3. Here (the apostle) directly removes from himself the reproach of delaying and not fulfilling his promise to come (to the Corinthians). The meaning of his words is as follows: "I wanted to come to you. Why didn't he come? Is it not because of frivolity and inconstancy? (And this is the meaning of the words "did I act lightly?" (food that is easy to eat). No. Why? Because, "what I do, I do not according to the flesh" (what I advise, I do not consult according to the flesh). What does it mean, "not according to the flesh"? Not as a carnal man. "Do I have either "yes, yes", or "no, no?" (May it be with me, if it is for her, and if it is neither?). But this is not yet clear. What does he say? "A carnal man," he says, "i.e., chained only to the present, always living in the present, and not being under the influence of the Spirit of God, can go everywhere and wander wherever he pleases; on the contrary, a servant of the Spirit of God, and led and guided by Him, cannot always be master of his own will, depending on the authority of the Spirit. It is the same with him as with a faithful servant, who only does the bidding of his master, and has no power over himself, and does not know rest even for a short time; he sometimes promises something to his companions, but then does not fulfill his promise when it turns out to be contrary to the will of his master." This is the meaning of the words (of the Apostle): "I do not undertake according to the flesh" (I do not consult according to the flesh), that is: "I am under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and have no power to go whither I will: I am subject to the authority and commandments of the Comforter, and His voice guides and governs me. Therefore I could not come to you; it was not pleasing to the Spirit of God. A similar thing often happened according to the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16:6-9): when the apostles intended to go together, the Spirit commanded them to go to another place. "That therefore I did not come to you, in spite of my promise, was not due to my frivolity or inconstancy, but to the Spirit, to which I am subject, and must obey." Do you see here the usual way of his reasoning? From what others thought to prove that he reasoned according to the flesh, that is, that he had not fulfilled his promise, from this very thing he shows that he disposed himself entirely according to the Spirit, which is utterly contrary to the flesh. "What, then," someone will say, "did not (the Apostle) promise (to come) by the inspiration of the Spirit of God?" I have said before that Paul did not foresee everything that is to come to pass successfully. That is why in the first epistle he says: "That ye may lead me whither I go" (1 Cor. 16:6), of course, for fear lest, having said "to Judea," he should be compelled to go to another place; but here, after this has not happened, he says: "And you would lead me to Judea" (and you would lead me to Judea). Since the promise to come to them (to Corinth) was the work of his love for them, he said it clearly. And his desire to go from them to Judea did not concern them in the least; That is why he spoke about it vaguely before. But later, when he was convinced of this, he said here directly that he would go to Judea. And this is done for profit, so that some of them do not think more of him than is proper. In fact, if (the apostles) had not shown in themselves any signs of human weakness, then to what wickedness could people have reached, when, in spite of these signs, they wanted to sacrifice oxen to them? And why do you wonder that Paul did not always know the future, if sometimes he did not know what was better to pray for? "For we do not know," he says, "what we ought to pray for" (Romans 8:26). And not only does he say this to show his modesty, but he also points out the very case when he did not know what it was better for him to pray for. When did he not know this? Then, how he prayed for the removal of temptations from him. "It has been given unto me," he says, "a thorn in the flesh, angel of Satan, to afflict me, that I should not be exalted. Three times I prayed to the Lord to remove him from me. But [the Lord] said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for My power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). Do you see how (the apostle) did not know what he ought to ask for? And therefore he did not receive it, although he repeatedly prayed for it. "God is faithful, that our word to you was not yes or no" (v. 18). Here (the Apostle) perfectly resolves the objection that has arisen. "If," they might have said to him, "having promised to come to us, you have postponed your intention, and you have no yes and no no, on the contrary, you subsequently change what you said before, as you did regarding your journey to us, then woe to us! – Did not the same thing happen in the sermon itself?" "In the sermon," he says, "this was not the case, but it happened only on the road and travels. In preaching, our words are always true and unchangeable" – he calls the sermon by the "word" here. Further, he presents an indisputable proof of this, attributing the whole work of preaching to God. His words have the following meaning: "The promise to come was mine, that is, I promised it on my own behalf; but preaching is not my work, nor man's, but God's; and what is from God is inaccessible to falsehood and deception. Wherefore he said, "God is faithful," that is, true. Therefore, do not suspect that which comes from God, and in which there is nothing human." Having mentioned the "word," (the Apostle) further adds an explanation of what word he is talking about.

4. So, what is this "word"? "For the Son of God," he says, "Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, by me, and by Silvanus, and by Timothy, was not yes and no" (v. 19). Here he brings other teachers to the stage in order to further confirm the authenticity of his testimony by pointing not only to the listeners, but also to the teachers. True, (those to whom the Apostle points out) were disciples; but he, in his humility, ranks them also among the rank of teachers. What does it mean: "there was no 'yes' and 'no'"? I did not pervert," he said, "the meaning of my first sermon; I did not preach to you today in this way, and tomorrow in another, because this is peculiar only to a lost mind, and not to faith. "But in Him was 'yes'" (But in Him it was), i.e., the word of the sermon remains unshaken and firm." "For all the promises of God are in Him, yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God, through us" (v. 20). What does it mean: "all the promises of God"? Many promises are contained in the preaching of the Gospel, and many promises were preached and preached (by the apostles). They spoke of the resurrection, and of the rapture into heaven, and of immortality, and of great rewards in the future life and ineffable blessings there. It is these promises (the Apostle) calls immutable, and says that there was no such thing in them as it was. The meaning of his words is this: "What I told you about these promises was not sometimes true, and sometimes false, like my promise to come to you, but always true." And, first of all, he defends the dogmas of the faith and the word about Christ, saying: "Neither my word nor my preaching was either yes or no; then the promises themselves: "For all the promises of God are in Him yes" (for the promises of God are in it). But if the promises of God are true, and there is no doubt that God will fulfill them, then how much more faithful is He Himself, and the word about Him is firm, and it cannot be said that sometimes He is, and sometimes He is not, but always is, and one and the same.

What does it mean: "In Him 'yes' and in Him 'amen' (in that she and in that amen)? With these words he shows that God's promises will certainly come true, since both the existence and their fulfillment depend on God, and not on man. Therefore there is nothing to fear: it is not a man who can be suspected of unfaithfulness who promises, but God who speaks and creates. "To the glory of God, through us" (to God to the glory of us). What does it mean, "to glory through us"? He will fulfill His promises through us, that is, by pouring out His blessings upon us, to His glory. This means: "To the glory of God." And if the fulfillment of promises serves for the glory of God, then they will certainly be fulfilled, because God cannot despise His glory, even if He despises our salvation, as well as because of His boundless love for mankind. Moreover, our salvation is closely connected with His glory, which is revealed in the fulfillment of His promises. Thus, if the fulfillment of the promises serves for the glory of God, then, of course, our salvation will also be accomplished. The same thing (the Apostle) constantly inspires in the Epistle to the Ephesians, when he says: "To the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:14); and everywhere he uses such expressions, wishing to show the necessity of fulfilling the promises of God. He says the same thing here, i.e., that God's promises are immutable, since their fulfillment serves not only for our salvation, but also for the glory of God. "Therefore do not be anxious," he says, "that these promises have been proclaimed through us, and do not doubt the faithfulness of their fulfillment, for their fulfillment does not depend on us, but on God, to whom they belong, since we have not declared to you our own promises, but His own." "But he who strengthens us with you in Christ, and anointed us, [is] God: and he who sealed and gave the deposit of the Spirit in our hearts" (v. 21, 22). Again from the past he affirms the truth of the future. "If," he says, "God Himself strengthens us in Christ, that is, does not allow us to waver in our faith in Christ, and He Himself anointed us and gave the Spirit into our hearts, how can He not grant us the blessings promised in the life to come? If he has already given the beginning and foundation, the root and source of blessings, i.e. the true knowledge of Him and the communion of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, then how can He not give the blessings that flow from this? Truly, if the present blessings which we enjoy are given for the sake of those whom we are still waiting for, how much more does he who bestows these blessings also grant those which are to be expected. And if He bestowed upon us the first blessings when we were still His enemies, how much more will He grant us the latter, when we have already become pleasing to Him. For this reason (the Apostle) did not simply say "the Spirit," but added "pledge" (betrothal), in order to assure us of receiving all that God promised. Indeed, if God did not want to give us all that He has promised, He would not have been pleased to give us a pledge, so as not to lose it in vain and in vain. And behold, what good sense Paul has! "What else," he says, "must be said to prove that the truth of the promises does not depend on us, when the very fact that you stand firm and unshaken in the faith does not depend on us, but on God? He who affirms (βεβαιών – approving) you, – he says, – is God, i.e., we do not confirm you, because we ourselves have need of the one who approves. Thus, no one should think that the truth of preaching through us is in danger. He Himself (He who confirms us in the faith) has taken all things upon Himself, He Himself cares for everything."

5. What does it mean, "He who anointed and sealed"? That is, He who gave the Spirit, through Whom He accomplished both – anointing and sealing, making us prophets, priests, and kings together, because in ancient times those who received these virtues were anointed. But now we have not one of these virtues, but all three, and moreover in the highest degree, since we also hope to receive the kingdom, and are made priests, when we offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God, (according to the instruction of the Apostle, who) says: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God" (Romans 12: 1), finally we also become prophets, because what "eye has not seen, ear has not heard" (eye has not seen, nor ear heard), has been revealed to us (1 Corinthians 2:9). But we can also be kings in another way, namely, if we curb inappropriate thoughts. That such a one (who restrains his thoughts) is indeed a king, and even more than clothed only in a diadem, this I will show you at once. The king has a great army, and we have more than that. In fact, it is impossible to count the immense multitude of our thoughts. However, one can see not only the multiplicity of our thoughts, but also the fact that in this multitude of them there are commanders, and thousanders, and centurions, and archers, and slingers. What else distinguishes a king? Clothing. But he, too, is clothed in the best and most precious garment, which neither moths devour, nor time destroys. He also has a glorious crown in many forms – the crown of God's mercy, as it is written: "Bless the Lord my soul... crowning thee with mercy and bounties" (Psalm 102:1, 4); the crown of glory – "with glory and honor He crowned Him" (Psalm 8:6); the crown of God's favor – "with good pleasure as with a shield thou crown him" (for with the weapon of good pleasure Thou didst crown us) (Psalm 5:13); the crown of graces is "a beautiful crown for thy head" (for thou hast received a crown of graces on thy head) (Proverbs 1:9). You see how variously decorated this diadem is, and how much more magnificent it is than usual. But let us examine more carefully and deeply the affiliations of these kings. An ordinary king, having spearmen in his power, gives commands to all of them, and they all obey and serve him. But I will show you that another king has more power. As for the number of subjects, it is equal for both, or even greater for the latter; it remains only to consider the obedience (given to both). Do not present to me here as an example (kings) who have lost their kingdom, or who have been killed by their own bodyguards. No, we will not bring such (kings) to the stage, but on both sides we will look for those who successfully ruled their kingdoms. Therefore, present anyone on your part, and I will oppose one patriarch (Abraham) to everyone whom you represent.

Think what a multitude of thoughts must have arisen in his soul when he was commanded to sacrifice his son? But all these thoughts he subdued, and they all obeyed him with more fear than any king was obeyed. With a single glance he tamed all thoughts, so that not one of them dared to show the slightest sign of contradiction, but all bowed down before him, and submitted to him as to a king, although by nature they are very disobedient and even indomitable. Not so terrible are the points of spears directly directed by numerous soldiers, as these thoughts were then. Is not the natural love of a father for his son sharper than the spears themselves? Therefore, it could wound the soul of the father much more deeply than the most sophisticated point of a spear. There has never been such a sharp spear as the arrows of thoughts, sharpened in the depths of the soul by parental love for the son and piercing the heart of the righteous. It takes time, and intention, and a blow, and a feeling of excruciating pain, and then death follows. Here, however, nothing of the kind was required; consequently, the wounds were inflicted incomparably faster and deeper. But in spite of the fact that so many thoughts were then arrayed against him, there was a great silence in his soul; and all his thoughts, standing before him in orderly order, adorned him more than frightened him. Look, then, at this righteous man at the moment when he drew his knife, and oppose to him any kings you like, Augustus, Caesars. Surely you will not imagine anything so high, and you will never find a model so majestic and so worthy of heaven. This righteous man then triumphed over the most powerful autocracy, because there is nothing more autocratic than nature. Therefore, even if you have imagined thousands of men who have killed tyrants, you will not point out to us a single such man. Truly, it was a victory peculiar to an angel, and not to a man. Vide. Nature is defeated with all her weapons, with all her army; but he stands firm, with his hands outstretched, not with a crown, but with a knife, which is more brilliant than any crown; and a host of angels applaud him, and God himself from heaven proclaims him victorious. Since he was a citizen of heaven, he also received the proclamation from there. So, what can be more glorious than this? Or, better, what could be equal to this reward? If, even at the Olympic games, the victor had not been hailed by the herald standing below, but by the king himself, sitting above, had risen and proclaimed him the victor, would he not have considered such a proclamation a reward more brilliant than the crowns themselves, and would not have attracted the attention of all the spectators? Tell me, then, to what degree of glory and greatness should this holy man be placed, whom not the earthly king, but God Himself from heaven publicly proclaims to be the victor, – not at the Olympian spectacle, but at the spectacle of the whole world, before the hosts of angels and archangels? If you like, let us listen to the proclamation itself. What did this proclamation consist of? "Abraham! Abraham! … do not lift up your hand against the child, and do nothing to him, for now I know that you fear God, and have not spared your son, your only son, for my sake" (Genesis 22: 12. What does this mean? Is it possible that He Who knew all things before they came into existence has only now come to know (Abraham)? For even the fear of God was evident to man: so many examples of his obedience to God he showed – for example, when God said to him: "Depart from thy land, from thy kindred" (Gen. 12:1), when for God and out of reverence for Him He allowed his nephew to choose a most fruitful country, when He delivered him from great and many dangers, when, by the command of God, he did not hesitate to go to Egypt, and was not grieved when he lost his wife there, and on many other occasions. From these examples, as I have said, the fear of God (of Abraham) could also be known by man, not only by God, Who has no need to wait for the works themselves in order to see their consequences. Moreover, how did (God) justify him, if He did not know him? "Abraham believed," it is said, "in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness" (Abraham believed and was imputed to him in righteousness) (Romans 4:3).

6. What, then, does it mean, "now I know"? The Syriac translator renders these words thus: "Now thou hast shown," i.e., to the people. "I myself," he says, "have known you for a long time, even before all My commandments to you." But why also to people (he only showed) now? Were the previous examples not enough to show his fear of God? Without a doubt, they are sufficient. But this last example is undoubtedly so far superior to all previous examples that they seem insignificant in comparison. Thus, "Now I know" is said with the intention of exalting this last feat (of Abraham) and placing it above all others. This is a common way of expression in many people, in cases of special importance and surpassing the former. For example, if someone receives from another a gift incomparably greater than the former, he usually says: "Now I have learned that so-and-so loves me," not to express that he did not know it before, but to show that the present gift is greater than all (previously received). In the same way, God, speaking (to Abraham) in human language, says: "Now I know," wishing to show nothing else than the superiority of his present podvig, and not that at that time He would only know his fear of God, or how great this fear of God is. So when He said: "I will come down and see" (Gen. 18:21), He said so not because He needed to go down – after all, He fills everything and sees everything clearly – but in order to make us understand that He does not determine something without reason. Likewise, when David says: "The Lord hath looked down from heaven" (Psalm 13:2), this metaphor, taken from men, signifies in God an exact knowledge. So it is here: "Now I know" (God) said (to show that this podvig is higher than all the former); and in confirmation of this he adds the following words: "Thou hast not spared thy son, thy only son, for my sake" (for thou hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake). He did not simply say "son," but added "only" (beloved). In fact, (Abraham) fought here with firmness, not only against nature, but also against that love for his son, which was especially great in him, both because of his own virtue and because of the many virtues of his son. If, however, fathers are not indifferent to the death of their criminal children, but they also mourn them, then who can express the lofty wisdom of this father, who has decided to sacrifice his son with his own hands, the son of the true, only-begotten, beloved Isaac? Truly, this podvig is more brilliant than thousands of diadems and innumerable crowns. From one who wears an ordinary crown, it can be taken away not only by sudden death, but even before death by a thousand other unfavorable circumstances; on the contrary, no one can take away everything from him who is adorned with this extraordinary diadem even after death, neither his own nor someone else's. Consider, then, I beseech you, the most precious stone in this diadem, for at the top it is fixed as if by a precious stone. What is it? In a word: "For Me" (For Me's sake). For it is not surprising that He did not spare His son, but that He did so for His sake. O blessed right hand! What a wonderful knife did you accept? Oh, the wondrous knife! What wondrous right hand has received you? Oh, the wondrous knife! For what use have you been ordained, what service have you performed, and in what wonderful way have you served? How is it that you are stained with blood, and you are not? I don't know what to say: this mystery was so terrible! The knife did not touch the body of the youth, did not pass through the throat of this saint, did not stain with the blood of the righteous man; and to say it more correctly, he touched, and passed, and was stained with blood, and was drowned in it, and was not drowned. Perhaps you think that I am contradicting myself, like one who has lost his mind. And indeed, my reason is lost when thinking about the miracle that happened to this righteous man; However, I do not contradict myself in the least. Indeed, the hand of this righteous man had already plunged the knife into the throat of his son, but the hand of God did not allow the thrust knife to be stained with blood. It was not only Abraham who held the knife, but also God. And while Abraham strikes by the decision of the will, God stops him with His voice. One and the same voice armed the right hand of the righteous man and held it, and the hand, guided by God as if by a leader, did everything according to His beckoning, and in all movements obeyed His voice. Look, indeed: God said: "Slaughter" – and immediately she armed herself; He said: "Do not slaughter" – and she immediately lays down her weapon. Everything was so skillfully arranged. In this way, God showed in him to the whole world – a leader and a warrior, to a host of angels – a crowned priest, a king crowned with a diadem, or rather, with a knife, with a victorious sign in his hand, a hero, a victor without a battle. Just as a military commander, having put forward a skilful and courageous warrior, by the mere rotation of his weapon, by the mere sight and rapidity of his movement, often frightens his enemy, so God, by the mere will, by the very appearance and position of the righteous man, struck down and put to flight our universal enemy, the devil, who, I think, then fled in fear and terror. "But," someone will say, "why did God not allow the right hand of the righteous to be stained with the blood (of the son), in order to immediately raise up the slain?" Here (in the sacrifice of Abraham) both the love of humanity of the Lord and the faithfulness of the servant were revealed together. First (Abraham) went out only out of his land; and now he has even abandoned his nature. For this reason he received in addition to his son another incomparably greater – and very justly. In fact, he decided not to be called a father, if only to appear before God as a faithful servant, and for this he not only remained a father, but also became a priest. And because he had given up his own for God's sake, therefore God, having restored what was his, gave him also His own. Moreover, when enemies plot against the righteous, God allows temptations to reach the very deed, and then works miracles – this was the case, for example, in the furnace of Babylon and in the lions' den; but when He Himself commands them something, His command stops at their readiness to do it.

7. Tell me now, what else was lacking in this valor? Indeed, did Abraham foresee what would happen? Could I have foreseen God's love for mankind? True, he was a prophet, but a prophet does not know everything. Otherwise, the slaughter (of Isaac) would have been superfluous and unworthy of God. If he wanted to know that God is able to raise from the dead, he knew this much more convincingly in the solution of Sarah's barrenness, or even before this example, because he believed. You should not only be surprised at this righteous man, but also compete with him. Seeing how he, in the time of such great turmoil and the storming of the waves, floats as if in clear and calm weather, and you, like him, take in your hands the helm of obedience and courage. Do not only consider that he built an altar and prepared wood, but also remember what his son said to him, and consider how many terrible hordes rushed upon him, when he, the father, heard from his son the words: "Where is the lamb?" (Where is the sheep?) (Gen. 22:7). Think how many thoughts then rose up against him, armed not with iron, but with fiery spears, which struck and pierced his heart on all sides? If even now many, even without being fathers, lament over this and shed tears, not knowing how this matter ended; And many, knowing this, weep, as I see, what sufferings must he endure, who begotten, brought up, and, being already in old age, had only this one son, whom he now sees before him, hears these words, and prepares to put to death immediately? On the other hand, what prudence is in the words (of the son)! With what meekness he listens to (his father's) answer! And who acted here? Is it possible that the devil wants to inflame the heart (of Abraham) even more? No, God acted here to test and purify the golden soul of this righteous man even more. When Job's wife spoke, then the devil was at work, because such was the counsel (Job 2:9). But Isaac did not utter a single blasphemous word; on the contrary, he spoke very piously and prudently. His words were unusually touching, and like honey flowed from his calm and meek soul. A heart of stone could have been softened by such words; but they did not touch or shake that adamant (Abraham) in the least. He did not say, "Why do you call him father, who a little later will not be your father; He who has already lost this honor?" Of course, not simply out of curiosity or excessive curiosity, but because he, too, was anxious to carry out what he had undertaken (the sacrifice). He reasoned with himself: "If my father had not wanted to make me a partaker (of the sacrifice), he would not have left the slaves at the foot of the mountain, and he would not have taken me alone (to the mountain)," wherefore he asked his father when they were alone, and no one could hear their conversation. That was how prudent this son was! Men and women, does not the heart of all of you burn? Is not each of you mentally ready to embrace and kiss this youth? Who among you does not marvel at his prudence, and is not amazed at his reverent obedience, wherefore, even while (his father) was binding him and laying him on the wood, he was not frightened, he did not jump up, he did not rebuke his father as if he were mad; on the contrary, he allowed himself to be bound, led and laid on the wood, and he endured all this in silence, like some lamb, or, better, like the common Lord of all? And indeed, Isaac imitated Him in obedience and meekness, and was His image: "As a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer is silent" (Isaiah 53:7). True, this lad spoke; but his Lord also spoke. How was he voiceless? That is, he said nothing boldly and rudely, but everything was so modest and accommodating that his words, more than silence, revealed his obedience and meekness. In the same way, even though Christ said to him who struck Him on the cheek: "If I have spoken evil, show me what is evil; but if it is good, why do you strike me?" (If you speak evil, bear witness to evil; if it is good, that you beat Me?) (John 18:23), but with these words He revealed His meekness even more than if He had remained silent. And as Isaac pronounced the name of his father at the altar, so Christ cried out from the cross, saying: "Father, forgive them! forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do) (Luke 23:34). What about the Patriarch? "God will provide for Himself a lamb for a burnt offering, my son" (Gen. 22:8). Both of them pronounce natural names, one of the father, the other of the son. A fierce war and a violent storm rise on both sides, and there is no shipwreck on either side. And this is because wisdom governs everything. Then, as soon as Isaac heard the name of God, he said no more words, so as not to be curious in vain. So prudent was this lad in the very flower of his age! Do you see, then, how many armies, and in how many battles, this king has won? Truly, the barbarians, who often attacked Jerusalem, were not so terrible to that city as (to Abraham) the thoughts that rose up against it from everywhere. And yet he triumphed over all of them. Do you wish to see in him a priest as well? The proof is not far away. Indeed, when you see him standing by the altar with fire and knife in his hand, why will you doubt his priesthood after that? If you want to see the sacrifice made by him, you can see it – even a special one. He brought a son, and He brought a ram, and above all, His own will. With the blood of the ram he sanctified his right hand, and with the slaughter of his son he sanctified his soul. Thus he was ordained a priest by the blood of the only-begotten and by the sacrifice of a lamb, just as the priests were sanctified by the blood of the sacrifices offered to God. Do you wish to see (in Abraham) a prophet also? "Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; and he saw and rejoiced," says (Christ) (John 8:56). In the same way, in the font of baptism, you are made a king, and a priest, and a prophet: a king, having cast down all evil deeds and put to death sinful desires; by a priest – through consecration of oneself to God, through offering one's body as a sacrifice to Him, and through the spiritual slaughter of oneself, (in the words of the Apostle, who) says: "If we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him" (2 Tim. 2:11); finally, you also become a prophet, because you know the future, you become inspired by God and sealed. Just as soldiers are sealed, so believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit, so that everyone may see you if you go out of line. The Jews had the seal of circumcision, but we had the "earnest of the Spirit" (the betrothal of the Spirit). And so, having learned this and reflecting on the lofty dignity we received in baptism, let us show in ourselves a life worthy of this grace, so that we may also receive the future kingdom, which we may all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 4

"I call God to witness in my soul, that I have not come to Corinth until now, sparing you" (2 Corinthians 1:23).

1. What do you say, blessed Paul? Sparing them, did you not come to Corinth? It seems to us that by saying this, you contradict yourself. You said above that you did not come because you do nothing according to the flesh, you have no authority over yourself, but go where the Holy Spirit commands you. Moreover, as obstacles to this, you also pointed out your sorrows. And now you say as if it depended on you not to come, and not on the power of the Spirit. "Sparing you," you say, "I have not yet come to Corinth." What must be said to this? Or that this very thing happened by the will of the Spirit, who, while (the apostle) wanted to go, inspired him to postpone this journey, representing the need to spare them; or he speaks of another journey, and thereby lets them know that he wanted to go to them even before he wrote the first epistle, but refrained from doing so out of love for them, so as not to find them unreformed. However, it is also probable that (the apostle) for the same reason afterwards decided to remain where he was when he wrote the second epistle, although the Spirit no longer restrained him from going. And this supposition is much more probable, i.e., that at first he was restrained by the Spirit, and afterwards he himself remained, thinking that it would be better that way. And you see how (the apostle) again mentions himself – which I will not cease to notice – deriving for himself a defense from the very reproaches that could be done to him. The Corinthians could be suspicious and say to him, "You hated us, therefore you did not want to come to us." (In anticipating such a suspicion, the Apostle) presents the opposite reason why he did not come, namely, that he loved them. What does it mean, "sparing you"? "I have heard," he says, "that some of you have committed fornication; therefore I did not want to come to you, so as not to grieve you. Being with you, I would be obliged to investigate and investigate this matter myself, and to punish many. And so, I thought it best not to be with you, in order to give you time to repent, rather than to punish you when I came to you, and to bear from you even greater sorrow." This thought he clearly stated at the end of the epistle, when he said: "Again, when I come, my God will not despise me among you, and [lest] I weep for many who have sinned before, and have not repented of uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness, which they have committed" (I am afraid that the food that has come to me will humble my God among you, and I will weep for many who have sinned before, and have not repented of uncleanness and fornication, as a deed) (12:21). He means the same here, and although he says this as if to justify himself, he at the same time strongly rebukes and frightens them. (By the very justification of himself before them) he gives them to understand that they are still subject to punishment, and can suffer something if they do not hasten to reform. And this again he expresses at the end of the epistle, saying: "When I come again, I will not spare you" (13:2). The only difference is that at the end of the Epistle he speaks about it directly, and here, as at the beginning of the Epistle, he does not speak so openly and with a certain condescension, and even more, he further softens and corrects this way of expression. For since (the Apostle) has said that it is proper for only one who has great authority to speak, and that only he who has authority and punishes them can spare others, he goes on to say that "not because we take power over your faith" (v. 24), that is: "When I said that I did not come to spare you, I did not say so because I wanted to rule over you." He did not even say "over you," but "over the faith," which is much more favorable and in accord with the truth. After all, who has the power to force him who does not want to believe to faith? "But we will help your joy" (But we are the companions of your joy). "Since your joy," he says, "is at the same time ours, I have not come to you, so as not to plunge you into despondency, and thereby increase my sorrow; and I remained in order to give you the opportunity to rejoice in your correction only from my (in absentia) threat. We do everything for your joy and take care of it alone, because we ourselves have communion in it." "For by faith ye are strong." See with what caution he speaks again. He is afraid to reproach them again, because he has already rebuked them quite strongly in the first epistle, and after that they have already shown a certain change (in life). If, after this change, they had heard the same reproaches as before, it might have ruined them. That is why the present epistle is written with greater ease than the first. "I have determined not to come to you again with grief" (2:1). The word "again" (packi) shows that (the apostle) was already grieved (by the Corinthians), and, apparently, defending himself before them, he imperceptibly reproaches them themselves. Imagine, then, how great must have been the sorrow (of the Apostle), if they had already grieved him once, and were ready to grieve him again. But he does not say to them directly, "You have grieved me," but makes it clear to them in other words, namely, "I have not come to you that I should not grieve you." This is equivalent to what I have said, but it was more acceptable and more bearable. "For if I grieve you, who will make me happy but he who is grieved with me?" (For if I cause sorrow to you, then who is there who rejoices me, and receive sorrow from me?) (v. 2). What is the sequence here? Very large. Indeed, look. "I did not want to come to you," he said, "so as not to grieve you with new reproaches, indignation, and disgust." Further, since this was also very harsh, and it implicated (the Corinthians) that they were grieving Paul by their way of life, he, wishing to soften what he had said, says: "For if I grieve you, who will make me happy but he who is grieved by me?" this very thing gave me joy. This was precisely a sign of your greatest love for me, when I meant so much to you that even my indignation alone could hurt you."

2. And note the wisdom (of the Apostle). Disciples are usually vexed and grieved when they are reproached, and he presents these reproaches as a kind of grace for them. "No one," he says, "rejoices me so much as he who is wounded by my words, and grieves when he sees me grieved." True, it should be said: "If I grieve you, who can make you happy?" But he does not say this, but, wishing to correct them, says the opposite: "Though I make you grieve, yet you, being wounded by sorrow at my words, give me great joy." "This is what I have written to you" (v. 3). What is it? "The fact that I did not come, precisely sparing you." When did (the apostle) write about this? Was it in the first epistle, when he said: "I do not want to see you now in passing" (16:7)? No, but I think that in the same epistle, when I said: "Lest again, when I come, my God despise me among you" (lest my God humble me among you). And so, "This," he says, "is what I wrote to you at the end of the epistle, so that again, when I come, my God will not despise me among you, and [lest] I should weep for many who have sinned before" (12:21). Why did you write? "That when I come, I may not be grieved by those over whom I ought to rejoice: for I am confident in all of you, that my joy is also for you all" (2:3). Since (the Apostle) said, "I rejoice when you are in sorrow," and these words might have seemed too heavy and cruel, he again expressed the same thing in a different way, and in the following words made it more bearable. "For this reason," he says, "I first wrote to you, so that, to my sorrow, I would not find you unreformed. And when I said, "That ... not to be grieved" (that I may not accept sorrow), then he said so, having in mind not his own benefit, but yours. I am sure that you rejoice if you see me rejoicing, and you yourselves will be filled with sorrow when you see me sad." See now what a close connection all that has been said has. Now his words will be clear to us. "For this," he says, "I have not come, lest I should grieve you, if I find you not yet reformed. He did so, having in mind not his own, but your benefit. From your grief I take no small pleasure when I see that you care so much for me that you yourselves grieve, and grieve when you see me grieving: "Who will gladden me but he who is grieved by me?" (For who is it that rejoiceth me, and receive sorrow from me?) However, in spite of this disposition of my spirits, since I seek your benefit, "this is what I wrote to you... that I may not be grieved" (I write to you this fervently, that I may not receive sorrow), and in this case again seeking not my own benefit, but yours. For I know that you yourselves will grieve when you see me grieving; also, on the contrary, you will rejoice when you see me rejoicing." See what prudence is here. First he said: "I have not come so as not to grieve you, although," he says, "I rejoice." Then, lest it should be thought that he rejoices only in their grief, he says: "Therefore I rejoice that I still have a place in your hearts. Otherwise, I would have borne great sorrow, both because I would have been forced to grieve you with reproaches, who love me so much, and because I myself would have grieved, which would have increased your sorrow even more." See now how he said these words with praise: "In which I ought to rejoice." They testify to his sincerity and great love for them. That is what a father might say to his children, for whom he has done much good and worked hard. "And so," he says, "if I only write and do not come to you myself, I do not go because I arrange something better for you, and not because I hate you, not because I abhor you, but because I love you very much." Further, in order that in view of the words that he who grieves rejoices him, they would not say to him, "So you care only that you yourself may rejoice, and show all what great strength you have with us?" he added the following: "Out of great sorrow and distress of heart I have written to you with many tears, not to grieve you, but that you may know love, which I have in abundance unto you" (for out of sorrow and hardness of heart I have written to you with many tears, not that ye may be offended, but that ye may know the love which I have abundantly for you) (v. 4).

What can be more loving than this soul? With these words (the Apostle) shows that he grieved for those who sinned not only no less, on the contrary, even much more than the sinners themselves. He does not simply say "out of sorrow," but "out of great tribulation"; not only with tears, but "with many tears, and from a distressed heart," i.e., "I was oppressed and oppressed by sorrow, and being unable to bear this cloud of sorrow, I decided to write to you, not in order to grieve you, but that you might know the love," he says, "which I have in abundance for you." It would be proper to say thus: "Not to offend you, but to correct you," because for this (the Apostle) wrote; but he does not speak in this way, but, wishing to make his speech more pleasant and to bind them more firmly to himself, he, instead of reminding them of their correction, assures them of his love, according to which he does everything. And he does not simply say, "I have love for you," but, "The love that I have in abundance for you." He also desires to attract them to himself, showing that he loves them more than anyone else, and is disposed towards them as chosen disciples. That is why he said before: "If I am not an Apostle to others, I am an Apostle to you" (1 Corinthians 9:2); and in another place: "Though you have thousands of teachers in Christ, yet not many fathers" (for there are many fathers, but not many fathers) (1 Corinthians 4:15); or again: "By the grace of God, we lived in peace, especially among you" (by the grace of God we dwelt in the world, and abounded among you) (2 Corinthians 1:12); and later (at the end of this epistle) he writes: "Loving you exceedingly, I am less loved by you" (12:15); finally, here too he says: "The love which I have in abundance for you" (the Imam loves you abundantly).

3. Thus, although the words (of the apostle) were full of wrath, this anger proceeded from great love and sorrow. "And when I wrote the epistle," he says, "I suffered and grieved, not only because you had sinned, but also because I was compelled to grieve you, and all this from love, like a father who, being forced to cut off or cauterize the rotten limbs of his beloved son, suffers doubly, both because his son is sick and because he himself has to cut it off. Thus, what you consider a sign of ill-will towards you is a sign of the greatest love for you. But if love urged me to grieve you, how much more should your sorrow rejoice." And so, having defended himself (he often defends himself in this way, and is not ashamed of it, because if God also does this, saying, for example, "My people! What have I done to you?" (My people, what have we done to you) (Micah 6:3) – how much more could Paul have done this), – so, having defended himself, (the Apostle) now proceeds to defend him who has fallen into fornication. Since (the Apostle) himself had previously expressed anger against him, and now demands to be forgiven, so that they do not misinterpret his command as contradicting the first, and do not persist – see how he prepared them for this, both the above and the following. What exactly does he say next? "But if any man have grieved, he hath not grieved me" (v. 5). First praising them for having only joys and only sorrows with him, and having said beforehand, "My joy is also for all" (v. 3), (the apostle) then begins to speak of the incestuous man. "If," he says, "my joy is at the same time your joy, then you must rejoice with me now, just as you sorrowed with me then. As then you gave me pleasure and joy by your sorrow, so now you will do the same with your joy, if only you will take part in my joy." (The Apostle) did not say: "My sorrow is sorrow for all of you," but he expressed the same thing in other places in other words, and here he mentioned only what was necessary, namely, joy, saying that "my joy is joy also for all of you." Following this, he recalls what he said before, saying: "If anyone has grieved, he has not grieved me, but in part, not to say much, and all of you" (if anyone has offended me, do not offend me, but in part, let me not burden you all). "I know," he says, "that you also with me were grieved and indignant at him who fell into fornication, and that this incident grieved you all in part. However, I said "partly" not because your grief was less than mine, but in order not to aggravate him who fell into fornication. And so, it was not only me who was grieved by him, but you in equal measure, and it was only out of condescension that I said to him, "in part." Do you see how soon (the apostle) softened their anger, saying that they also were partakers in his affliction? "For such a chastisement from many is sufficient" (v. 6). He does not say, "to him who has fallen into fornication," but again, as in the first epistle, "to such," though for a different reason; then he spoke thus out of abhorrence of the sin committed, and here out of condescension to the sinner. Here he does not mention the sin he has committed, because it was time to defend the guilty. "Wherefore it is better for you to forgive him and comfort him, lest he be swallowed up in excessive sorrow" (v. 7). (The Apostle) commands here not only to allow the prescribed punishment, but also to restore the guilty to his former state, because if someone, having punished the guilty, simply dismisses him, without any consolation, he does him no good. But see again how (the Apostle) restrains the guilty one, so that he, having received forgiveness, does not become worse. He shows him that although he has confessed his sin and repented of it, yet he receives forgiveness not so much for repentance as for mercy and condescension, wherefore he says: "So it is better for you to forgive him and comfort him" (that you may grant and comfort). The same is evident from the following words. "Not because," he says, "I allow the guilty to be forgiven, because he is worthy of it, or because he has shown sufficient repentance; but because he is weak," – which is why he added: "so that he may not be swallowed up in excessive sorrow" (so that he may not suffer much sorrow). In saying this, (the Apostle) also testifies to the great repentance of the guilty, and does not allow him to fall into despair. What then does it mean, "that he may not be swallowed up"? Either that he would act like Judas, or that if he remained alive he would become even worse. "Although," he says, "he is not such that he can no longer endure the sorrows of prolonged punishment, yet, having lost patience and hope, he can easily encroach on his life, or finally give himself over to greater wickedness. Therefore, we need to be careful that the wound does not become more grievous and so that by immoderation (in punishment) we do not destroy what good we have already done."

Saying this, (the Apostle), as I have noted before, wanted both to restrain and to admonish (the guilty), so that he, having received forgiveness, would not become even more negligent. "I received him," he says, "(into my former disposition), not because he was completely cleansed of defilement, but because I feared that he might do something worse." From this we learn that the measure of repentance must be appointed not only according to the nature of the sins, but also in accordance with the disposition and condition of the sinners themselves. And so the Apostle did then, since he too was frightened by the weakness of the sinner. Wherefore he said, Lest he be swallowed up, as by a beast, or by waves, or by a storm. "Wherefore I beseech you," v. 8. He no longer commands, but asks, not as a teacher, but as an equal, and, leaving them to sit in the judge's seat, he himself took the place of the defender. Since he had already achieved what he wanted, he did not know the measure of his humility from joy. What do you ask for, tell me? "To show him love" (Affirm love for him), i.e.: "With strong love, and not simply and as it happened, receive him." In saying this, (the Apostle) again assimilates to them the greatest virtue. Those who had formerly loved the sinner so much, and defended him so much, that they were even proud of it, turned away from him to such an extent that it cost Paul great difficulty to make them receive him with strong love. This is a commendable quality in students, here is perfection in a teacher – when students are so obedient, and the teacher forms such (obedient students). If it were so now, then sinners would not be so insensitive to their sins. And no one should be foolishly loved, nor abhorred without reason. "For this I have written, that I may know by experience whether ye are obedient in all things" (v. 9), i.e., not only in cutting off the sinner, but also in joining him. Do you see how here again (the Apostle) makes it necessary for them to decide on this podvig? As when (the guilty) sinned, (the Apostle) presented to them what danger threatened them if they did not cut him off, saying that "the little leaven leavens all the dough" (1 Corinthians 5:6), and many other things, so here again he presented to them all the danger of disobedience. "Just as before," as if he were saying, "I had to take care not only of him, but also of you, so now I care not so much for him as for you, so that no one would consider you to be stubborn, inhuman, and not obedient in everything." Wherefore he says, "For this I have written, that I may know by experience whether ye are obedient in all things." This (the removal of the guilty person from society) could also seem to be an act of hatred and cruelty, and this (receiving him into love) will especially prove the sincerity of obedience, and at the same time the readiness for works of philanthropy.