About the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15)

And about Pharaoh, and in response to the words: “pardon does not depend on the one who wishes and not on the one who strives, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). 1. Although yesterday’s noise upset us, your common zeal made us happy. I don't pay attention to this random confusion, but I appreciate the goodwill of the listeners. I am inclined to consider this confusion to be a common phenomenon of market origin, and your zeal is distinguished by an exalted character, as if instilled in you from above. It's like - “the voice, the voice of Jacob; and the hands, the hands of Esau” (Gen. 27:22). The noise, of course, was inappropriate here, but your jealousy is very respectable. And of course, in any case, you should not be embarrassed by the cry of those who are zealous, but you need to pay attention to how diligently they listen. After all, the Canaanite woman screamed to the Savior, but He did not pay attention to her amplified screams and appreciated only her spiritual perseverance. So, she cried out, as you just heard, following in the footsteps of the Savior: “Have mercy on me, ... son of David” (Matthew 15:22)! O pagan faith! O ingratitude of the Jews! A Canaanite woman, a stranger to the people of Israel, not taught the law, not knowing the prophets, preaches the truth, exclaiming: “Have mercy on me, ... son of David”! But those brought up on the law, having listened to the prophets, in clear denial of the truth, affirm a lie: we do not know who He is - a Samaritan, perhaps, and “He is possessed of a demon” (John 10:20). O pagan faith! Oh, the ingratitude of the Israelites! See how God and the Lord of all treasures His people. “It is not good,” He says, “to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26). He calls the pagans dogs, and the Israelites sons. But what a reversal is then made: those who are honored respond with dishonor, and those rejected give worship; those who are called sons do not accept benefits, and the Canaanite woman, called a dog, does not lag behind the Benefactor. Of course, the Savior and He called her a dog not in order to offend, but to reveal her zeal and thereby show that the pagans and the insulted do not lag behind the Benefactor, and Israel and the benefactor denied the Savior. “Have mercy on me, ... son of David”! He, who hears everything and everyone, is silent, not rejecting the request, but awaiting the further manifestation of faith. “Have mercy on me... son of David”! He, who bows to spiritual prayers before they appear on his lips, remains silent and holds back; even the apostles thought that He was too cruel, ignoring such cries, and they began to ask Him: “Let her go, because she is screaming after us” (Matthew 15:23). Are you, Peter, or are you, Andrei, or Philip, are you more humane than the Savior, and you were touched by her requests, but He remains insensitive to her pleas? But you judge by appearance, but I value the disposition of the soul; I hold back and slow down grace so that her faith may be revealed with greater brilliance. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). This means that You are the shepherd of the Israelites, and not the Lord of the whole earth; and Shepherd, and Manager, and Provider? No, He did not say: I am not a shepherd for the rest, but: I was not sent for that. However, these words also contained the truth only covertly, heading towards the same goal - discovering the wife’s faith. After all, if You are not sent to everyone, then how do You send apostles to the ends of the universe, saying: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19)? If he was not sent to other sheep, but only to these - the house of Israel - then as he said to the apostles: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and these I must bring: ... and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16)? It is clear that the Savior, saying: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” did not mean to express the truth in full - He only wanted to test the soul of those seeking His help. Refuses to help her, but she doesn't leave; rejects her request, but cannot reject her worship. Truly, this Canaanite woman is the image of the Church; so the Church does not deny Christ, no matter what dangers it is exposed to; endures thousands of adversities, but never ceases to direct his eyes to the haven of faith; he is overwhelmed by countless heretical worries, but does not waver in the foundation of his faith. Compare now - what is the faith of the Church and what is the ingratitude of the Jews. The Jews, feeding on manna, grumble, and the Church, fasting, brings thanksgiving to the Master; those, being revered, pay with ingratitude, and Christians, being persecuted, give thanks. Which servant would you choose if you were a master? Which of the two would you like to have - the one who responds to benefits with ingratitude, or the one who gives thanks for punishments? Of course, this particular Church is represented by the Canaanite woman, who is repelled but does not abandon the Master. He bows to Him and says: “Lord! help me"! First she said: “Have mercy on me,...son of David”! and then, thinking that this name does not fully correspond to His dignity, he leaves it and replaces it with another, higher one. He no longer calls Him the Son of David, but the Lord, imploring: “Lord! help me” (Matthew 15:25)! However, she does not receive an answer to this either. But here the apostles already intervene and ask for her, because she “screams after us.” God continues to test her faith and tells her: “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26). He calls the Israelis children, not so much to their honor as to expose their ingratitude. After all, the One who now calls the Israelites children is the Son of the One who said: “I raised and raised up sons, but they rebelled against Me” (Is. 1:2). The Canaanite woman is called a dog - and gratefully bears the insult. However, I think and believe that this offensive nickname partly reflects a feeling of benevolence, if we understand it in the sense of indicating the loyalty and devotion of this animal. The dog, no matter what he endures, will not leave his master’s house; when she sees the owner, she is calm, slaves pass by, she is silent, and when she sees strangers, she raises the alarm, barks and does not want to calm down, not recognizing any of the strangers. The Jews, no matter how much blasphemy they hear against God, are not moved. But a Christian, hearing the blasphemy of heretics or, in general, any lie against God, immediately becomes excited, barks, and shouts at his opponents. A Christian does not tolerate seeing the enemy’s face, but he guards his master’s yard like a dog. Philosophers, alien to faith, themselves adopted the name dogs, appreciating the character of this animal, and were not ashamed of such a name, paying attention only to natural qualities. And that God also approves of those who bark in defense of piety, and is indignant at those who are silent and do not bark in favor of the truth, this is clear from what was said about the Israelites that they are “dumb dogs who cannot bark” (Is. 56:10). A dog is a soul that is devoted to the Lord and barks for the Lord, and such a name does not humiliate it. When a dog gets mad, a sure sign of its rage is that it snaps at its master: a healthy dog ​​would never do this. And the madness of the Jews is not exposed to such a degree by anything else than by the fact that they bark at the Savior: God, in whom they should have recognized their Master, they rejected as a stranger. This is their fault. “Dogs surrounded me,” says the psalmist on behalf of the Savior. Who are these dogs? “A crowd of evil ones has surrounded me” (Ps. 21:17). However, the insult does not repulse the Canaanite woman, but is accepted by her with gratitude. “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” And using the insult just to endear her to humanity, she says: “So, Lord! but the dogs also eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matthew 15:27). You don’t want to feel sorry for me as one of your children, so show me compassion like a dog: I agree to be a dog for You. Your insult is better for me than any honor, above all glory. Then, finally, the Savior, to show that He had no intention of hurting her, and in view of the discovery of her faith, says to her: “Oh, woman! great is your faith; Let it be done to you according to your desire” (Matthew 15:28)! I don’t know how to praise this faith, which the Savior called great. What praise can I really think of that is higher than that which the Savior uttered? We will limit ourselves to it, we will not spoil it with our praises, we will not change the great for the small: after all, human praise humiliates a work, but the words of God confirm its dignity. “His praise comes not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:29), says the apostle. Why, in general, did those who were possessed, calling on the Savior for help, call Him the son of David: “Have mercy on me, ... son of David”? Did being related to David give you any power over unclean spirits? Why did the seer exclaim: Son of David, “have mercy on me,” and the Canaanite woman, asking for her demon-possessed daughter, begged: “Have mercy on me, ...son of David”? The story tells that David warded off an unclean spirit from Saul by playing the harp. And since David drove away unclean spirits with the power of music - by force, of course, not human, but divine, and by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, this was the reason for mentioning David during similar appeals to the Savior: “Have mercy on me,... son of David”! However, of course, it was impossible to limit ourselves to what these words expressed: they were good as a beginning, guided by which one could rise to a name corresponding to His dignity. “Her daughter was healed at that hour” (Matthew 15:28). According to the word of God, the girl was healed: the word of the Savior casts out unclean spirits and casts down all evil spirits. 2. This is what they could say about this gospel grace - of course, not as much as they should have said, but as much as was within our power. And since we were not able to say everything that should have been said, we will take advantage of this opportunity to fulfill one of our previous promises. It’s time for me to fulfill this promise, so that constant delay from day to day does not completely cool the jealousy of the listeners, and it’s time for you to pay me the debt of listening. We started talking about Pharaoh, about how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and about what was said about this: “He has mercy on whomever He wants; and he hardens whomever he wants. You will tell me: “What else are you accusing me of? For who can resist His will? (Rom. 9:18–19)? When we are dealing with the Divine Scriptures, we should not rush to explain them as soon as we hear them, so that there is no constraint of thought, but having first been assured of the grace-filled assistance from above, then we should only proceed to a calm and unhurried consideration in the proper order. In a word, this is how I mean to begin talking about the saying that interests us. It is found in the letter to the Romans. The Apostle Paul writes to the Romans and offers them many different instructions, and in particular wants to correct and eliminate what caused great confusion and disorder among them. What was the matter, listen. In Rome there were many Jews who believed in Christ, but many pagans also believed. And so, debates and disagreements arose between both of them - not because of zeal for the faith, but because of a dispute about primacy. Pagan Christians stood for being considered first, but the Jews did not yield to them and wanted to retain primacy for themselves. Jewish Christians referred to their paternal nobility and said to pagan Christians: we are higher than you; our faith is ancient; ours and patriarchs, our Abraham, our Isaac, our Jacob, our all patriarchs, all prophets; we have antiquity and nobility of origin, and you have just joined this grace. And the pagan Christians objected to them: it is impossible for those who have renounced Christ to take precedence; It is unthinkable to retain primacy for those who erected the cross and armed themselves with God; you are now rejected, but all nations are called; We took advantage of the salvation given to people, and you neglected it. The Apostle, perceiving that these disputes were causing great confusion in Rome, and that the disorder was increasing, and fearing that the evil that had multiplied in the capital could easily spread throughout the entire universe, uprooted this tendency to disputes in order to prevent its spread throughout the entire earth; he stands between opponents - he stands not as a judge, but as a peacemaker, knowing that piety will eliminate every dispute. Whoever wants to end discord and strife does not stop one side, so as not to give an advantage to the other, but holds both of them at the same time, because this way it is easier to bring them to an agreement; so the divine apostle stands between those disputing and restrains the fervor of both Jews and pagans. He condemns first of all the side that acted with great shamelessness, i.e. Jews After all, they are all shameless dogs who cannot bark (Is. 56:10). This tribe is shameless - shameless not by nature, but by character, because shamelessness is rooted not in baseness of origin, but in character. So, he accuses this side, or better to say - he admonishes them first as more shameless - them, whom Isaiah found so shameless that he said about the house of Israel: “Your neck has veins of iron, and your forehead is copper” (Isaiah 48:4). The divine apostle condemns first of all the shameless side, i.e. Jews, and since they referred to the antiquity of their origin - from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he shows them that it is not origin that is valued, but character. Beginning his speech about this, he said: “Not all are Israelites who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). You, pointing to the origin, do not pay attention to morals: “not all those Israelites who are from Israel - this is directly against the Jews - ... not all the children of Abraham who are from his seed,” because it is written: “in Isaac your seed will be called” (Rom. 9:6-7). If piety is made dependent on origin, then nothing prevents Ishmael from being preferred to Isaac, because he was the son of Abraham and, moreover, the eldest son. So, “for not all are Israelites which are of Israel; and not all the children of Abraham who are of his seed, but it is said, “Your seed will be called Isaac.” And in explanation he adds that “the children of the flesh are not counted by faith, but the children of promise are counted as the seed” (Rom. 9:8). But since he expects that the Jew will rebel against these words and - to complete his shamelessness in relation to the divine preaching - will say that Ishmael was rejected because he was the son of a slave, and Isaac was given preference due to his descent from a free woman, he finally leaves the example of Ishmael and continues: and not only Isaac was preferred to Ishmael, “but so it was with Rebekah, when she conceived at the same time two sons from Isaac our father. For when they were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad (so that the purpose of God in election would not come from works, but from Him who calls), it was said to her: “The older will be enslaved by the younger” (Rom. 9:10-12). Since there you explain the rejection of Ishmael by his low origin, then look: from one root there are two shoots and how different they are! The one that was in doubt was accepted, and the one that was beyond doubt was not accepted. And so that you can be convinced that nature does not humiliate the one whom spiritual disposition does not humiliate, and it was said that “the older will be enslaved by the younger, as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:12-13). Here Paul relies on the word of God, because this is what God said through the prophet: “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?... Yet I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau” (Mal. 1:2-3). Since you refer, he says, to origin, then what benefit did Esau have from his origin? If the nobility of ancestors serves to the honor of a person, then explain what service did the nobility of his father provide to Esau? Wasn't he a descendant of Abraham? Was he not the son of Isaac, and even from the same mother, and a free one at that? Did his origin help him get what his temper deprived him of? And he immediately adds: “What shall we say? Is it really not true with God? No way” (Rom. 9:14)! Having thus examined the question historically, the apostle then arms himself against the objections that are raised on this matter. Since many, after a certain question has been resolved, abuse the conclusions drawn from this, the apostle does not limit himself to what was the subject of controversy in his time, but also foresees those objections that subsequently had to arise from the Manichaeans, or from other heretics or from the pagans regarding these words of his, and prepares in advance arrows that will be useful to you in case of war. After all, God does not look only at the present, but pays even more attention to the future. That is why the word of God is called an arrow and a sword. Isaiah said: “And I made my mouth like a sharp sword; He covered Me with the shadow of His hand, and made Me a sharpened arrow; He kept Me in His quiver” (Isaiah 49:2). Why the sword and arrow? They fight with a sword against those standing nearby, and an arrow is sent to those who are at a far distance. Since the word of God destroyed the differences that already existed, and cut through those discords that were later to arise, it is called a sword, as acting at a close distance, and an arrow, as striking opponents at a distance. But in order not to break the sequence of presentation, we will first finish with this, and then move on to this. Having proved to the Jews that one should not be proud of one’s origin, the apostle then goes on to those who converted from the pagans and tells them: “Do not be proud of the root; You, a wild olive tree” (Rom. 11:18, 17), broke off from the naturally wild olive tree and clung to the good olive tree. Anyone who reads the message carefully will find a detailed explanation of the issue, but we will limit ourselves to brief instructions. The apostle calls the Jewish people a good olive tree, and compares pagan Christians to shoots of a wild olive tree grafted onto a good olive tree. He calls the descendants of Abraham a good olive tree, and thereby instructs the pagan strangers, who have partaken of the sweets of Abraham and the prophets, not to be arrogant. Is Israel, he says, grafted onto you? Have you taken Israel to you? Didn't Israel take you to itself? Are the apostles from you? Is the Savior not from the Jews, but from the pagans? Of course, from the Jews. So why don’t you recognize the root of blessings and honor them? Don't you know that, being wild, you were grafted into the good olive tree? You, of course, will tell me: you stand up for your opponents, but they were broken off from the root by unbelief, and I was grafted in with faith. Fine. “Don't be proud, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, see if He will also spare you” (Rom. 11:20–21). Here is the apostolic speech! Behold apostolic power! Look how he cuts off the dispute that has arisen, and thus stops the lips, and makes these unanswerable. Don't be arrogant. “Do not be arrogant,... it is not you who hold up the root, but the root of you” (Rom. 11:18). Since the Gentile believers boasted over the Israelites that they were broken off from the root through unbelief in Christ, and instead clung to them through faith in Him, the apostle objects to such boasting: “It is not you who hold the root, but the root of you. You will say: “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in” (Rom. 11:18–19). I agree: your words are fair, your explanation is correct. Fine. “Don’t be proud,” however. “For if God did not spare the natural branches, then see if He will also spare you.” The one on whose side the nobility of birth is rejected for unbelief; and you, who exalt yourself, he rejects for this ingratitude of yours. See how he destroys pretentiousness with fear. “You see the goodness and severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen away, but kindness towards you, if you continue in the goodness of God; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22). You see how with fear he cuts off pretension and motivates the faithful not to exaltation, but to competition. What do you care about anyone's origins? Take care of your life, try to please the Benefactor, so that your morals do not harm your origin - that’s where to direct your jealousy. Then he turns to the pagan newcomers. The pagans who believed said: Paul has been sent to us; He preaches not for you Jews, but I for the Gentiles. And to this Paul finds the saving medicine of piety and says: Do you boast in me? Of course, I am your teacher, not the Jews. But remember this firmly. I do not want to leave you, brothers, in ignorance that “as the Apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry” (Rom. 11:13). How do you mean “glorify”? By defending (the dignity of Christians from) pagans, I defend my own ministry, my apostleship. And for what purpose? “Lest I make my relatives according to the flesh jealous and save some of them” (Rom. 11:14). I praise you to make those jealous. With such arguments, Paul dispels the heated disputes and restores the truth in all its splendor - destroys pretension and establishes agreement. But let's get back to what we're talking about. 3. “What shall we say? Is it really not true with God? No way. For He says to Moses: I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy; I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion” (Rom. 9:14–15). Paul does not speak these words on his own behalf: they appear as a contrast. Paul seems to personify the objection coming from the opponents. “What shall we say? Is it really not true with God? No way,” when He says: “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy; whom shall I feel sorry for? In this objection, however, the apostle makes an insertion on his own behalf: “no way.” Without yet entering into a dispute on the merits, he immediately and decisively eliminates the blasphemy. To prevent anyone from rushing to agree with this judgment about God until he has fully grasped the thought, he, like a skilled physician, inserts his “no way” into the very middle of the objection, in order to affirm the blasphemed truth by reflecting blasphemy. The adversary talks about Jacob like this: God said: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated,” and to Moses he said: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy; I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion” (Rom. 9:13, 15). If, however, He has mercy on whomever He wants, and hardens whomever He wants, then “for what else does He accuse” (Rom. 9:19)? If He himself does this and arranges it this way, then why does he demand an answer from me for what he himself arranged? This is the strength of this objection: “He says to Moses: I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy; I will regret whoever I feel sorry for." To the contrast: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau,” as if to build a conclusion, are added the words: “Whoever he wants, he has mercy; but he hardens whomever he wants” (Rom. 9:18). Drawing a conclusion from this, the opponent says: therefore, salvation is a work “not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). If He wants whom, has mercy, whom He wants, hardens, whom He wants, loves, whom He wants, hates, then what do you demand of me? In vain do I hold on to piety, in vain do I strive for truth! After all, salvation is a matter entirely “not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.” All this is on behalf of the enemy. But now the apostle no longer hesitates to resist him forcefully, so as not to allow the contradiction to strengthen, and to dispel the suspicion of the (newly converted) pagans. So: “He has mercy on whomever he wants; but he hardens whomever he wants.” Tell me: “What else is he blaming for? Who will resist His will? Paul prefaces his answer to this objection with the words: “Who are you, O man, that you argue with God” (Rom. 9:20)? This is not yet an answer, but first of all, indignation at those who dare to demand an account from God. Of course, to stop the enemy's mouth in this way would not mean to resolve the issue - it would rather strengthen the misunderstanding. If you forbid me to tell the truth (he may say), I will remain silent, but will remain in my conviction. Why do you accuse and not convince? But the apostle needed first of all to curb the insolence of human frivolity, which so decisively demands from God an account of His affairs; with this he begins: “Who are you, man, that you argue with God”? Let’s take an example close to everyone (after all, you can find confirmation of your thoughts in everyday life). If someone sees a master beating his slave, and approaching him, he begins to say: Why are you beating? - he, with a consciousness of his right, will answer him: what do you want? Do I not have power over my servant? Doesn't he belong to me? Isn’t he in my power (speaking this way in defense of his power, and not in justification of the act)? So first he indignantly says to the enemy: what does it matter to you? And when the outburst of anger passes and his indignation is satisfied, he calms down and then begins to justify himself to the accuser: you are in vain to think that I am striking in vain: just look at his audacity! This is exactly what the apostle does. When opponents demanded from him an answer that if God “has mercy on whomever He wills; but he hardens whomever he wants,” then why do people still reproach him, “for who can resist His will”? - outraged by these words, he says: “Who are you, man, that you argue with God?” Does the clay point to the Creator? Does the creature condemn the Creator? Does the slave demand an account from the Master? Would you at least understand that in everyday life, a servant, defending his freedom when he is dragged into slavery, does not dare to conduct his business himself, so as not to come face to face with the master and thereby offend him, but takes a defender from the outside, and you, being a mortal man, want to speak with an immortal as an equal? “Who are you, that you argue with God”? Are you, whose life is fleeting, questioning the eternal? Mortal - immortal? Descending into the grave - one who dwells in heaven? Eating from the earth and turning to the earth, do you demand an account from Him who abides forever? “Who are you, man, that you argue with God. Does not the potter have power over the clay, so that from the same mixture he can make one vessel for honorable use, and another for low” (Rom. 9:20–21)? All this is true. Nothing can be said to this, but the question remains unresolved. You only confirm, you only strengthen the accusation, thus blocking the mouth of the enemy. “Has not the potter power over the clay, that from the same mixture he may make one vessel for honorable use, and another for dishonorable use?” Doesn't this mean that He Himself makes the dishonest? Why do you blame me? These words of yours are unbearable for me; Instead of resolving the issue, you confuse the matter even more. Therefore, the apostle, having reproached him for frivolity, immediately proceeds to correct the error. He said indignantly: “Who are you, man, to argue with God. Does not the potter have power over the clay, so that from the same mixture he can make one vessel for honorable use, and another for low”? But when he noticed that the turn of the matter further strengthens the objection, he immediately adds: “What if God, wanting to show wrath and reveal His power, with great patience spared the vessels of wrath, ready for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). You need to carefully understand these words: the truth is not given immediately. The Apostle showed and taught that one should not demand an account from God, using in this case the words of God spoken through the prophet Isaiah. Precisely, God said to the Old Testament people: “Will the product say to the one who made it: “Why did you make me like this?” (Rom. 9:20)? “Will the clay say to the potter, “What are you doing?” (Isa.45:9)? Can a creature ask the Creator: how did you create me? And you want to teach Me what I should do with my creatures and with my children! Having taken advantage of these words of the prophet Isaiah, blocking the lips of his opponents with them, the apostle then corrects the mistake they made. Having finished with the reproach, Paul proceeds to explain, so that you can be convinced, brother, that he did not utter these words in support of his opponents: “Who are you, arguing with God,” but in a fit of indignation. In fact, here he attributes everything to the Creator, saying: “has not the potter power over the clay, that from the same mixture he may make one vessel for honorable use, and another for low”? Here he speaks in a polemical spirit, without setting out to give an exact presentation of the doctrine. And in another place, wanting to show that a person becomes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor not according to the will of God, but depending on his own disposition, on what prevails in him - an attraction to virtue or an inclination to vice, the same apostle writes to Timothy: “I am writing these things to you... so that... you may know how you ought to act in the house of God” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). “But in a great house there are vessels not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay” (2 Tim. 2:20). This is written by Paul himself. I deliberately do not turn to any other places, so that you do not say: here he, not finding an answer in one apostle, jumps to other Scriptures. The same Paul, who condemned those with indignation, when he speaks calmly, expresses himself with greater precision. Paul specifically says: “And in a great house there are vessels not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; and some in honorable, and others in low use." And what does it add? “Whoever is pure... will be a vessel of honor, sanctified.” There, having attributed to the Creator the definition of vessels “for honorable use” and “low”, here he makes everything dependent on the will of man. “Therefore, whoever is clean from this will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful to the Master, fit for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). Look, he says one thing for reprimand, another for the purpose of teaching. And just as in the above example, the master who beat his slave first responded sharply to someone else’s interference, and then he himself came to his senses and understood the justice of the reproach made to him, so the apostle now recognizes that it is not God who determines the vessels - some for honest use, others for base use, that He created a nature common to all, and it is the free will of the creatures themselves that makes a difference in the fate of the creature. Know firmly that we are not created by nature into vessels of honor or dishonor. This is what Scripture tells us. Indeed, if I was created as a vessel of dishonor, why does Scripture teach me to be good? Since I have been given this or that nature, I am not able to change it. Why does it demand good from me if I am evil by nature? Why does he try to support a good person, saying: “If anyone thinks he stands, beware lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12)? If he is good by nature, why assert that he is firm? And then, what is the conclusion from the words: “not from him who wills, and not from him who strives”? If my desire has absolutely nothing to do with it, then what is the point in your sermon? If the current doesn't matter, why are you working? If my desire is nothing, why did God himself say: “If you are willing and obey, you will eat the good things of the earth” (Isaiah 1:19)? If human desire is nothing, why did Christ say: “How often did I want to gather your children... and you did not want” (Matthew 23:37)? “Not from him who desires, and not from him who strives.” If the current one had nothing to do with it, why did the apostle say to the Galatians: “You went well; who stopped you” (Gal. 5:7)? If both the one who desires and the one who flows are powerless, why does Paul say: “I do not run as if to the wrong” (1 Cor. 9:26); “Forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal” ( Phil. 3:13–14 )? Why are you working, why are you running? After all, you said: “not from him who wills, and not from him who strives”? But all these perplexities are resolved by Scripture. It was not from the desire of Isaac (after all, he wanted to give a blessing to the firstborn), nor from the labors of Esau (who hunted in the field for his father), but from the merciful God that it depended (to show mercy) to Jacob. Jacob owes the mercy shown to him not to the desire of Esau, nor to the zeal of Isaac, but exclusively to the merciful God. So, “not from the willing one” - explained. But this does not eliminate all the difficulties: there still remains - “from God who has mercy”, - the objection, based on the words: “he has mercy on whomever he wants, retains its force; but he hardens whomever he wants” (Rom. 9:18). Listen, brother, carefully to my words. God knows everything in advance, he knows, he does not himself determine the future, but by foreknowledge he knows what should be and will be. It’s another matter what He arranges with His providence, another thing is what He provides for our actions; another is to predetermine, another is to know by foreknowledge. If I foresee an evil that is about to happen, my foreknowledge does not produce the evil itself. I'll explain with an example. I often happen to observe that a young man receives a rich inheritance from his parents and immediately rushes to take advantage of his freedom, drowns in pleasures, gets carried away by shows and horse races. About this, I immediately decide in advance that in a short time he will throw away his father’s wealth and squander his inheritance. But, of course, my foreknowledge does not predetermine the future, it is only a conclusion from a number of similar cases; if it is justified in practice, it is not at all determined by the will of the one who foresaw the event, but solely by the lifestyle of the perpetrator of the embezzlement. And how often this is observed in other matters! If a traveler walks along a slippery road, without a staff in his hands, we immediately, when we see him, say: he will slip; he does not know that the road is dangerous and will certainly fall. But will it really fall precisely because you predicted it? 4. I do not at all want to say that my foreknowledge and the divine are the same. But by what happens to us, you can judge what is higher than us. And that's not all: objectors go further. They say: God himself confirms that He makes people good or evil; How else will you understand His words to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you” (Jer. 1:5)? After all, He Himself says: “from birth the wicked have departed” - before birth, “from the womb they go astray, speaking lies” - before birth (Ps. 57:4). Do you see how from the womb of the mother one is recognized as righteous, and the other as evil? Isn’t it by nature, then? Well said, they say, the Savior to the Jews: “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). But read it properly and do not distort what is written: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you.” Not first did I “sanctify you,” but first I “knew you,” and then I “sanctified you.” First the foreshadowing is placed here, and then after it the definition. And “before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you.” After I knew you, I sanctified you. So the apostle says: “those whom He foreknew, He also predestined” (Rom. 8:29). He did not say before: “predestined” - and then already: “foreknew.” I ask you, help those who labor in the word - with your zeal, and not with cliques. God is my witness, I'm not looking for them. I am only looking for the common good. And please me with your attention. What was said by the prophet: “and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you,” is repeated at a later time by the apostle. Does not the apostle say, like Jeremiah: “Whom He foreknew,” and “He chose us... before the foundation of the world” (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4)? God knew Jeremiah in his mother’s womb, and about the apostles he foreknew before the foundation of the world, and not only did he foreknow it only then, but he also pre-elected him. So, let's see whether foreknowledge affects nature. If the apostles were chosen before the foundation of the world, and were thereby determined to be righteous by nature, and not by free attraction to virtue, then why were those called who were destined by foreknowledge to be tax collectors? Why does Paul persecute? Why do harlots rush to the kingdom of heaven? After all, if it was known about the harlot that she was worthy of the kingdom of heaven, how did she become a harlot? If God knew everything about Paul, why was foreknowledge not reflected in his nature? Why did the one who was among those foreshadowed from the creation of the world turn out to be a blasphemer, persecutor and tormentor? Do you see that foreknowledge does not create nature, but only provides for the disposition of the will? If foreknowledge made him an apostle, why did Matthew become a tax collector? After all, being a publican is the same as being an idolater, as can be seen from the comparison made by the Savior: “let him be to you as a pagan and a publican” (Matthew 18:17). This means that he placed ordeal on a par with idolatry. So, if Matthew was foreknowledge, then why was it not foreknowledge that made him an apostle, but his will disposed to obedience? Was she saved and counted among the faithful? Obviously, there was God’s foreknowledge about her too. Why did she become a harlot? Why was the pearl, already known for its value, thrown into the mud? Everywhere you see that nature is indifferent, and free will acts - in agreement with divine foreknowledge, but completely independent in its manifestations. And God’s foreknowledge is justified, and man’s influence on his destiny is felt tangibly. Paul's words will help you clarify the matter. “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined... And those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Why is Judas called but not justified? “Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined,... them He also called.” This means that being chosen from the mother’s womb does not give any advantage to the prophet, if even in those chosen from time immemorial, nature is not subject to foreknowledge, but remains free along with it. So, we can consider it proven that foreknowledge is not embarrassed by nature - unless, of course, there is a desire to argue at all costs, to the point of complete shamelessness in front of the truth. Why, however, were the famous words spoken to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power over you, and that My name might be preached throughout all the earth” (Rom. 9:17)? To show Your strength, do you punish a person? To glorify Your power, do you destroy the innocent? If he is guilty, reproach him; and if you are innocent, do not blame. So, what does it mean: “to show My power over you”? I will use here one suitable example from antiquity, and you listen carefully. Since ancient times, the art of medicine has tried to comprehend the nature of man, his internal structure and functions; the means for this was anatomy, and living people were dissected for the general benefit in the sense of treatment. But, of course, it would be extremely unfair to sacrifice others—living people—to save some. What did the ancients do? They took those condemned to death for robbery, or for adultery, or for witchcraft, and they autopsied them alive. In relation to such criminals, this was not injustice, but at the same time it was beneficial to humanity. A person who had already been sentenced to death for crimes had his insides opened during his lifetime to observe their still ongoing functions. So God, as the most skillful Physician (after all, the Physician is the One Who said: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”, and: “those who are healthy do not need a doctor, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:13, 12), takes Pharaoh, already subject to countless executions for his own sins. And in fact, he was guilty of many crimes. Firstly, on his part there was blasphemy to say: “I do not know the Lord” (Ex. 5:2); God took him, who was subject to severe punishment, and, like an excellent doctor, subjected him to dissection with miracles, without immediately punishing him to death. Likewise, doctors performing an autopsy do not immediately execute a person, but gradually dissect the members, meanwhile making the necessary observations on the functions of the organs. He brings toads on him, arms extraordinary hordes against him - hordes of toads, locusts, in order to show the full strength of His power. He did not send an angel from heaven, nor a regiment of cherubim, nor does he send seraphim against those opposing him, but, showing his power, he sends out hordes of toads. The armies of locusts set out, having no visible leader, but led by the command of God. Toads from the river waged war against the god-fighter; locusts appeared, not gifted with reason, but obedient to the divine will. Dog flies followed him. And, in a word, God works many different miracles, new and unheard of, against him, cutting his soul with executions and torturing him, pursuing various manifestations of his wickedness with various executions. And what exactly for this purpose - to show His power on him - God punished Pharaoh gradually, and not suddenly - you can be convinced of this from the words of Wisdom: “It would not have been impossible for Your almighty hand, which created the world from unimaginable matter, to send upon them many bears or fierce lions, or unknown newly created fierce beasts” (Wis. 11:18-19). But God did everything, showing His long-suffering, which is why He says: “So that you tell your son and your son’s son what I did in Egypt” (Ex. 10:2). So, God executes this Pharaoh, who by his deeds has earned countless punishments, and says to him: “For this purpose I have kept you, so that I may show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth” (Ex. 9:16) - so that through you I can correct others, in order through you to admonish others, in order to teach others through you. And that, indeed, the execution of Pharaoh turned out to be useful for others, we have proof in the Holy Scriptures. Once the ark of God was in the hands of the Philistines, and false prophets and soothsayers gathered and said to the kings of the foreigners: “Let not the ark of the God of Israel remain with us, ... in His mighty hand” (1 Sam. 5:7). Do you not know what the Lord did to the Egyptians? Why should we harden our hearts as Pharaoh hardened his (1 Samuel 6:6)? Oh, the good thoughts of the pagans! Let these words of foreigners put those who like to contradict to shame! The foreigners did not say, Let us not harden our hearts, as God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. They attributed insensitivity to Pharaoh himself: why should we harden our hearts, as Pharaoh hardened his? Didn't the Egyptians let the people of Israel go when God mocked them? Let us now ask God for mercy. And again on another occasion, during the war, at the sight of the ark, the Philistines exclaimed: “Woe to us,” this is the mighty God who has defeated Egypt! Woe to us, “who will deliver us from the hand of this mighty God”? We know even without experience how He taught Pharaoh (1 Sam. 4:7–8). This is what the foreigners, the Philistines, said. And another foreigner - Rahab, once a harlot, and now chaste - this memorable woman says to the spies: we know what the Lord did to the Egyptians, “we heard... and... our heart fainted, and there was no spirit in any [of us] against you; for the Lord your God is great: He is “in heaven above and on earth below” (Joshua 2:10–11). Do you see that God does not say falsely: “For this purpose I have preserved you, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth”? Let the conclusion of the apostolic exhortation serve as the conclusion of our words. Paul says: “What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to demonstrate His power, with great longsuffering spared the vessels of wrath, which were ready to perish” (Rom. 9:22). He didn’t just say: he brought anger, but: on someone worthy of anger. What exactly does it say? “With great longsuffering he spared the vessels of wrath.” You know, of course, the wonderful instructions of the apostle: “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” (Eph. 6:10). If we are perfect by nature, what else can we do to improve ourselves? After all, “improving,” of course, means: making ourselves better in our liking. Take nature itself as a witness. Nature produces wool, women perfect it. It is known that the fabric itself, in its processed form, is called improvement. So, it means: nature produces wool, but art processes this product of nature; Thus, God, having created nature, placed it at the disposal of the will of man. For us, nature is wool, and it is in your hands to turn it into a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. You are a dyer: you have been given nature - wool, given the will, like some kind of paint. Do you want to dye your wool royal purple? Then you will be the king's son. Or have you colored it with dark deeds? Then you will be the son of darkness and night, not because nature produced this in you, but because your will acted in different directions. There is no compulsion or any need for you here, no matter how controversial people may dispute this. With God's help, as best we could, we answered the question. Try to keep it in your memory. And if anyone attacks you, resist him in order to overthrow him with his own weapons. And you have vessels in your house, and you do not use them indifferently, but you know which vessel contains wine, which contains vinegar; Likewise, God knows which soul is suitable for pardon and which is worthy of punishment, not because it was created that way, but because it has prepared itself for this with its habits. Therefore, brother, those who are punished are called vessels, and those who receive mercy are also called vessels ("what if God, desiring to show wrath and demonstrate His power, with great long-suffering spared the vessels of wrath, ready to perish, in order to together show the riches of His glory over the vessels of mercy" (Rom. 9:22-23)); and He made him a vessel of wrath, on whom anger was poured out, and He made him a vessel of mercy, on whom love for mankind was poured out, to show that everyone himself calls upon himself wrath and mercy. But maybe someone will grab hold of this thought, or rather this word: “vessels of wrath, ready for destruction”? So, he will say, not according to merit, but He himself did it. But it must be borne in mind that improvement is a matter of will, not nature. This is confirmed by the fact that to improve means to do something worthy of punishment or mercy by will. Perhaps now you will say: after all, I am still not convinced that the Scriptures say so? But the question is that you be healed. After all, the one who is treated by a doctor does not inquire about the nature of the medicine, but worries about how he can be cured. If the enemy asks you: how did you know? How did you learn? - answer: how I found out, I know, but I don’t know how to explain. I didn’t heal myself, but I was cured so that I could have a strong soul. If he still contradicts you, you say: since I was not a doctor, and am not privy to the secrets of healing, then go to the doctors themselves, and they will explain to you the effect of medicines. And may the Lord grant to us, those being healed, to give glory to the only wise Physician - God. To him be glory and power forever and ever. Amen. Creations attributed to St. John Chrysostom and classified in the Minya edition as Spuria.