Беседа 13

2 Corinthians 6:11–12. Our lips are open to you, Corinthians, our hearts are enlarged. You are not cramped in us; but your hearts are tight. Paul's love for everyone. - His prudence and humility. – Alms should not be done for show. – In matters pertaining to salvation, the poor have priority over the rich. 1. (The Apostle) said about his temptations and sorrows: “In patience,” he says, “in sorrows, in troubles, in distress, in wounds, in prisons, in exiles, in labors, in vigils”; showed how important and beneficial they are: “they make us sad,” he says, “but we always rejoice; We are poor, but we enrich many; We have nothing, but we possess everything” (“as we who mourn, yet always rejoice: as we are poor, but have many riches; as we have nothing, but contain everything”) (2 Cor. 6:10); called them weapons: “we are punished,” he says, “but we do not die” (“for we are punished, and not killed”) (2 Cor. 6:9); I discovered in them God’s great care for us and His power: “so that the exceeding power,” he says, “may be ascribed to God, and not to us” (“let the exceeding power be of God, and not from us”) (2 Cor. 4:7); depicted the danger of his exploits: “always,” he says, “we carry His death” (2 Cor. 4:10); and that this death serves as clear evidence of the resurrection: “so that the life of Jesus,” he says, “may be revealed in our body” (“and the life of Jesus may appear in our dead flesh”) (2 Cor. 4:11); said what he was awarded by the Lord, and what ministry was entrusted to him: “And as if God himself,” he says, “exhorts through us; e. “not the letter, but the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:6); and that not only for this reason he is worthy of respect, but also for the sake of the very sorrows: “Thanks be to God,” he says, “who always makes us conquerors” (2 Cor. 2:14). After all, he finally begins to denounce (the Corinthians) that they have little disposition towards him. However, he does not immediately begin to denounce them, but first tells them about the love that he has always shown for them, and then proceeds to Even though the one who reproaches deserves the respect of his listeners, his word is accepted more readily when he also shows his love for those being reproached. That is why the apostle, having first mentioned his temptations, labors and exploits, moves on to speak about his love for them, and then begins to reprove them. “Our lips,” he says, “are open to you, Corinthians.” (“Our mouth is opened to you, O Corinthians”) (2 Cor. 6:11). What kind of evidence of love is this? And what do these words even mean? “We do not want,” he says, “to remain silent in front of you, but we always want to speak and talk with you. And this is what lovers usually do. And what an embrace of hands is to the body, a friendly conversation is to the soul.” At the same time, he also hints at something else here. What exactly? “This is (says) that we openly talk with you, as with lovers, not hiding anything from you and not hiding anything.” Since he begins to denounce them, he seems to ask them to apologize for this, making the very denunciation, boldly expressed, proof of strong love for them. And the very name (“Corinthians”) expresses great love, affection and ardor (feelings). It is known that we often repeat the names of those we love. “Our heart is enlarged” (“Our heart has expanded”). Just as warmth expands (objects), so love tends to expand (the heart), because it is a virtue that is both hot and inflames. She opened Pavlova’s lips and enlarged his heart. “I love you not only with my lips,” he says, “but my heart also agrees with my lips. That’s why I speak boldly, with open lips and with all my heart.” Truly, there is nothing more spacious than Pavlov’s heart; it loved all the faithful as ardently as someone (loves) his friend, not splitting his love into parts and therefore weakening, but remaining in everyone entirely. And is it surprising that Paul had such love for the faithful, when his heart embraced the whole universe, and even the unbelievers? That is why he did not say: I love you, but much more expressively: “Our lips are open,... our heart is enlarged” (“our lips are opened,... our heart is expanded”); we have everyone in our hearts, and not just somehow, but with great spaciousness, because in this case the beloved is placed in the heart of the lover without any danger.” That’s why he says: “You are not cramped in us; but your hearts are crowded” (“you are not crowded into us, but you are oppressed in your bellies”) (2 Cor. 6:12). See how he spares even in the most reproofs. And this is the property of those who love deeply. He didn’t say: “you don’t love us,” but (he only said): “not to the extent (you love us),” because he didn’t want to reproach them too much. By re-reading his messages, anyone can see everywhere how much he loved believers. To the Romans, for example, he writes: “I greatly desire (επιποθώ) to see you” (Rom. 1:11); and again: “I purposed to come to you many times” (“I desired to come to you with multitudes”) (Rom. 1:13); also: “so that someday the will of God may prosper for me to come to you” (“if it is good for me to come to you”) (Rom. 1:10). And to the Galatians he writes: “My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth” (“my children, in the same way I am sick”) (Gal. 4:19). And again to the Ephesians: “For this reason I bow my knees for you” ( “For this reason I bow my knees for you”) (Eph. 3:14). To the Philippians (wrote this way): “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of praise?” (“Who is my hope, or joy, or crown of boasting? Are you not also?”) (1 Thess. 2:19), - and said that he wears them “in his heart and in his bonds” (Phil. 1:7). And to the Colossians: “I want you to know what a feat I have for your sake... and for the sake of all who have not seen my face in the flesh, so that their hearts may be comforted" ("I want to see you, since the imam has labored for you, and even though you have not seen me in the flesh, so that your hearts may be comforted" (Colossians 2:1); and to the Thessalonians: "just as a nurse tenderly treats her children. So we, out of zeal for you, wanted to convey to you not only the gospel of God, but also souls ours" ("as a milkmaid warms her children, so desiring your good will to give you not just the gospel, but also her own souls") (1 Thess. 2:7-8). Or to Timothy: "remembering your tears, that I may be filled with joy" ("remembering your tears, that I may be filled with joy") (2 Tim. 1:4); also to Titus: “to the true son” (“to the eternal (αγαπητώ) child”) (Titus 1:4). In the same way to Philemon. 2. He writes a lot of similar things to the Jews, never ceasing to console them like a mother persuading her sad children: “Just a little while, a very little, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry” (Heb. 10:37). With the same love for them (the Corinthians) he says: “You are not crowded in us” (“you do not fit tightly in us”). Moreover, he says that not only does he love them, but that they also love him, thereby wanting to attract them even more to himself. He testifies to the same thing about them when he says that Titus came, “telling us your desire, your mourning, your jealousy” (2 Cor. 7:7). The same goes for the Galatians: “If it were possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me” (Gal.4:15); and to the Thessalonians: “what kind of entrance did we have to you” (1 Thessalonians 1:9); and to Timothy: “Remembering your tears, so that I may be filled with joy” (2 Tim. 1:4). And everywhere in his messages anyone can find evidence of his love for his disciples and their love for him, although not equal. So in this epistle he says: “having loved you exceedingly, I am loved less by you” (“even though I love you too much, I am loved less”) (2 Cor. 12:15). But since he says already at the end (of the message); and here it is even stronger: “You are not cramped in us; but your hearts are crowded” (“you are not crowded into us, but you are oppressed in your bellies”). “You accept,” he says, “one, but I accept a whole city and such a numerous people.” He did not say again, “you do not accept us,” but, “your hearts are crowded” (“you are oppressed”); With these words he pointed out the same thing, but only more leniently, so that the reproof would not be too cruel. “In equal recompense,” I say, as to children, “you also will be spread out” (“The same reward, like a child, I say, you will also be spread out”) (2 Cor. 6:13). And although it is not the same thing - first to be loved, and then to love others, because the one who loved later, even if he paid with equal love, already stands lower because the other preceded him with love - but I do not enter, he says, into a strict search; It’s enough for me if you, taking my example, show the same measure of love with which I love you.” Then, to show how necessary this is for them, and how his words are alien to any kindness, he adds: “I speak like children.” What does it mean: “like children”? This means “I ask nothing more from you except your love for me as a father.” And note the prudence and humility of the (apostle). He no longer speaks here about the disasters he endured for them, about his labors, about mortal dangers, even though he could say a lot - he is so alien to pride! - but he speaks only about his love, and asks for mutual love from them, - “because I,” he says, “are your father, and I love you very much.” The one who enjoys love is sometimes very irritated by being reminded of good deeds, because he sees this as a reproach to himself. Therefore, Paul does not do this, but only says: “Love me as the father’s children,” which is much closer to (human) nature, and constitutes the duty of everyone in relation to the father. Then, so that no one thinks that he is saying this for his own benefit, he further shows that for their own good he wants to gain their love for himself, which is why he adds: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers” (“do not be unequally yoked like unfaithfulness”) (2 Cor. 6:14). He didn’t say “don’t mingle with the infidels”; but, in order to more strongly expose them as violators of the truth, he says: do not deviate (from their path). “What fellowship has righteousness with iniquity?” (“What has righteousness to do with lawlessness?”). Here he makes a distinction no longer between his love and the love of those who corrupted the Corinthians, but between the nobility of the latter and the baseness of the former. This made his speech more important and more consistent with his dignity, and more attractive to the Corinthians. If someone said to a son who does not honor his parents and indulges in depraved people: “What are you doing, child? Do you despise your father and prefer to him people who are depraved and devoted to all wickedness? Don’t you know how much better and nobler you are than them?” - then with such words he would better reject him from communicating with them than if he began to praise only his father. So, if he said: “Don’t you know how much better your father is than theirs?” – then I wouldn’t have done anything with it. On the contrary, if he, having left his father, points out the superiority of the son himself over them, saying: “Do you really not know who you are and who they are? How can you not think about your nobility and free origin, and their baseness? What do you have in common with such thieves, adulterers, robbers? - then, as if inspiring him with such praise, he will easily dispose him to leave the community with them. He will not accept the first admonitions so easily because praising his father will already serve as an accusation, since it is in this case that he appears to be an insulter not only to his father, but also to such a father; here he won’t hear anything like that. Besides, who doesn’t like praise? And therefore the reproof itself, combined with the praise of the listener, is more acceptable. It softens, elevates the spirit and makes you abhor community with bad people. But what is surprising here is not only such a distinction, but also the fact that he came up with something more to arouse fear in them. At first, it is he who conducts his speech through questions, which usually happens when talking about something known and obvious to everyone; then he distributes it under many and different names. Not one, in fact, not two or three, but many names of (compared) things he puts before the eyes of the listeners in order to depict on the one hand the height of virtues, and on the other the extreme baseness of vice, and through the great, even infinite distance between them shows that the matter no longer requires any proof. “What fellowship,” he says, “is there between righteousness and iniquity? What does light have in common with darkness? What agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What is the relationship between the church of God and idols? ("What fellowship has righteousness with iniquity? What fellowship has light had with darkness? What agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what part shall I return with the unbeliever? Or what fellowship shall the church of God have with idols?") (2 Cor. 6:14-16). 3. Look what simple, yet sufficient words (the apostle) uses to disgust (he yokes the Corinthians with infidels). He did not say: “(what fellowship) does righteousness have with lawlessness (παρανομία),” but much more strongly, “with lawlessness” (ανομία). In the same way, he did not say: “(what kind of communication) those who are in the light have with those who are in darkness,” but contrasts the very things that are opposite to each other and reject one another, that is, light and darkness. He also did not say: “(what agreement) is there between the followers of Christ and the children of the devil,” but - that a much greater opposition is revealed - between Christ and Belial - calling this apostate by a Jewish name. “What is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel?” (“Or which part will I return with the infidel?”) So that no one thinks that he is simply blaming evil and praising virtue, he here also indicates persons, albeit vaguely. And he did not say: “what kind of communication,” but what rewards, calling them “part” (μερίς). “What is the relationship between the church of God and idols? For you are the church of the living God" ("Why is the church of God laid down from idols? For you are the church of the living God"). The meaning of these words is this. “Your king has nothing in common with the devil (“What agreement is there between Christ and Belial?”); Their deeds have nothing in common with each other (“What does light have in common with darkness?”). Therefore, you should not have any communication with him (the devil?).” The apostle first points to the king, and then to them, in order to distract them from the devil the sooner. Further, saying: “What is the relationship between the church of God and idols?” and adding: “For you are the church of the living God,” (the apostle) considered it necessary to give evidence of this, wanting to show that these words are not mere flattery, since anyone who praises without presenting reasons for this may be thought to be flattering. What evidence does he give? “I will dwell in them and walk around,” that is, “I will dwell in these churches and walk in them,” thereby showing great favor towards them, “and I will be your God, and you will be My people” (“and you will be my people, and I will be their God”). (Lev.26:12). “Why,” he says, “do you, carrying God within yourself, run to idols, a God who has nothing in common with them? Is such an act worthy of any apology? Think about who lives in you and dwells with you.” “Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean; and I will receive you” (“Then come ye out from among them and separate yourself, and touch not unclean things: and I will receive you, says the Lord”) (2 Cor. 6:17). He did not say: “Do not create uncleanness”; but, demanding great precision from them, he said: “don’t even touch or get close to her.” What constitutes carnal uncleanness? Fornication, adultery and all forms of carnal knowledge. What about spiritual? Unclean thoughts, voluptuous gaze, memory malice, deception and the like. He wants us to be clean from both impurities. Look, here is the reward for that - separation from the wicked and union with God. But listen even further: “And I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord” (“And I will be a father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord)” (2 Cor. 6:18). You see how the prophet from ancient times already predicted our true nobility, that is, rebirth through grace. “Therefore, beloved, having these promises” (“Sitseva, therefore, having the promises, concerning the beloved”) (2 Cor. 7:1). Which? The fact that we have become churches for God, His sons and daughters, that He dwells and dwells in us, that we have become His people and His name, our God and Father. “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” - let us not touch uncleanness - this is exactly what “defilement of the flesh” means - and that which pollutes the soul - this is exactly what “defilement of the spirit” means. However, he is not yet satisfied with this alone, and therefore adds: “performing holiness in the fear of God.” Merely not touching something unclean does not make one clean; In order for us to become saints, this requires something else, namely zeal, vigilance and piety. And he said well: “in the fear of God,” because one can maintain chastity not in the fear of God, but for vain glory. However, he also meant something else when he said: “in the fear of God,” namely, the way in which holiness is achieved. Indeed, no matter how great the power of lust, if you protect yourself with the fear of God, you will defeat its fury. By “holiness” he here means not only chastity, but also removal from all sin, because the one who is pure is holy, and the one who is pure is not the one who does not commit fornication only, but who is alien to the love of money, envy, arrogance, and vanity, especially vanity, which must always be avoided, and most of all when giving alms. Almsgiving, infected with this disease, ceases to be almsgiving, but is boasting and hardness of heart. Indeed, when you give alms not out of mercy, but in order to show yourself, then not only is it not alms, but it is even an insult, because you are putting your brother to shame. Almsgiving is not just about giving money, but about giving with a feeling of mercy. And at the spectacles they give money - both to dissolute youths and to others who appear on the stage; but this is not alms. And fornicators give money to harlots; but this is not a matter of philanthropy, but of drunken outrage. The one who gives alms out of vanity is like them. Just as one who defiles himself with a harlot gives her a reward for the offense he inflicts on her, so you, by giving alms out of vanity, only reward the one who receives it from you for the offense caused to him, and through this you create a bad reputation for yourself and him, and hence inexpressible harm. Just as a fierce beast and a mad dog attack everyone, so this evil disease of inhumanity robs us of our blessings. Such alms are truly inhumanity and cruelty, or even worse. The hard-hearted only does not give to the one who asks, but you make him worse - you prevent those who want to give from giving. In fact, when you flaunt your alms to everyone, you cast doubt on the poverty of the one receiving your gift, and thereby deter the one who intends to give alms, especially if he is a frivolous person. Such a person no longer gives to the one asking, as if he had already received alms and is not particularly in need, and what’s more, he will also reproach him and accuse him of shamelessness when he, having received alms from you, comes to him to ask. 4. So, what kind of alms is this when you dishonor with it both yourself and the one who received it, and even more the One who commanded it to be done, since you are not content with the fact that God himself sees your alms, and you also demand that the eyes of your brothers be turned to it, and thus you transgress the commandment given from Him, forbidding you to do so. I would like to talk with you about other good deeds, and about fasting, and about prayer, to show how vanity is harmful here too; but I remembered that in the last conversation I did not quite finish the very necessary word suggested there. What was the word about? Discussing health and pleasures, I said there that the poor have an advantage over the rich in the needs of life, and this has been clearly proven. Now let us show that the poor have an advantage over the rich not only in everyday things, but also in spiritual things. In fact, what enters the kingdom of God - wealth or poverty? Let us listen to what the heavenly Lord himself says about this. He says about the rich that it is easier for a camel to go through the ears of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24); but about the poor he said, on the contrary: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your property and give it to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven” (“If you want to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor, and follow Me, and have treasure in heaven”) (Matthew 19:21). But if you like, we will show the truth of what was said from the other side. “The narrow and straitened way,” says (Scripture), “that leads to life” (Matthew 7:14). But who walks the narrow path: the one who spends his life in pleasure, or the one in poverty? Is it the one who walks without any burden, or the one who carries a thousand burdens? Pampered and carefree, or caring and diligent? But what is the use of reasoning? Let's move on to examples. Lazarus was poor, and very poor, and a rich man passed by him as he lay at the gate (of the rich man). Which of them ascended to the kingdom (of heaven) and found peace in the bosom of Abraham? Who, on the contrary, suffered in fire and could not ask for even a drop of water? But you will say that many of the poor will perish, and many of the rich will enjoy those ineffable blessings. On the contrary, one should know that only a small number of rich people will be saved, and many more poor ones. Consider and examine more carefully the obstacles (to salvation) from wealth and the vices of poverty, although both of them, in fact, depend neither on wealth nor on poverty, but on those who inherited wealth or poverty; but let's see which weapon is more convenient. So, what vice seems to be inherent in poverty? Lie. Which (is more characteristic) of wealth? Pride, which is the mother of vices, from which the devil became a devil, without being one before. Again, “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). But who is closer to this root - the rich or the poor? Isn't it obvious that he's rich? After all, the more one is surrounded (by wealth), the more he desires. Again, vanity destroys countless virtues. And the rich man also lives nearby. But why, they will say, don’t you say anything about the sorrows and distress of the poor? Because this is the lot of both the rich and even more so than the poor, so that the misfortunes associated, apparently, with poverty are common to both the poor and the rich, while the misfortunes of the rich oppress him alone. “But what (can one answer),” they will say, “to the fact that the poor, due to lack of necessary needs, commit many atrocities?” The fact that none of the poor, no one commits as many atrocities out of poverty as the rich do, out of a desire for greater wealth and out of fear of losing what they already have. In fact, it is not so much the poor man who desires what is necessary for himself, as the rich man who desires what is superfluous, and again he does not have as much strength to commit evil as the rich man. Thus, if a rich man both desires evil more and can do it more, then it is obvious that he will actually do more. The poor man is not as afraid of hunger as the rich man trembles lest he lose his treasures, and is tormented because he has not yet taken possession of the riches of the whole world. So, when a rich person is close to vanity, pride and love of money, which is the root of all evil, then what hope will he have for salvation if he does not show great wisdom in himself? How will he decide to walk the narrow path? Let us not, therefore, follow the opinion of the crowd, but let us examine the things themselves. If we do not trust others when it comes to money, but we ourselves count and revise it, then would it not be foolish to simply follow the opinions of others in determining the worth of our affairs - and, moreover, despite the fact that for this we have the right scales, the right model and the right rule - the court of divine laws? Therefore, I ask and implore you all, without paying attention to how one or the other thinks about it, learn all this from the Holy Scriptures, and, having learned from them what true wealth consists of, let us strive to gain it, so that through this we may achieve eternal blessings, which may we all be worthy of by the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and forever and ever. Amen. You might be interested in: