited another Old Testament quotation (Deut. 29:4; cf. Is.6:9; 29:10). Wed: “let their eyes be darkened” (Rom. 11:10). Manuscript A additionally contains the ending of the scholium: “And what they should turn to can be learned from the multitude of divine words” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.403 = Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.241. Note). Wed: “in (my relatives) according to the flesh” (Syn.). We provide a literal translation for ease of interpretation. The initial words of the scholium up to this point are presented only in manuscript A (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P.405–406). Below in manuscript A there is another scholia, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril: “For although you are a wild olive tree (Rom. 11:17), brought up in sterility, you have been grafted into a good olive tree (Rom. 11:24), being brought in instead of natural branches. Therefore, do not philosophize highly against those who have stumbled, and “do not boast (Rom. 11:18) about the blessings of others, for you cannot boast about your fathers. After all, Abraham is not your forefather, to whom you became a son by faith” (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.410–411). F. Pusey omits it, believing that it does not belong to the saint (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.242. Note). Translated by Bishop Cassian. Compare: “(until the time) until the full (number) of the pagans enters” (Sin). Wed: “And the Deliverer will come for Zion’s sake” (Is.60:20). The scholia is represented in catena A (Cramer J. A. Op.cit. 1844. P.420). Further in this catena there is an inscription with the name of St. Cyril scholium on Rome. 12, 3 (Ibid. P.439). It is extracted from the "Treasure" (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol.3. P.244. Note). The next scholia published by A. Mai (MaiA. Op.cit. 1845. P.45) is a fragment of the homily on the Epistle to the Romans by St. John Chrysostom (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3. P.244. Note). The beginning of the scholium up to this point is presented only in manuscript V (Mai A. Op.cit. 1845. Here is the end of the scholium in manuscript A (Cramer J. A. Op. cit. 1844. P.502). The Apostle in the following verses (Rom. 15:9-12) cites a number of Old Testament prophecies about the coming salvation of the pagans (Ps. 17:50 = 2 Kings 22:50; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 116:1; Isa. 1:10), the explanation of which the saint, obviously, should have given below, in the unpreserved part of the interpretation. Further in the manuscript there are several fragments extracted from the famous works of St. Cyril: “On the right faith to Emperor Theodosius (Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide (CPG 5218)), “Interpretation of the Gospel of John,” the 7th and 6th dialogues “On the Holy Trinity” and “Treasure” (Pusey Ph. E. Op.cit. Vol.3.174). Apparently, this refers to the “Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Scholia de incarnatione unigeniti (CPG 5225)), but this particular fragment is not in the text of this creation, preserved entirely in ancient Latin and Armenian translations and partially in the Greek original. εν ταΐς έπιθυμίαις. Wed: “in lusts” (Syn., ph. Cassian, Pobedonostsev). We give this translation to distinguish the term επιθυμία, which we translate as “lust,” from the term ηδονή, which we translate as “lust” in the event that it indicates sinful movements of the flesh (glory, “sweetness”).