Беседа 16

Conversation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Rom 9.1. I speak the truth about Christ, I do not lie, my conscience obeying me through the Holy Spirit. Didn't it seem great and supernatural to you what I said in the previous conversation about Paul's love for Christ? Truly, all this in itself is great and surpasses any word. But, however, what has been said now is as much superior to the former as the former surpasses everything that can be said about us. I myself could not imagine that there could be anything higher than what was said in the last conversation, however, what we had to read today is much more brilliant than anything before. Paul himself, foreseeing this, announced at the very beginning that he intended to touch upon something even more important, which many would not believe. And above all, it testifies to the truth of what he intends to say. This is what many people usually do when they intend to talk about something that is incredible to the majority and of which they themselves are firmly convinced. “I speak the truth,” he says, “I do not lie,” my conscience is my witness. Rom 9.2–3. For there are great sorrows and a never-ending illness in my heart. I would pray because I myself would be excommunicated from Christ. What are you saying, Pavel? From the beloved Christ, from whom neither the kingdom, nor hell, nor the visible, nor the imaginable, nor anything else like that could separate you - from this (Christ) do you now want to be separated? What happened? Haven't you changed, haven't you ruined your love? No, he says, don’t be afraid, I only strengthened this love in myself. How do you want to be excommunicated, how do you seek alienation and such a break, after which no one else can be found? Because I love Him very much, he says. How, tell me, and in what way? After all, your words are like a riddle? But it seems better that we first find out what excommunication is, and then we begin to ask him about it, and in this way we will understand this inexpressible and extraordinary love. So what is weaning? Listen to what (Paul) himself says: “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be cursed” (1 Cor 16.22), that is, let him be separated from everyone and become a stranger to everyone. Just as no one dares to simply touch with his hands or approach a gift that is dedicated to God, so (the apostle) calls by this name, in the opposite sense, one who is excommunicated from the church, cutting him off from everyone and distancing him as much as possible, commanding everyone to withdraw and run away from such a person with great fear. No one dared to approach the gift out of respect, and everyone withdrew from the one who had been excommunicated out of another, opposite feeling. Thus, there is one excommunication, and equally both become alien to people, but the method of excommunication is not the same, but one is opposite to the other. One is removed from one because it is dedicated to God, and from the other because it is alienated from God and excommunicated from the church. In the latter sense, Paul also said: “I prayed that... I would be excommunicated from Christ.” He didn’t just say: I would like to, but he strengthens his speech and says: “I prayed.” But if you are confused by words that seem very weak, then think about the actual fact, and not only about the fact that (Paul) wanted to be excommunicated, but also about the very reason why he wanted this, then you will see all the excessiveness of his love. For example, he performed circumcision, but if we pay attention not to the action, but to the intention and reason for the action, then we will be even more surprised at him. He not only performed circumcision, but also cut his hair and made a sacrifice, but, of course, we do not consider him a Jew for this, but, on the contrary, we say that as a result of this, he especially became free and pure from Judaism and became a true servant of Christ. Therefore, seeing that (Paul) circumcises and makes sacrifices, you therefore do not condemn him for adhering to Judaism, but mainly praise him for this, as an alien to Judaism, and seeing that he wants to be excommunicated, do not be embarrassed by this, but, having understood the reason why he wants this, glorify him all the more for that. And if we do not investigate the reasons, we will have to call Elijah a murderer, and Abraham not just a murderer, but also a child killer, and we will also accuse Phinehas and Peter of murder; Without observing this rule, we will make absurd conclusions not only about the saints, but also about the God of all. To prevent this from happening in all such cases, let us examine the circumstances, paying attention to the cause, intention, time and everything that can serve to justify what happened. This is what we should do now with this blessed soul. So what's the reason? Again beloved Jesus Himself. And, of course, (the apostle) does not call Him the reason, since he says: I would like to be separated from Him But this only indicates his humility; he does not even want to pretend that he is talking about a great matter and that he is bringing it as a gift to Christ. That's why he said: - to hide the greatness of the matter. And that he wanted everything for Christ, listen to the following. Having said: “relatives”, he added: Rom 9.4–5. whose sonship and glory, and covenants and legislation, and ministry and promises: whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ in the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever. Amen. What is this, you ask. If (Paul) wanted to be excommunicated so that others would believe, then he should have prayed for the same for the pagans, and if he prays only for the Jews, then he shows that he wanted excommunication not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of kinship with the Jews. And, of course, if he prayed for only pagans, then this would not be so obvious, but since he prays for only Jews, he clearly shows that he cares about this for the glory of Christ. I know that my words seem strange to you, but if you don’t make any noise, I will immediately try to explain them. It was not without reason that the apostle said what he said, but on the basis that everyone, blaming God, said that those who were exiled and deprived of honor were those who were worthy to be called sons of God, accepted the law, knew God before all nations, enjoyed special glory, served God before the whole universe, received promises, were the fathers of their tribes and, most importantly, became the forefathers of Christ Himself (this is what the words mean: “from them Christ flesh") and that, instead of them, people were brought in from the pagans who had never known God. Since, by saying this, they blasphemed God, Paul, hearing this, was tormented, grieved for the glory of God and wanted to be excommunicated, if this was possible, under the condition that the Jews would be saved - so that such blasphemy would stop and it would not seem that God had deceived their first parents, to whom he had promised gifts. (Paul wanted to be excommunicated) so that you understand how much he was crushed by the opinion that the promise of God given to Abraham remained unfulfilled: “I will give this land to you and to your seed” (Gen. 12.7). After these words (the apostle) he added: Rom.9:6. not as if the word of God had fallen away. Here he shows that he is ready to endure all this for the word of God, that is, for the promise given to Abraham. Just as Moses apparently interceded for the Jews, but did everything for the glory of God [said: stop your anger, lest they say that You could not save and “destroyed them in the wilderness” (Deut. 9.28)], so Paul says: I wished to be excommunicated, lest they say that the promise of God remained unfulfilled, that God did not do what he promised and did not put His word into effect. Therefore, he does not say this for the pagans (after all, they were not given the promise, they did not serve God and did not blaspheme Him), but he prayed about this for the Jews who received the promise, and for others close to him. Do you notice that if he had prayed for the pagans, it would not have been so clearly revealed that he was doing this for the glory of Christ; and since he wanted to be excommunicated for the Jews, he showed especially clearly that he wanted this for Christ. That is why he said: “whose is sonship and glory... and ministry and promise” (Rom 9.4). They, says (the apostle), had a law that testified about Christ, all the covenants were made with them, Christ Himself came from them, from them were all the fathers who received the promises, but nevertheless the opposite happened and they were deprived of all benefits. That is why I am tormented, he says, and if it were possible to be excluded from the face of Christ, alienated not from the love of Christ (let it not be, because he did it out of love for Christ), but from bliss and glory, I would agree to this on the condition that my Master would not be subjected to blasphemy and I should not hear from anyone that His deeds were a shadow, that God promised to some and gave to others, Christ was born of some and of others. saved He made promises to the ancestors of the Jews and, leaving their descendants, brought into possession of their goods those who had never known Him; the Jews worked, learning the law and reading the prophets, and the pagans, who had recently turned away from altars and idols, became superior to the Jews. Where is God's Providence here? So, says (the apostle), although this opinion is unfair, if they did not say this about my Master, I would gladly lose the kingdom and that ineffable glory and would suffer all the disasters, considering the greatest of all consolations for myself in sorrows is not to hear any more blasphemy against my beloved. If you have not yet understood what was said, then imagine that many fathers often decided to do this because of their children and preferred to be apart from them, just to see them prosperous, considering their happiness above the pleasure of living with them. But since we are far from such love, we cannot understand what was said. And some are unworthy even to hear the teaching of Paul and are so far from that greatest love that they think that (Paul) is talking here about temporary death. About such I can say that they do not know Paul as much as the blind do not know a ray of sunshine, and even much more. The one who died every day was exposed to clouds of dangers and said: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ, be it tribulation, or hardship, or famine, or persecution?” (Rom. 8:35) - the one who did not limit himself to what was said, passed through the heavens and the heavens of heavens, was ahead of the angels, archangels and all things above, who comprehended together the present and the future, visible and cognizable by the mind, sad, useful and contained in both, and did not leave anything unattended, who did not limit himself to this, but also imagined another similar creation, not yet existing - as after all this he could mention temporary death, just like something important. It's not like that, no. This opinion is typical of worms nesting in manure. If (the apostle) spoke about this, how would he want to be excommunicated from Christ? After all, such a death united us more with the face of Christ and contributed to the delivery of future glory. But there are also those who dare to assert something else, more worthy of laughter. (Paul) did not desire death, they say, but to be the treasure and gift of Christ. And which of the people, the most base and unworthy, would not wish for this? But how could (Paul) want this for his relatives? So, leaving fables and idle talk (which should not be refuted, since they are like childish babble), let us return again to the very saying (of the apostle) and, enjoying the sea of ​​his love, let us swim safely and reflect on the ineffable flame, about which no one speaks, will say anything worthy. (Paul's love) was wider than any sea, stronger than any fire, no word can adequately describe it, only (Paul) comprehended it as if he possessed it perfectly. So, let us repeat his words again: “I prayed... I myself shall be excommunicated” (Rom.9:3). What does it mean: “I am myself?” I, who have become a general teacher, have rendered countless services, expect countless crowns for myself, have loved Christ so much that I prefer His love to everything in the world, I burn for Him every day and put everything below my love for Him. (Paul) was concerned not only to be loved by Christ, but also to love Him deeply, and the latter in particular. That’s why he only had this in mind and endured everything easily; in all his affairs he observed one thing - to satisfy this beautiful love. And he wanted to be excommunicated, but, as this could not happen, he tries to defend himself from accusations and, presenting what everyone was noisily talking about, tries to refute it. And before proceeding to an obvious justification, he already throws some seeds of it. When he says: “whose sonship and glory are... and the law, and the ministry, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4), he expresses nothing more than the fact that God wanted them to be saved; This He proved by what He did before, by the fact that Christ came from them and He made promises to their fathers. But the Jews, out of their own ingratitude, rejected the benefit. Therefore (the apostle) represents that which testifies only to the gift of God, and does not serve to their praise; sonship, glory, promises and law were precisely the work of God’s grace. Having imagined all this and considering how much care God and His Son had put into the salvation of the Jews, (the apostle) exclaimed loudly and said: “He... is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom.9:5). He sends such thanksgiving for everyone to the Only Begotten Son of God. What do we do if others blaspheme, he says, we, knowing His secrets, ineffable Wisdom and all-encompassing Providence, know well that He is worthy not of blasphemy, but of glorification. But, not content with his own consciousness, he tries to present and judge an argument, uses the strongest expressions against the Jews and does not leave them until he destroys their suspicion. So that it does not seem that he is talking as if with enemies, he then says: “Brothers, the good will of my heart and prayer, even to God in Israel, is for salvation” (Rom. 10.1), and here, among other things he said, he tries to show that he is not saying out of enmity what he should say against them; That’s why he doesn’t refuse to call them relatives and brothers. And although everything he said, he spoke for Christ, he nevertheless attracts their disposition to himself, first paves the way for his word, rejects from himself any suspicion regarding what he intends to say against them, and then begins to consider what has occupied many. Many, as I noted above, asked why those who received the promise perished, and those who had never heard of it were saved before the first? So, removing this confusion, he offers his solution before the objection. So that someone doesn’t say: well, do you really care about the glory of God more than God himself? Does He really need your help so that His word does not perish? Answering this, (the apostle) says: I said this not in the sense that the word of God did not come true, but to prove love for Christ. And although the works were fulfilled in this form, continues (the apostle), we do not doubt the words of God and affirm that the promise is immutable. God told Abraham: “to you... and to your seed I will give... the land... and through your seed all nations will be blessed” (Gen. 26.3–4). Therefore, let’s see, he says, what kind of seed this is, since not everyone who came from Abraham is his seed, which is why it is said: Not all that exist are of Israel, but these are Israel. Rom.9:7. Not before are all the children of Abraham the seed. So, if you find out who is called the seed of Abraham, you will see that the promise was given to his seed, and you will understand that the word of God did not remain unfulfilled. Tell me: who is called the seed? It’s not I who says, answers (the apostle), but the Old Testament explains itself, saying this: “in Isaac your seed will be called” (Gen. 21.12). Explain what “in Isaac” means? Rom.9:8. That is to say, not the children of the flesh, these are the children of God: but the children of the promise are due to the seed. Notice the wisdom and height of Paul's mind: in his explanation he says that he is not the children of the flesh - the children of Abraham, but the children of God; Thus, he connects the Old Testament with the present and shows that Isaac was not just the son of Abraham. Its meaning is this: those who were born following the example of Isaac are the children of God and the seed of Abraham. That’s why he said, “Your seed will be called in Isaac,” so that you would understand that those who were born in the image of Isaac are especially the seed of Abraham. How was Isaac born? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of promise. What does it mean: according to the power of the promise? Rom.9:9. At this time I will come to you, and Sarah will have a son. This was the promise, and the word of God formed and gave birth to Isaac. So what? Although a woman's womb and womb contributed to the birth, it was not the power of the womb, but the power of the promise that produced the child. So we too are born by the word of God, because that which gives birth to us and forms us in the font of water is the word of God, and on the other hand, when we are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are born. This birth is not by nature, but by the promise of God. Just as, having predicted the birth of Isaac, He then fulfilled it, so He foretold our birth for a long time through all the prophets, and then brought it to fulfillment. Do you notice how much evidence he presented and how He who made great promises fulfilled them with all ease? If the Jews say that the words “in Isaac your seed will be called” (Gen. 21:12) mean that those born of Isaac are due to him as a seed, then they will have to consider Isaac and the Edomites and all those descended from him as sons, because their forefather Esau was the son of Isaac. But not only are the Edomites not now called children, but they were even quite alien to the Israelites. Do you see that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but in nature itself the birth from above through baptism is represented? If you tell me about lies, then I can tell you about water. And just as here everything is from the Spirit, so there everything is from promise, because falsehood, due to barrenness and old age, was colder than water. Therefore, with all attention let us understand our nobility and show a life worthy of it; There is nothing carnal or earthly in that; let it not be in us either. Not sleep, not carnal lust, not embraces and not the excitement of passion, but God’s love for mankind accomplished everything. And just as there, when age did not give any hope, so here, when old age set in as a result of sins, a new man suddenly appeared, and we all became sons of God, Abraham’s seed. Rom.9:10. Not exactly, but Rebekah also belongs to the same bed... our father... Isaac. The question was important, therefore (the apostle) gives many arguments and tries by all means to eliminate the difficulty. If it was strange and unexpected that the Jews, after so many promises, perished, then it seems more strange that we, who did not expect anything like this, entered into their property. The same thing happened as if the royal son, who was promised to inherit the throne after the king, was relegated to the ranks of those deprived of civil rights, and instead of him, a man guilty of countless crimes and sentenced to death was taken from prison and received the power that belonged to the first. What can you say about this? That the son is unworthy? But he is also unworthy, even much more. This means that they should either punish together or honor together. A similar thing, I say, happened to the pagans and to the Jews, even something much stranger. That all are unworthy, (the apostle) declared above, saying: “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3.23); but what is extraordinary is that, while everyone was unworthy, only the pagans were saved. After this, another question can be proposed, namely: if God did not intend to fulfill the promises given to the Jews, then why did He give them? After all, only people, not knowing the future and often being deceived, promise gifts to those who are not worthy to receive them; and the One who foresees the present and the future, who clearly knew that the Jews would become unworthy of the promises and, as a result, would not receive anything from what was said, for which reason did he give the promises? How did Paul decide this? He showed who Israel was, to whom God made promises. And when this was shown, it was also proven that all the promises were fulfilled. Pointing to this, he said: “Not all that are are of Israel, but these are Israel” (Rom. 9:6). (The Apostle) used the name of Israel, and not Jacob, because this name was a sign of his virtue, righteousness and gift received from above, and that Jacob saw God. But you will say: all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God, and if all have sinned, then why were some saved and others perished? Because not everyone wanted to come, although by the will of God everyone was saved, since everyone was called. However, (the apostle) does not yet say this, but solves the question more broadly, deducing a new question from other examples, just as before he resolved the greatest difficulty with another difficulty. When it was asked how, after the justification of Christ, all others began to participate in this righteousness, he cited Adam as an example, saying: “If the king’s death is through one sin... much more than the abundance of grace is acceptable, they will reign in life” (Rom. 5.17). He does not solve the question of Adam, but by his example he solves his own question and proves that there is greater reason to allow the one who died for them to have the power over them that he wants. It seems to the majority that it is not entirely in accordance with reason that everyone should suffer punishment for the sin of one, but that it is much more consistent with reason and more fitting for God that everyone should be justified for the service of one. But, however, (the apostle) did not solve the first difficulty, because the more unclear it remained, the more the Jew’s mouth was blocked, the bewilderment regarding the last difficulty transferred to the first and the last became clearer. So here (Paul) resolves the issue through new difficulties, because he had a contest with the Jews. That is why he does not fully solve the examples he presented, which, as a competitor with the Jews, he was not obliged to do, but, however, with these examples he explains everything that he needed. Why are you surprised, he says, that some of the Jews were saved and others were not? Everyone knows that in ancient times the same thing happened to the patriarchs. Why is Isaac alone called the seed of Abraham, although Abraham was the father of Ishmael and many others? Is it because Ishmael's mother was a slave? But what does this have to do with my son? However, I don’t argue, let Ishmael be excluded for the sake of his mother. But what about the children of Keturah? Were they not free and were they not born of a free woman? Why did they not receive the benefits given to Isaac? And what am I saying about them? Rebekah was the only wife of Isaac, gave birth to two sons, both from Isaac, but those born, being from the same father and from the same mother, causing her the same birth pains, being half-blooded, half-bred and, moreover, twins, received unequal rights. Here you can no longer refer to the slavery of the mother, as in relation to Ishmael, and to the fact that they were not born from the same womb, as in relation to the children of Keturah and Sarah, but here at the same hour the pains of birth were felt. Therefore, Paul, as if considering the last example more clear, says that this came true not only to Isaac, but also to Rebecca from the same bed of Isaac our father. Rom.9:11–13. Having not yet been born, nor having done anything good or evil, so that by election the offer of God may remain, not from works, but from him who calls, speaking to her, as if the greater will work for the lesser, as it is written: I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau. Why was one loved and the other hated? Why did one serve and the other accept services? Was it because one was vicious and the other good? But when they were not yet born, one was honored, and the other was condemned, since even before their birth God said, “For the greater will serve the lesser.” Why did God say this? Because He does not wait, like a man, for the end of the matter to see who is good and who is not, but even before that he knows who is vicious and who is not. The same thing happened to the Israelites, and much more miraculously. What can we say, he continues, about Esau and Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? And the Israelites had a common sin: they all worshiped the calf, but some received mercy and others did not. “I will have mercy on him,” he says, “if I have mercy on him, and I will show mercy on him if I have mercy on him” (Rom. 9:15). The same can be seen in those who are punished. What can be said about Pharaoh, why was he punished and suffered such great punishment? Because he was cruel and rebellious. But was he the only one like that, and there was no one else? Why was he punished so severely? Why, in relation to the Jews, did God not speak about the whole people, and also did not honor everyone with the same honor? It is said: “if they are... like the sand of the sea, their remains will be saved” (Isaiah 10.22). And why only the remainder? You see how much bewilderment the subject in question causes. And it is quite natural: whenever the enemy can be put into difficulty, do not immediately offer a solution. After all, if he himself turns out to be guilty of his ignorance, then why should you expose yourself to unnecessary danger? Why are you making him more impudent by taking everything upon yourself? Tell me, Jew, on what basis do you, being in such great difficulties and not being able to resolve any of them, bother us with questions regarding the calling of the pagans? And I, of course, can point out the true reason why the pagans were justified, but you (the Jews) were deprived of the promises. So what is this reason? The one that they are justified by faith, but you want to be justified by the works of the law and, as a result of your stubbornness, you have lost everything. “For they do not understand God’s righteousness and seek to establish their own righteousness, not obeying the righteousness of God” (Rom 10.3). Briefly, the blessed (apostle) in these words gives a general solution to the question, but for greater clarity we examine each word in detail, bearing in mind that the desire of blessed Paul was to teach through everything said that only God knows the worthy, and no one among people, and although it seems to them that they know well, they are constantly mistaken in their conclusion. He who knows the secrets already clearly knows who is worthy of crowns and who is worthy of punishment and torment. Therefore, He exposed and punished many who, according to people, were good, and crowned many who were considered wicked and testified that they were not such. He pronounces the verdict not on the recall of slaves, but on his own strict and impartial court and does not wait for the end of the case to recognize one as bad and another not. However, in order not to say anything unclear again, let us turn to the apostolic words. “Not exactly, but Rebekah also belongs to one bed...to have things” (Rom.9:10). Although I could, argues (the apostle), point to the children of Keturah, I do not talk about this, but in order to completely win the victory, I cite as an example those born of one father and one mother. Both were born from Rebekah and Isaac, the legitimate son of an impeccable and preferred father to whom it was said: “Your seed will be called Isaac” (Gen. 21:12), and who became the father of us all. And if he is our father, then those descended from him must also be fathers, but this was not the case. You see that this happened not only to Abraham, but also to his son - that faith and virtue shine everywhere, and they mean true kinship. From here we learn that the children of Abraham are called his children not only by birth, but also because they are worthy of the virtue of the one who gave birth. And if they were called only by one birth, then Esau would have to enjoy equal rights with Jacob, because Esau came from a dead womb, and his mother was barren. But it was not only birth that was required, but also character, which is not something accidental, but serves for edification in our lives. And (the apostle) does not say that since one was good and the other was vicious, the first was therefore preferred, so that they would not immediately object to him: how? who is kinder? are they those who are of the Gentiles, or those who are of the circumcision? Although (the apostle) could refer to actual experience in this, he does not do this, since it seemed to him very cruel, and he laid everything on the divine mind, with which no one can dare to fight, except perhaps the completely insane. “Not yet born,” he says, “nor having done anything good or evil... saying to her, “The greater will do the work of the least” (Rom. 9:11-12), and proves that there is no benefit in nobility in the flesh, but spiritual virtue is needed, which God knows even before deeds. “Being not yet born, nor having done anything good or evil, so that God’s offer may remain according to election, saying to her that the greater will work for the lesser.” To choose from birth itself is a matter of foreknowledge: so that, he says, the election of God may be revealed, accomplished according to will and foreknowledge; From the first day, God recognized and predicted both good and bad. So, do not tell me, continues (the apostle), that you read the law and the prophets and served for so long. He who knows and tests the soul also knows who is worthy of salvation. Therefore, yield to the incomprehensible in your choice; He alone knows correctly who to crown. How many were there who, judging by the external evidence of their deeds, seemed better than Matthew? But he who knows secrets and knows how to test the faculties of the mind, noticed a pearl lying in the mud, and, passing others and marveling at the good looks of Matthew, chose him and, adding his own grace to the nobility of his will, showed him worthy. Whoever is able to judge these temporary arts or about all other matters chooses not what ignorant people approve, but what he himself knows perfectly, and often rejects what the ignorant approve, and approves what they reject. This is what those who train them do in choosing horses, as well as those who appraise expensive stones and those versed in other arts. Moreover, the lover of mankind, God, the infinite Wisdom, the only one who clearly knows everything, will not adhere to human opinions, but will pronounce judgment on everything according to his own wisdom, completely accurate and unstumbling. So He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot, and dishonored and rejected the high priests, elders and rulers. Everyone knows that the same thing happened to the martyrs. Many of the people who were completely rejected were crowned during the persecution, and, on the contrary, others, considered great by the people, stumbled and fell. So, do not demand an account from the Creator and do not ask why one was crowned and the other punished. He knows how to do everything with justice, which is why he said: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau” (Rom. 9:13). That this was just, you learned from the consequences, but God knew it clearly even before the end. It requires not only the detection of deeds, but also a noble will and prudent thought. Such a person, even if he has ever sinned under the influence of some circumstance, will soon correct himself, even if he happens to become stubborn in vice, he will not be despised, but the omniscient God will soon remember him. Likewise, a depraved person, even if he has done something apparently good, will perish because he does it with a bad disposition. So David, having committed murder and adultery, soon made amends for his crimes, because he was carried away by the circumstances and did this not out of attachment to vice, but the Pharisee, who did nothing of the kind and even boasted of good deeds, ruined everything with his evil will. Rom.9:14. What are we talking about? Is food not right with God? It won't happen. So, God is fair both to us and to the Jews. Then (the apostle) adds another thought, which is darker than the previous one. Which one? Rom.9:15. Moses says: I will have mercy on him if I have mercy, and I will show mercy on him if I have mercy on him. Again he strengthens the objection, interrupting it halfway, resolving it and again introducing another difficulty. But in order to make these words clearer, it is necessary to interpret them. God, even before the birth of Jacob and Esau, argues (the apostle), said, “For the greatest will do the work of the least” (Rom. 9:12). So what? Is God really unfair? Not at all. Listen further. Jacob and Esau differed - one in virtue, the other in vices, but the Jews all committed the same sin, namely, they drained the calf. And yet some were punished, while others were not. That’s why God said: “If I have mercy on him, I will have mercy, and if I have mercy on him, I will show mercy.” It is not your business, Moses, to know who is worthy of love for mankind, but leave it to Me. And if it is not Moses’ business to know this, much less it is not ours. Therefore (the apostle), in order to convince the objector and the dignity of his person, he did not simply quote these words, but mentioned to whom they were spoken. “Moiseov bo says,” he says. Having expressed the solution to the difficulty, he interrupts it halfway, introducing a new opposite and says this: Rom.9:16–17. Likewise, neither the willing nor the current, but the merciful God. For the Scripture of Pharaoh says: For unto this truth have I raised thee, that by thee I may show My power, and that My name may be proclaimed throughout all the earth. As he said above that some were saved and others were punished, so here he says that Pharaoh was preserved for punishment. Then he introduces the opposite again. Rom.9:18–19. In the same way, even if he wants, he has mercy; but if he wants, he hardens. Speak to me: why is he still reproaching? Who can resist His will? Do you see how (the apostle) tried by all means to make the question difficult? And he does not immediately give a decision, doing this with benefit, but first stops the mouth of the objector, saying this: Rom.9:20–21. Likewise, O man, who are you to answer God? (The Apostle) does this in order to eliminate his idle curiosity and excessive fussiness, putting a rein on him and instilling in him to understand the difference between God and man, as well as how incomprehensible Divine Providence is and exceeds our understanding and how everything must submit to God; and he does this so that, having convinced the listener of this, tamed and humbled his thoughts, he can more conveniently give his decision and make his words completely understandable to the listener. And he doesn’t say that it’s impossible to solve this, but what? He considers it criminal to ask about this, since what is said by God must be obeyed, and not investigated, even if we do not know the reason. That’s why (the apostle) says: “Who are you against answering God”? Do you notice how he humbled and brought down arrogance? “Who are you”? Are you a participant in power? Have you not been appointed a judge for God? But in comparison with God you cannot be called anything, you cannot be said to be this or that, but nothing. And ask: “Who are you?” - much more derogatory than saying: you are nothing. And in general, with his question (the apostle) he expresses great indignation. He did not say: Who are you who speaks to God? - but: “answer against”, that is, you who argue, resist. To say: “it should have been like this”, “it shouldn’t have been like that” means bickering. Do you see how the apostle frightened, amazed, made you tremble more than ask and be curious? This is characteristic of the most experienced teacher - not to follow the wishes of the students in everything, but to lead them according to his own will, first to pull out the thorns, and then to plant the seeds and not suddenly give an answer to every question. Food speaks to the building who created it: why did you create me? Or should the bastard in the mud not have the power, from the same confusion to create a vessel in honor, but not in honor? Here (the apostle) does not destroy free will, but shows to what extent one must obey God. In demanding an account from God, you have to feel nothing more than mud. And not only should you not contradict you and ask questions, but you should not even speak, not think, be like that soulless clay that is submissive to the hands of the potter and is used by him as he wishes. This is precisely why the apostle took such an example, not as a model of life, but as proof of submissive and silent obedience. And this should be observed everywhere - not all of the examples should be accepted, but the necessary ones should be selected from them, for which they are given, and everything else should be discarded. When it is said: “he lies down like a lion” (Num. 24.9), then we take only the concept of invincible and terrible, and not brutality or anything else characteristic of a lion, and again, when it is said: “I will devour them like a bear deprived” (Hosea 13.8), then we take the concept of vindictiveness, and when it is said: “Our God consumes fire” (Deut. 4.24), then Let's take the concept of exterminatory punishment; So here it is necessary to understand the words: clay, potter and vessel. When (the apostle) adds and says: “Or should the wretch in the clay not have power, from the same confusion to create a vessel for honor, but not for honor?” - then do not think that Paul said this in the sense of creation or to prove the necessity of the will, but to express power and difference in orders. If we do not understand his words in this sense, then many absurd consequences will arise. After all, if we are talking about will here, then God will turn out to be the creator of both good and evil, and man will not be guilty of either; then it will turn out that Paul, while crowning free will everywhere, contradicts himself. So, (the apostle) wants to reveal here nothing more than to convince the listener to obey God completely and not demand an account from Him for anything. Just as a potter, he argues, makes from the same mixture what he pleases, and no one contradicts him, so do not ask God and do not be curious about why He punishes some of the people of the same kind and rewards others, but reverence Him and imitate the clay, and just as it is submissive to the hands of the potter, so you too submit to the will of the Ruler of the universe. He does nothing without a purpose and how it will happen, although you yourself do not comprehend the secrets of Wisdom. You allow the potter to prepare different products from the same mixture and do not blame him for this, and you demand from God an account regarding punishments and honors, and do not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not worthy, but since the composition itself has the same essence, you assume that everyone has the same will. What unfoundedness! After all, it does not depend on the potter that from the same mixture some go for honorable and others for low use, but on the disposal of those who use the product, so here too the matter depends on free will. In addition, as I noted above, an example should be taken in one respect: a person should not contradict God, but leave everything to His incomprehensible wisdom. The example must be more extensive than the subject on which it is given, so that it can have a stronger effect on the listeners, since if it were not more extensive and did not contain much, it would not be able to touch and excite the objector as it should. So, (the apostle) adequately blocked the inappropriate stubbornness (of the listeners), and then he gives the solution itself. Which one? Rom.9:22–24. If God show His wrath and reveal His power, He endured in much longsuffering the vessels of wrath, perfected for destruction: and let the riches of His glory speak in the vessels of mercy, which was prepared in advance for glory, which He also called us, not only from the Jews, but also from the tongue. The meaning of these words is this: Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who, with his hardness of heart, inflamed the wrath of God; Having repeatedly experienced God's patience, he did not become better, but remained incorrigible. Therefore (the apostle) called him not only a vessel of wrath, but also perfect for destruction, that is, ready for destruction and, of course, from himself and by his own will. Just as God did not leave anything that led to his correction, so he himself did not leave anything that served to his destruction and deprived him of an apology. But, however, God, knowing this, endured everything with much long-suffering, wanting to bring him to repentance, since if he had not wanted this, he would not have endured so much time. And since Pharaoh did not want to take advantage of (God’s) long-suffering for repentance, but prepared himself for wrath, then (God) used it to correct others, so that through his punishment he could make others more zealous and at the same time show His power. And that God wants to demonstrate His power not in punishments, but in another way - in blessings and mercies - this (the apostle) constantly asserted above. If Paul does not want to show his strength in this, because he says: “Not that we should appear skillfully, but that you should do good” (2 Cor 13.7), then God is much more so. But since (God) was long-suffering at first in order to bring (Pharaoh) to repentance, but he did not repent, He endured him for quite some time in order to simultaneously show both His goodness and His power, whether he would somehow want to take advantage of this great long-suffering. And just as, having punished (Pharaoh), who remained incorrigible, (God) showed His power, so, having had mercy on many great but repentant sinners, He showed His love for mankind. But (the apostle) did not call this love of mankind, but glory, showing that this primarily constitutes the glory of God and that God cared about this more than about everything else. When he says: “I am prepared for glory,” he expresses by this that not everything comes from God alone, because if this were so, then nothing would prevent everyone from being saved. At the same time, (the apostle) again shows the foreknowledge of God and destroys the difference between Jews and pagans. And from here he again derives considerable justification for his words. Not only did some of the Jews perish and others were saved, but this also happened to the pagans, why (Paul) did not say: all the pagans, but - “from the tongue”, and did not (say): all Jews, but - “from the Jews”. Just as Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath because of his own iniquity, so those who were saved became vessels of mercy because of their piety. And although the majority belongs to God, we also bring something small from ourselves. Therefore (the apostle) did not say: vessels of merit, or: vessels of boldness, but: “vessels of mercy,” showing that everything belongs to God. Also, the words: “neither willing nor existing,” although spoken in the form of an opposition, but, as spoken on behalf of Paul himself, do not present any difficulty. When he says: “neither willing nor existing” (Rom. 9:16), this does not destroy freedom, but shows that not everything belongs to man, but, on the contrary, he needs grace from above. One must desire and perform exploits, but one must rely not on one’s own exploits, but on God’s love for mankind, as in another place (the apostle) said: “Not I, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor 15.10). And he said well: “I am prepared in advance for glory.” Since the Jews reproached (Christians) with the fact that they were saved by grace, and thought by this to shame them, then (Paul) completely eliminates such an idea. If the work of salvation brought glory to God, then much more to those through whom God was glorified. Notice then the kindness and ineffable wisdom (of the apostle). Discussing punishments, he could present as an example not Pharaoh, but the sinners of the Jews, make his speech more clear, prove that even where there were the same fathers and the same sins, some perished and others were pardoned, and persuade them no longer to be perplexed by the fact that some of the pagans were saved, while the Jews perished. But (the apostle), in order not to make his speech unpleasant, not to be forced to call the Jews vessels of wrath, he presents the barbarian as an example of punishment, and borrows examples of those who were pardoned from the Jewish people. And although (the apostle) sufficiently justifies God, who, knowing well that (Pharaoh) prepared himself for a vessel of wrath, used everything on His part - waiting, long-suffering and not just long-suffering, but great long-suffering, but did not want to say that (God) did the same with the Jews. Why are some vessels of wrath, and others vessels of mercy? Of my own free will. But God, in His immeasurable goodness, shows mercy to both. He had mercy not only on those being saved, but also on Pharaoh, as much as he could, and both of them enjoyed the same long-suffering. And if (Pharaoh) was not saved, then completely contrary to the will of God, since on the part of God (Pharaoh) had nothing less than those saved. So (the apostle), having presented the solution to the question on the basis of deeds, for greater certainty of what was said, he also cites the words of the prophets who foretold the same thing. And Hosea, he says, long ago wrote about it this way: Rom.9:25. My people are not my people, and my beloved is not my beloved (cf. Hos. 2.23). So that they do not say: you are leading us astray, - saying this, (the apostle) called Hosea as a witness, who cries out and says: “I will not call my people my people.” Who were they - “not my people?” Obviously pagans. Who is “not beloved?” They're the same again. However, it is said about them that they will be a people, beloved and sons of God. Rom.9:26. There they will be called sons of the living God, - continues (the apostle). If they begin to say that this was said about those who believed among the Jews, then our interpretation will be appropriate. If such a change occurred with those who, after many benefits, turned out to be ungrateful and alien, having lost even what made them a people, then what could prevent the calling and rewarding for obedience of the same mercies of those who were alienated not after they were accepted, but were alien from the very beginning? (The Apostle) is not content with referring to Hosea, but after him he quotes the words of Isaiah, who speaks in agreement with Hosea. Rom.9:27. Isaiah, continues (Paul), cries out for Israel, that is, he boldly and without hiding proclaims. So, why do you accuse us when the prophets louder than a trumpet proclaim the same thing? What is Isaiah crying out for? If the number of the children of Israel is like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved (Isaiah 10.22). Do you see that even according to Isaiah, not everyone will be saved, but only those worthy of salvation? I am not afraid of multitudes, says (God), and I am not afraid of a generation that has multiplied so much, but I save only those who turn out to be worthy. And not only did (the prophet) mention the sand of the sea, but he also reminds them of the Old Testament promise, which they became unworthy of. So why are you worried, claiming that the promise is broken, when all the prophets declare that not everyone is saved? Then he talks about the image of salvation. Do you notice the accuracy of the prophet and the prudence of the apostle, who gives the most suitable testimony? It not only shows that not all, but some, will be saved, but it also adds how they will be saved. How will they be saved and how will God honor their good deeds? Rom.9:28. The word... ending and shortening in truth, says (the prophet), - like the word shortened the Lord will create on earth (cf. Isaiah 10.23). This means the following: there is no need to go far, toil and tire yourself with legal affairs; on the contrary, salvation will be achieved in a very short way. This is faith: it contains salvation in short words. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” says (the apostle), “and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10.9). Do you understand what it means: “the Lord will create a shortened word on the earth”? It is amazing that this short word brought not only salvation, but also righteousness. Rom.9:29. And just as Isaiah prophesied: if the Lord of hosts had not left us seeds, they would have become like Sodom, and like Gomorrah they would have become like (cf. Isaiah 1.9). Again (the apostle) proves something else here—namely, that even a few were not saved by themselves. And they would have perished and suffered the fate of Sodom, that is, they would have been exterminated, just as the Sodomites all died without exception and not even a random seed remained of them; and these, continues (the apostle), would have perished, like those, if God had not shown great kindness and preserved them for the sake of faith. This also happened during the sensual (Babylonian) captivity, because most of the Jews were taken into captivity and died, and a few were only saved. Rom.9:30–31. What the hell are we talking about, he says? Like the pagans who do not persecute the truth, they comprehend the truth, the truth that comes from faith. Israel, persecuting the law of righteousness, did not comprehend the law of righteousness. Here, finally, is the clearest solution. Since (the apostle) proved on the basis of works that “all... beings are not of Israel, these are Israel” (Rom. 9:6) and confirmed this by the ancestors of Jacob and Esau and the testimony of the prophets, he then offers the most important solution on the basis of Hosea and Isaiah, having previously increased the bewilderment. There were two questions: that the pagans received salvation, and that they received it without seeking it, that is, without caring about it. And again, regarding the Jews, there were also two perplexities: the Jews did not achieve salvation, and they did not achieve it despite the fact that they sought. Therefore (the apostle) used the strongest expressions. He did not say that they had righteousness, but “postigosha,” because the most extraordinary and strange thing was that the one who sought did not receive, and the one who did not seek received. And apparently with the word “persecution” (the apostle) he pleases the Jews, but subsequently he deals a decisive blow. And since he could give a strong solution, he was not afraid to make the objection more unpleasant. Therefore, he does not talk about faith and the righteousness that arises from it, but proves that the Jews were defeated before faith and condemned by their own laws. You, a Jew, says (Paul), have not even found legal righteousness, because you have broken the law and become guilty of an oath; and the pagans, who entered not through the law, but by another way, found a righteousness greater than legal righteousness, namely, the righteousness of faith. The apostle also said above: “If Abraham were justified by works, he has praise, but not from God” (Rom. 4.2), proving that the righteousness of faith is higher than the righteousness of the law. So, above I said that there were two perplexities, but now there are three questions: that the pagans found righteousness, that they found it without seeking it, and that they found a righteousness greater than the righteousness of the law. The opposite questions arise regarding the Jews: that Israel did not find righteousness, that it did not find it despite the fact that it sought, and that it did not find even less righteousness. So, having placed the listener in difficulty, (the apostle) then offers a brief solution and sets out the reason for everything that was said. What is this reason? That a person is justified not by faith, but by the works of the law. This is the clearest decision of the whole passage, which would not have been so easily accepted if (the apostle) had proposed it at the beginning; and since he placed it after many perplexities, arguments and explanations, and used numerous preliminary reservations, he made it completely understandable and accessible. The reason for the death of the Jews, he says, was that Rom.9:32–33. not from faith, but as from the works of the law, wanted to justify themselves. He did not say from works, but as if from the works of the law, showing that they did not have this righteousness either. For I stumbled over the stone of stumbling, as it is written: Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a stone of offense: and whoever believes in it will not be put to shame. Do you notice again how from faith comes boldness and a universal gift? This is said not only about the Jews, but about the entire human race. Everyone, says (the apostle), both Jew, and Greek, and Scythian, and Thracian, and whoever he is, if he believes, will enjoy great freedom. The prophet’s speech is amazing not only about what they will believe, but also about what they will not believe, since to stumble means not to believe. As above, speaking about the lost and those being saved, (the apostle) said: “though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved,” and again: “unless the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, as Sodom would have been,” and also: “he called... not exactly from the Jews, but also from the tongue” (Rom. 9:24, 27, 29), - so also here he says that some will believe, while others will stumble, and stumbling comes from inattention and from looking at something else. And the Jews, paying all attention to the law, stumbled over a stone. The stone of stumbling (the apostle) also called a stone of temptation in relation to the mood and end of unbelievers. Now is what was said clear to you or does it require even more explanation? I think that for those who are attentive it is clear, but if for others it is not intelligible, then you can, if you meet by chance, ask and find out. For this reason I have presented a very lengthy interpretation, so that, by interrupting the sequence of speech, I would not be forced to damage its clarity. For the same reason, here I end the word without offering a moral lesson, as I am in the habit of doing, so as not to obscure in your memory the many subjects that were discussed. Now is the time to conclude the speech, ending it in the proper way, that is, with praise to the God of all. So, having given a common rest - both to ourselves, who spoke, and to you, who listened - let us give glory to Him, because His is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. You might be interested in: