Беседа 5

Eph.2:11–12. Remember therefore that you who were once Gentiles according to the flesh, who were called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcised by the fleshly circumcision made with hands, that at that time you were without Christ, alienated from the community of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, had no hope and were atheists in the world. What does carnal wisdom mean? 1. There are many proofs of God’s love for us: firstly, He saved us by Himself, and He saved us in such a wondrous way; secondly, He saved us when we were in such a state (already dead and children of wrath by nature); thirdly, He raised us (to an extraordinary height). All this contains the greatest proof of God's love for mankind, and all this Paul portrays in this epistle. Above, he said that we, “dead in trespasses and children of wrath” (Eph. 2:1, 3), (God) saved; now shows to whom He has made us equal. “So,” he says, “remember.” When we move from great poverty to the opposite state, or are awarded some even greater honor, then, enjoying the glory of our new position, we usually do not even remember the previous one. With this in mind, (the apostle) says: “So, remember.” What should one remember? That we were created for good deeds. This is enough to motivate us to care about virtue. “Remember,” because such remembrance can make us grateful to the Benefactor. "What are you, once pagans". Notice how (the apostle) lays down the advantages of which the Jews were proud, and is surprised at the shortcomings of the pagans - which, however, were not shortcomings (making salvation in Christ impossible for them) - and for both he draws admonitions from the way they behave and live. "Which were called uncircumcised". The honor was only in words and the benefit (from circumcision) applied only to the flesh, because neither uncircumcision nor circumcision mean anything. “So called,” continues (the apostle), “circumcised by the fleshly circumcision done by hands, that at that time you were without Christ, alienated from the society of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, had no hope and were atheists in the world.” Only Jews call you that - uncircumcision. But why, intending to show that in the introduction of the pagans to the Jews the first was shown a benefit, (the apostle) does not humiliate the dignity of the latter, but, on the contrary, exalts it? He elevates those qualities (of Jews) that remained necessary (for them and for pagan Christians), and humiliates those that (pagans who converted to Christianity) may not have had. That is why he further says: “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). See how it doesn't humiliate you. This, he says, is indifferent. Do not think, he says, that there is any difference in the fact that you have not received circumcision and are uncircumcised; What’s scary (not that, but) is this: to be without Christ, to be alienated from the life of Israel - and the first does not relate to life - to be outside the covenant of promise, to have no hope for the future and to be godless in this world, which is exactly what the pagans were. (First the apostle) spoke of heavenly things; (now) speaks of earthly ones, since the Jews valued them very highly. So Christ, consoling the disciples, after saying: “Blessed are those who were persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10), adds a smaller one (consolation) and says: “So they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:12). The last encouragement is in essence less great; but in relation to bringing (to salvation), in relation to faith it is both sufficient and great, and contains great power, since it is taken from life and experience. He did not say: excommunicated (χεχωριομένοι), but: alienated (άπηλλοτριωνοι) also did not say: not holding to the promises (ου); προέχοντες), but: not having (ουδέ μετέχοντες) and alien (ξένοι). There is a great difference in the meaning of these words, indicating a great distance (of the Gentiles from the Jews). not because they were alienated (that is, incapable), but because they were careless; and they fell from the promises, but not as strangers. What were the covenants of promise? To you, it is said, “I will give this land to your descendants” (Gen. 12:7), and also something else was promised to them, “they had no hope,” says (the apostle), “and they were godless.” Although the pagans worshiped gods, they were, however, atheists, because idols mean nothing. “But now in Christ Jesus you, who once were far away, have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, having made both one and destroyed the barrier that stood in the middle, abolishing the hostility in His flesh” (Eph. 2:13-15). It is also important, says (the apostle), that we have come to Jewish life. How is this? He headed everything in heaven and on earth, and you are still talking about the Israelites? But, he says, it’s true! This must be accepted by faith; and justify this by works. “And now in Christ Jesus you, who were once far away,” he says, “have become close” in life, because to be far or close depends solely on freedom. “For He is our peace, having made both one.” 2. What does it mean: “one of both”? (The Apostle) does not show by this that God gave us and the Jews the same nobility; but the fact that He raised both us and them to a better (state). However, God’s benefits to us are even greater; those (Jews) were given promises and they were closer to God than us, but we were not given any promises and we stood further away. That is why it is said: “But for the Gentiles - out of mercy, so that they may glorify God” (Rom. 15:9). The Israelites received the promises, but found themselves unworthy of them; nothing was promised to us, we were strangers to the promises; We had nothing in common with them, and He united us together, not, however, so that he joined us to them, but he united us and them together. Let's imagine an example: imagine two statues, one silver, the other tin; these two statues were melted and two golden ones were formed from them: these two became identical. Or let’s take another example: let one be a slave, the other adopted; both of them were to serve Him (i.e. God); but one was declared disinherited, the other fled away and did not know the Father, and then both were made heirs and legitimate children. They received the same honor, the two became one, with the only difference that one came from afar, the other from near, and that the closest one arrived first to the Father. “He who destroyed,” he says, “the barrier that stood in the middle.” What should be meant by “the barrier standing in the middle,” he himself explains this when he says: “having abolished enmity with His flesh, and the law of commandments with teaching.” Some say that the mediastinum was a law that did not allow Jews to mix with pagans. And I think that he meant by the mediastinum (not the law, but) the enmity of the flesh, which was, as it were, an intermediate wall separating us from God, as the prophet says: “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God” (Is. 59:2)? And fair enough. Such an obstacle as enmity of the flesh was an obstacle to God, both for the pagans and equally for the Jews, because the law not only did not destroy, but on the contrary increased (enmity): “for the law,” says (the apostle), “produces wrath” (Rom. 4:15). And as in the words: “for the law produces wrath,” the apostle does not make the law itself the cause (of anger), but our disobedience to it and its transgression, so here he calls the law a mediastinum, because the one who transgresses it enters into enmity (with God). The law was also a fence, a fence for confirmation (in good), but it was called a fence because it could protect (from evil). Listen to what the prophet says: “He surrounded it with a fence” (Is. 5:2); and also: “You have destroyed her fences, so that everyone who passes along the way breaks her off” (Ps. 79:13) - here he speaks of affirmation; and again: “I will take away his fence, and he will be desolate” (Is. 5:5); and also: “Turn to the law” (Is. 8:20); and in another place: “The Lord does righteousness and justice... He has shown His works to the children of Israel” (Ps. 103:6–7). And the mediastinum existed not to protect, but to separate them from God. This is the difference between the mediastinum and the fence. Showing what it is like, he adds: “Having abolished enmity in His flesh, and the law of commandments through doctrine” (Eph. 2:15). How? (Abolished), ending and destroying the enmity (with God). And not only in this way did He abolish (the law), but also in that He Himself preserved it. Well, you ask, as soon as we got rid of the first crime, how are we again forced to preserve the law? This, of course, would happen again (but the fact is that He) destroyed the law itself. “Having abolished ... the law of commandments,” he says, “by teaching.” Oh, love for mankind! He gave us the law to keep it; then, when we did not preserve it and had to be punished for this, He abolished the law. (This is like) as if someone, having entrusted his child to a teacher and then noticing that he did not obey, freed him and took him away from the teacher. Oh, what great love for humanity! What does it mean: “having abolished ... by teaching”? (The Apostle) believes there is a great difference between the commandment (εντολή) and the teachings (δόγματα). Here he calls teaching either faith, because we are saved only by Faith, or definitions (of God), similar to the one about which Christ said: “For truly I say to you”: do not be angry at all (Matthew 5:18, 22). This means: if you believe that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. And again: “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Rom. 10:8). 3. “Do not say in your heart: who will ascend into heaven?.. Or who will descend into the abyss? that is, to raise Christ from the dead” (Rom. 10:6–7). Instead of life, He introduced faith so that the work of salvation would not be in vain; He himself accepted the punishment, but demands from them faith in dogmas. “That out of the two he might create in himself one new man” (Eph. 2:15). You see, the pagan did not become a Jew, but both came to a new state. He did not abolish the law in order to transform one into the other, but in order to recreate both. And well (the apostle) uses the word “in order to create”; he did not say: change - to show the special power of this action, and the fact that although this creation was accomplished in a visible way, it is still no less than the first creation, and finally, that we should not shy away from natural objects. “In order to create from two,” he says, “in Himself,” that is, through Himself. Didn't assign it to anyone else; but by Himself, having previously, as it were, melted both of them (i.e., Greek and Jew), He created one wondrous one (i.e. Christian), having himself become the first creation of this kind, which is much higher than the previous creation. “In Himself” can also mean that He was the first to present to us a model and example (of the new creation). At the same time, occupying the middle, He attracts the Jew with one hand, and the Greek with the other, and, having mixed them, and destroying everything that alienated them from each other, He transformed from above with fire and water, not water and earth, but water and fire. He transformed both the Jew, who was circumcised and under a curse, and the Greek, who was outside the law, “into one new man,” the superior of both, Jew and Greek. “I have ordered the world” (Eph. 2:15) both in relation to God and in relation to each other. If Jews remained Jews and Greeks remained Greeks, they would never have united with each other; without leaving their own position, how could each of them come to a better state? A Jew only becomes close to a Greek when he becomes faithful. (This is like) as if two people occupy two separate rooms below and above have one thing in common, beautiful and extensive: they cannot see each other until they go upstairs. “Organize the world” - mainly with God, as can be seen from what follows. What exactly does he say next? “And in one body to reconcile both to God through the cross” (Eph. 2:16). He did not say: to reconcile (χαταλλάξη), but to “reconcile” (άποχαταλλάξη), that is, to “reconcile” again, showing through this that even before human nature was capable of reconciliation (with God), like the saints even before the law. “In one body,” he says, “with God.” How did He do this? Himself, he says, having suffered due punishment on the cross. “Having killed the enmity therein” (Eph. 2:16); These expressions cannot be more impressive and accurate. His death, says (the apostle), killed, pierced and destroyed enmity; He entrusted this work to no one else, and not only acted himself, but also suffered. He did not say: having allowed, he also did not say: taking away, but he used the strongest expression - “Killing”, so that (the enmity) will never arise again. And how could she rebel? Is it thanks to our great malice? And as long as we remain in the body of Christ, as long as we remain in union with Him, she will not rise, but will lie dead. Strictly speaking, it will never rise, and we can only produce another (enmity), but by no means the former, which is killed and put to death. And that means you will already give birth to this other (enmity). “The carnal mind,” it is said, “is enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7). If we do not think about anything carnal, then this new (enmity) will never be born, but there will always be “peace” (Eph. 2:15). 4. Just think how terrible it is for us to again enter into enmity with God after He has done so much to reconcile us, and really reconciled us! This (enmity) awaits no longer the baptismal font, but Gehenna, not forgiveness, but punishment. “Carnal mindedness” means intemperance, gluttony; “carnally minded” means covetousness and any sin in general. Why is it called carnal wisdom? After all, the body cannot do anything without the soul? (The Apostle) does not slander the flesh, just as he does not slander the soul when he says: “A natural man” (1 Cor. 2:14); but (he shows by this) that neither the body nor the soul on their own, unless they receive help from above, is capable of accomplishing anything great and valiant. That is why he calls spiritual that which the soul does by itself; and he calls carnal what the body does by itself - not, however, because all this is by nature (φυσικά), but because, having not received protection from above, it perished. Likewise, good eyes, but without light, cause a lot of trouble; This depends not on their nature, but on their weakness. If everything natural were evil, then we should not use it even as it should. On the contrary, there is no natural evil. What exactly is called the wisdom of the flesh? Sins. When it (the flesh), having imagined itself, seizes power over the driver, then it produces countless evils. The virtue of the flesh is to obey the soul, on the contrary, vice is to rule over the soul. Just as a good and strong-legged horse does not show dignity when it does not obey its driver, so the flesh is only good when we curb its impulses. However, the driver must also have knowledge of his business; and without knowledge, he will cause a lot of trouble. Knowledge is necessary everywhere. The spirit that teaches this, making the driver stronger, thereby adorns both soul and body. Just as the soul, while it is in the body, gives it beauty, and when the soul ceases to give life to the body and flies away, then (a spectacle occurs) similar to what happens when some painter mixes his paints - namely, great ugliness appears, every member tends to decay and destruction - exactly the same, or even worse and greater, ugliness occurs when the spirit leaves soul and body empty. So, if the body is lower than the soul, do not blame it for this. After all, I, too, am careful not to discredit the soul just because it cannot do anything without spirit. But if anything needs to be said, it is that the soul is worthy of even greater blame. A body without a soul would not be able to do anything bad, but the soul can do a lot without a body. She does a lot even when the body is exhausted and the blood in it no longer boils. We see this in sorcerers, magicians, potion makers and envious people, whose bodies are mostly exhausted. Even overeating occurs not due to the need of the body, but due to the inattention of the soul; The body needs food, not overeating. If I want to control a horse more firmly, then I bridle it; the body cannot force the soul to indulge in vices. Why does (the apostle) call (sin) the wisdom of the flesh? Because he belongs entirely to the flesh. When she takes power for herself, when she neglects the suggestions of the mind and the power of the soul, then she sins. And, therefore, the virtue of the body lies precisely in obedience to its soul, because the body itself is neither good nor bad. But can the body do anything by itself? According to the connection (arguments), if the body is good, then it is good only in relation to submission (soul); but in itself it is neither good nor bad, capable of both, and can lean towards both sides. The body desires, but not fornication or adultery, but copulation; the body desires, but not voluptuousness and gluttony, but food, not drunkenness, but drinking. That drunkenness does not constitute the desire of the body, look: it does not retain the excess (that is, it spews back) when you exceed the limit and go beyond the boundaries of the body. Truly, everything else (except the necessary needs of the body) belongs to the soul; especially when it becomes carnal and, so to speak, becomes white. True, a good body is still significantly lower than the soul; but, on the other hand, just as tin, although it is lower than gold, is still needed for soldering (the latter), so exactly the body is needed for the soul. Or just as the noblest child nevertheless needs a teacher, so the soul needs the body. Don’t be surprised that we give such examples, say childish things, without taking into account the age (of the listeners): this is exactly how we should talk about the body. But we can, if we want, not be in the body, just as we can not be on earth, but remain in heaven and in the spirit. “Being where” - this expression can be used to mean not just one location, but also a state (mental). About many people who were in a certain place, we say that they were not, to put it simply: such and such did not come here. And why am I saying this? We often express ourselves: you are beside yourself, or: I am beside myself. What could be closer and more inseparable for everyone than himself? Meanwhile, we say that he is beside himself. Let us be within ourselves, in heaven, in spirit; let us abide in peace and in the grace of God - so that, leaving all carnal things, we can achieve the promised blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: