Беседа 3

Flm. 1:17–19. So, if you have fellowship with me, then accept him as you do me. If he offended you in any way, or should, consider it on me. I, Paul, wrote with my hand: I will pay; I’m not telling you that you owe me yourself. Prayer is a great blessing when we do deeds worthy of it. – If God demands an account and punishes, this does not mean that He is not good. 1. Nothing convinces (to fulfill a request) more than not asking for everything suddenly. Therefore, look, after what praise, after what preparation, (the apostle) made this great request. Having called (Onesimus) his son, a participant in the gospel, the womb, saying: you gain a brother in him, accept him as a brother, he then adds: “like me.” Paul was not ashamed to say this. If he was not ashamed to be called a slave of the faithful, but even recognized himself as such, then all the more he could not shun this. And the meaning of his words is as follows: if you think the same as me, if you strive for the same goal, if you consider (me) a friend, “then accept him as me. If he offended you in any way." Look how and when he mentioned the offense: at the end, after he had said a lot about it. Since the loss of property usually irritates people most of all, so that (Philemon) would not complain about this - and it was probably stolen from him - (the apostle) now mentions this and says: “If he has offended you in any way.” He didn’t say: if he stole something, then how? “If he offended you in any way.” Here he admitted the offense, and at the same time presented it as the offense not of a slave, but as if a friend in relation to a friend, expressing it with a name meaning injustice rather than theft. “Consider it,” he says, “on me,” that is, consider this debt to be mine; I will pay. Further, with sincere cordiality (he says): “I, Paul, wrote with my hand” - both cordially and at the same time accusatory if he refused to accept him, while Paul did not even refuse to write a letter about him. This touched him very much, and at the same time relieved Onesimus of fear. “With my hand,” he says, “I wrote.” There is nothing more ardent, nothing more zealous, nothing more active than this soul. About one person, look how he cares. “I am not telling you what you owe me with yourself.” So that it would not seem offensive to the one who is being asked, if (Paul) had not decided to ask for the thief and did not hope to receive what he asked, he provides for this too: “I am not telling you,” he says, - that you owe me with yourself,” that is, you owe it not only with your property, but also with yourself. And this (he said) out of love, out of friendship and great boldness. Look how he takes care of both everywhere - both about asking with complete confidence, and about not seeming too bold. “Yes, brother” (Phil. 1:20). What does it mean: “So, brother”? That is, accept it. This must be implied here. Having abandoned sincerity, he again turns to the former, to business, although the previous one also related to business - with saints it is also businesslike how they express their spiritual feelings. “So, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; rest my heart in the Lord,” that is, show mercy to the Lord, and not to me. “Heart” i.e. (my love) for you. “I have written to you because I trust in your obedience” (Phil. 1:21). What stone would not be softened by these (words)? What animal would not be tamed from them and would not be ready to accurately accept (the petition)? Having attributed such virtues to him, (the apostle) still does not cease to justify himself; and he justifies himself not simply, without commanding or demanding with authority, but: “Trusting,” he says, “in your obedience.” Just as at the beginning of the letter he said: “having boldness” (Phil. 1:8), so here he says the same thing, sealing the message. “Knowing that you will do even more than I say.” With these words he strongly encourages (Philemon), because even if he did nothing else, he would at least be ashamed not to do what was asked, having earned (before Paul) such an opinion about himself that he could do more than was said. “And together, prepare a room for me; for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you” (Phil. 1:22). And this is said with great hope, or better, and this is in favor of Onesimus, so that they would not be careless, but, knowing that (Paul) would come and find out everything about him, put aside all rancor and rather show him mercy. After all, there was great reverence and respect for Paul who was present, Paul the elder, Paul who endured the bonds. On the other hand, these words testify to their love for him if he says that they are praying for him, and he himself gives them the honor of praying for him: although, he says, I am now in danger, you will see me if you pray. “Epaphras, who was a prisoner with me for the sake of Christ Jesus, greets you” (Phil. 1:23). He was sent by the Colossians (Col. 1:7, 4:12), so from here it is clear that Philemon lived in Colosse. Paul calls him “a prisoner with me,” expressing that he too was in great tribulation. Thus, if not for (the apostle) himself, then for this man (the request) must be heard - the one who is in sorrow and, having left his affairs, cares for others, must be heard. On the other hand, (the apostle) here reproaches (Philemon) in case he had not shown mercy to his own servant, while his fellow citizen became “a prisoner with me” (Paul) and suffers with him. And he also adds: “The prisoner is with me for the sake of Christ Jesus, that is, for Christ. Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers” (Phil. 1:24). Why does he put Luke last, while in another place he says: “Only Luke is with me,” and Demas, he says, was one of those who forsook him and loved the present age (2 Tim. 4:10)? This, however, has already been said in another place, but here too it should neither be left without investigation nor listened to simply and indiscriminately. Why does he say that he who left him greets them? “Erastus,” as he says, “remained in Corinth” (2 Tim. 4:20). He cites Epaphras, as known to them and coming from there; Mark, as a wonderful man; and why does he include Demas among them? Perhaps this one lost heart only later, when he saw many dangers. And Luke, who was the last, became the first. (The Apostle) greets (Philemon) and on their behalf, in order to quickly persuade him to obedience, and calls them his companions, in order to further convince him to fulfill the request. “The Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Phil. 1:25). 2. He concluded the message with prayer. Prayer is a great and saving benefit and protection of our souls; but it becomes a great blessing when we do what is worthy of it, and when we do not make ourselves unworthy of it. Therefore, when you come to the priest and he says to you: may God have mercy on you, child, do not rely only on words, but apply deeds, do what is worthy of mercy. God will bless you, child, if you act worthy of blessing, bless you if you are merciful to your neighbor - because what we want to receive from God, we must first give to our neighbors; and if we deprive our neighbors of this, then how do we want to receive the same from God? “Blessed,” He says, “are the merciful, for they will receive mercy” (Matthew 5:7). After all, if people have mercy on such, how much more will God, but He will not have mercy on the unmerciful: “For judgment is without mercy to him who showed no mercy” (James 2:13). Mercy is a good deed: why don’t you show it to others? You want to receive forgiveness of sins: why don’t you forgive yourself who has sinned? You approach God, asking for the kingdom of heaven, but you yourself do not give silver to the one asking! That is why we do not receive mercy because we ourselves do not show mercy. How, you say, isn’t this a matter of mercy, to have mercy on the unmerciful? But will he be merciful who would have mercy on a person who is cruel, ferocious and causes countless evils to his neighbor? How, you say, didn’t the font (of baptism) save us, who had committed countless evils? But she saved us from them not so that we would do them again, but so that we would not do them. “We died to sin,” says the apostle, “how can we live in it? So what? Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? No way” (Rom. 6:15). That is why she delivered you from them, so that you would not return to such dishonor. Likewise, doctors heal patients with fever from their illness not so that, by abusing their health, they fall ill again and become disordered - it is better to remain sick than to seek healing in order to again throw themselves on the bed of illness - but so that, having recognized the suffering of the disease, they do not fall into the same thing, take care of their health more carefully and do everything that serves to preserve it. Where, you say, is God’s love for mankind if He does not want to save the evil? Often and from many I hear that (God) loves mankind and will certainly save everyone. Let us not delude ourselves in vain. I remembered one promise (given to you at some time) - now we will deal with this subject. Previously, I talked with you about Gehenna and put off talking about God’s love for mankind; Today it’s good to fulfill this promise. It seems that we have sufficiently proven that there will be Gehenna by presenting the flood and other previous disasters and saying that the one who committed all this cannot leave the present (sinners) unpunished. If He punished in this way those who sinned before the law, then, of course, He will not leave without punishment those who, with grace, committed much greater crimes. So, the question was proposed: how is (God) good, how loving of mankind, if He punishes? We have postponed speaking about this so as not to burden your attention with too many (subjects). Now, let’s repay this debt and show how God remains good even when punishing. These words can also be directed against heretics, so listen carefully. God created us without having any need for us. And that He had no need for us is evident from the fact that He created us subsequently (not from eternity). If He needed us, He would have created us first. If He existed without us, and we came into existence at a later time, then He created us without needing us. He created the sky, the earth, the sea and everything that exists for us. Isn’t this, tell me, a work of His goodness? Much could be said about this, but for the sake of brevity let’s say that He “commands His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Is this really not a matter of goodness? No, you say. So I once asked a Marcionite: is this not a matter of goodness? He answered me: if God did not demand an account for sins, then this would be a matter of goodness; and since He demands an account, it is not a matter of goodness. He is no longer here, but we will repeat what was said then, and even say more. I argue decisively that if God did not demand an account, He would not be good; and since He demands an account, it is good. In fact, tell me, if He had not demanded an account from us, could human life have continued? Wouldn't we turn into wild beasts? If even now, when the fear of judgment and punishment hangs over us, we have surpassed the fish, devouring each other, have gained an advantage over lions and wolves, robbing each other, then what confusion and disorder would not our life be filled with if He did not demand an account from us and we were convinced of this? What would a fabulous labyrinth be compared to the turmoil in our world? Wouldn't you have seen countless riots and disorders? Who would finally respect their father? Who wouldn't insult their mother? Who would not be given over to all kinds of pleasures and all kinds of vices? And that this is so, I will try to convince you by presenting just one house as an example. How? Here's how: if any of you who ask about this had slaves, and I would announce to them that no matter how much they resist the power of the masters, even if they insult them by action, even if they plunder all their property, even if they put everything upside down, and treat them like enemies, (the masters) will not threaten them, will not punish them, will not torture them, and will not even upset them with an unpleasant word - then how would you Do you think this would be a matter of goodness? I, on the contrary, believe that it would be a matter of extreme cruelty to expose not only one’s wife and children to desecration with such inappropriate leniency, but even before that to allow the perpetrators themselves to perish. They will become drunkards, and debauchees, and shameless, and arrogant, and the most senseless of all animals. Is this, tell me, a matter of goodness to trample on the nobility of the soul and destroy them and each other? Do you see that the very demand for an account is a matter of great goodness? But what am I saying about servants who are too prone to these vices? If someone, having sons, allowed them to do everything and did not punish them, then tell me, whom would they not become worse? So, if among people punishment is a matter of goodness, and impunity is a matter of cruelty, then is it not so with God? Consequently, that is why He prepared Gehenna, because He is good. Do you want me to show you the goodness of God from the other side? In addition to all that has been said, (fear of punishment) does not allow the good to become evil. If everyone expected the same thing, then everyone would become evil; and now the good ones find considerable consolation in this. Listen to what the prophet says: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees vengeance; He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Psalm 57:11); not rejoicing at this, no, but, fearing that he himself would not suffer the same thing, he will take care of the greater purity of his life. Thus, this (demand for a report) is a matter of great concern. So, you say; but one should only threaten, not punish. No, if even then, when He imposes punishment, you say that this is only a threat, and therefore you become more careless, then to what level of carelessness would you not reach if it were really only a threat? If the Ninevites had known that the punishment assigned to them was just a threat, they would not have repented; but since they repented, the threat remained only in words. Do you also want (the punishments assigned to sinners) to be only a threat? It depends on yourself; correct yourself, and they will remain only a threat. If you begin to despise the threat, then let it not happen! – then you will experience it in practice. Those who lived before the flood, if they had been afraid of the threat, would not have actually experienced it. Likewise, if we become afraid of a threat, we will not experience it in reality. May this not happen to us, but may the philanthropic God grant us all to understand this and achieve the unspeakable blessings of which may we all be worthy, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. You might be interested in: