Perhaps someone will ask: why (the Apostle) writes only to Titus and Timothy, while Silas was one of the most honorable men, as well as Luke, of whom he says in his epistle: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Tim. 4:10); likewise Clement was one of his fellow-workers, because (the Apostle) also says of him: "With Clement and with the rest of my fellow-workers" (Phil. 4:3)? Why, then, does he write only to Titus and Timothy? Because he had already entrusted the latter to the Church; meanwhile, the former still accompanied him in his travels; he placed the latter in prominent places. (Timothy) was endowed with such exalted qualities that even his youth did not constitute the slightest obstacle for him. For this reason (the Apostle) wrote: "Let no one despise thy youth" (1 Tim. 4:12), and again: "the young," he says, "as sisters" (5:2). When there is virtue, everything is in abundance, and there is no obstacle in anything. For this reason, when discussing bishops and speaking much about them, (the Apostle) never enters into a detailed study of their age. And if he says in his epistle that (the bishop ought to be) "keeping the children in obedience with all honesty; and one wife to the husband" (1 Timothy 3:4,2), he says this not because he needs to have a wife and children, but because if it should ever happen that a layman should be elevated to this place, they should be such that they can manage the house, the children, and everything else. For if anyone, in addition to being a layman, were still a useless person even in this kind of matter, how could he be entrusted with the care of the Church? But why, you will say, does (the Apostle) write an epistle to a disciple when he has already been appointed to the teaching position? Should he not have been instructed first, and then sent (to this office)? But (Timothy) had need not of such instruction as is necessary for the disciples, but of such instruction as is necessary for the teacher. Note, therefore, that throughout the epistle he gives him the instruction necessary for a teacher. So even from the very beginning, in the preface, he did not say: do not listen to those who teach otherwise, but how? – "to exhort some, that they should not teach otherwise" (1 Tim. 1:3).

[1] Probably, here the saint points to the miracles that exuded the relics of St. Timothy.

CONVERSATION 1

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the command of God our Saviour, and of the Lord Jesus Christ our hope, unto Timothy, a true son in the faith: grace, mercy, peace, from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:1-2).

1. The title of apostle was great, high, and venerable; and we see that Paul everywhere preliminarily points out the reasons for his calling, (wishing to show) that he does not admire honor for himself, but has received it and possesses it out of necessity. When he calls himself called (Romans 1:1), and when he says, "By the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1), and again in another place, "This is my necessary [duty]" (1 Corinthians 9:16), and when he says, "For whom I am ordained" (1 Tim. 2:7), he removes (all thought) of covetousness and pride. For just as he who seeks honor, which is not given to him by God, is subject to the strictest condemnation, so he who sets aside and rejects it is subject to another kind of accusation, that of disobedience and disobedience. That is why Paul now, at the beginning of his Epistle to Timothy, speaks of the same thing in these words: "Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the command of God," He did not say here, "Paul called," but, "By commandment." In order that Timothy, in his weakness, should not think that (the apostle) was speaking to him in the same way as to the other disciples, he thus began (his epistle). Where did God give him this command? In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the Spirit (of God) said: "Separate for Me Barnabas and Saul" (Acts 13:2). And everywhere in his epistles Paul adds the name of the apostle to (his name), teaching the listener not to think that what he said is the word of man, because the messenger does not speak anything on his own behalf; therefore, calling himself a messenger, he immediately turns the listener's thought to the One Who sent him. That is why he puts this name in front of all the Epistles, making his word certain through it, and (here) he says thus: "Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, at the command of God our Saviour, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Meanwhile, nowhere is it seen that the Father gave him a command, and everywhere Christ speaks to him. What exactly does it say? "Go; I will send thee far away to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21), and again: "Thou shalt stand before Caesar" (27:24). But what the Son commands him, he calls at the same time the command of the Father, just as he calls the command of the Spirit the command of the Son. For example, he was sent from the Spirit and was chosen by the Spirit, while he says that this was the command of God. So, what then? Is not the authority of the Son degraded by the fact that His apostle was sent by the command of the Father? Not at all: see how he presents this power as equally belonging to Them. And when he said, "By the command of God our Saviour," he added, "And the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope." See how correctly he gives them these names. So the Psalmist uses this expression, speaking of the Father: "the hope of all the ends of the earth" (Psalm 64:6), and again Blessed Paul, writing in another place, says: "For this we labor and endure reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10). It is necessary that the teacher should be exposed to dangers, and much more so than the students. "I will smite the shepherd," it is said, "and the sheep of the flock will be scattered" (Zech. 13:7; Matthew 26:31). Therefore, in such a state of things, the devil attacks the teachers with greater fury, because if they perish, then the whole flock will be scattered. When he kills sheep, he only reduces the flock; and if he smites a pastor, he harms the entire flock. Thus achieving more with less difficulty, and destroying everything in one soul, he attacks them (the teachers) most of all. That is why (the Apostle) immediately at the beginning of the Epistle encourages his spirit, saying: We have a Savior – God, and hope – Christ. We endure much, but we have great hopes; we are exposed to dangers, we are plotted, but we have a deliverer, not man, but God. Therefore neither our deliverer will fail, because He is God, and whatever dangers threaten us, they will not prevail against us, nor will our hope put us to shame, because Christ is our hope. We endure misfortunes (by comforting ourselves) with two (thoughts) – either by the fact that we will soon be delivered from calamities, or by feeding ourselves with good hopes. Consequently, whatever we endure, he says, everything present means nothing. But why does he nowhere call himself an apostle of the Father, but only of Christ? He presents everything in common (with Them), and calls the gospel itself God's. "To Timothy, a true son in the faith" And this (is said) for comfort. For if he has shown such faith that he has become a child of Paul, and not just a child, but a true child, then he will retain faith in the future. It is not in the nature of faith to fall and become confused, even when something happens that does not agree with the promise. But he was the son (of Paul) and the true son, but he was not at all one and the same being. So what is it? Was it of a different kind? [1] But he did not come from Paul, you will say, therefore it does not indicate from whom he came. So what is it? Was he of a different nature? This is not indicated either. Having said, "Child," (the Apostle) purposely added the word "in faith," in order to show that he was his true son and descended from him. He was no different from (Paul). There was no difference in faith between them. And among men, according to (the laws of) nature, it happens that the son is like the father, but not to the same extent as (when this resemblance has its foundation) in God, because then the resemblance is more perfect. Here, although they are essentially the same, they differ from each other in many other respects – in color, appearance, reason, age, character, spiritual and bodily qualities, external and many others, or differ from each other or are similar to each other; and there (in God) none of these differences take place. (The expression) "by command" is stronger than "called," as can be learned from other places. Similar to the expression, "Timothy the true child," he used (the Apostle) in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he said: "I have begotten you in Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 4:15), i.e. (begotten) by faith. And he added the word to the true, wishing thereby to express that he is perfect and has a greater resemblance to him than others; besides, (he wanted to express) his love and great affection for him. Here again in (έν) the word "faith" is used: he says: "to the true child in faith." Notice also what praise there is in this (for Timothy), if (the apostle) calls him not only his son, but also a true son. "Grace, mercy, peace from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord"

2. Why does he not place mercy anywhere at the beginning of the other epistles, but only here? And this is because of his great love (for Timothy): for more he prays for his son, fearing and trembling for him. He was so anxious about him that, which he never did, he wrote to him about matters pertaining to bodily needs, when, for example, he said: "Drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent infirmities" (5:23), because teachers need more indulgence. "From God," he says, "our Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." Here again there is consolation. In fact, if God is the Father, then He cares (for people) as for children. Listen to what Christ says: "Is there any man among you who, when his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone" (Matthew 7:9)? "Going to Macedonia, I asked you to remain in Ephesus" (v. 3). Listen to how meekly he speaks to him, not in the voice of a teacher, but of a servant. He did not say, "I have commanded," or "I have commanded," or even "I have convinced"; But what? "I asked you" However, we should not do this to all the disciples, but only to the meek and well-behaved; and with others, who are corrupt and not fully devoted – otherwise, as he himself, writing in another place, says: "rebuke" them "with all authority" (Titus 2:15), or see that here also he says: "exhort some," not (he says): beseech them, but – "that they may not teach otherwise." What does that mean? Was Paul's epistle to them (the Ephesians) not enough? It was enough, but people are more likely to disrespect the messages. Therefore, either in this way it must be explained, or perhaps (it must be assumed) that it happened before the Epistle (to the Ephesians) was written. Meanwhile, he himself asceticized in this city for a long time; here was the temple of Artemis, here he experienced those disasters. And after this spectacle had ceased, he, having summoned and comforted his disciples, then sailed away and came to them again. It is appropriate, however, to ask: has he not now appointed Timothy (bishop) there? For he says, "To exhort some not to teach otherwise." He does not enumerate them by name, lest the publicity of their denunciation make them even more shameless. There were some false apostles from the Jews, who wanted to draw the faithful back to the law (Moses) – of which he accuses them everywhere in his epistles. Yet they did this not so much out of the promptings of conscience as out of vanity, and out of a desire to have disciples, because they vied with Blessed Paul and cherished envy of him. This is the meaning of (the words): "they taught something different." "And they did not engage," he says, "with fables and generations without end," v. 4. He does not call the law fables—no—but false tradition, perverted and incorrect beliefs. Probably, these (natives) of the Jews generally began to talk about useless subjects, enumerating grandfathers and great-grandfathers, in order to enjoy the glory of great experience and knowledge. "To exhort," he says, "some, that they should not teach other things, and not be occupied with fables and endless genealogies." What does (the expression) infinite mean? Either that they are not appointed for any purpose, or that (bring) not the slightest benefit and are incomprehensible to us. You see how he condemns research. Indeed, where there is faith, there is no need for investigation; Where nothing needs to be researched, why do you need to do research there? Investigation destroys faith: whoever searches anything has not yet found; he who investigates cannot believe. That is why he says: let us not investigate, because if we investigate, it is no longer faith; Faith, on the other hand, has a calming effect on the mind. How did Christ say: "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7), and "Search the Scriptures, for ye think by them to have eternal life" (John 5:39)? In the first place, "seek" means a petition, a strong desire; and in another, "Search the Scriptures" not only does not impose any obligation of inquiry, but even removes it, because He said, "Search the Scriptures," that is, study and know their true meaning, not in order to be forever engaged in research, but in order to cease all investigation. And well said, "To exhort some, that they should not teach other things, nor be occupied with fables and endless genealogies, which produce more controversy than the edification of God in the faith" (v. 4). He said well, "The edification of God," because God wanted to give us many things, but our minds do not grasp the greatness of His economy. Thus, that which is the greatest medicine for our souls must be done with the help of faith. Our investigations are therefore inconsistent with the economy of God. And what is arranged with the help of faith? That we accept God's blessings, that we are made better, that we doubt nothing, that we are not perplexed about anything, and that we are completely at peace. Meanwhile, what faith accomplishes and arranges destroys our inquisitiveness, arousing many questions and overthrowing faith. "They did not concern themselves with fables," he says, "and with endless genealogies." And what harm, you will say, do these genealogies bring? Christ said that through faith one must be saved; And they were engaged in research and said that it was impossible. Since the preaching (of teaching) was done in the present tense, and the fulfillment of what was preached belonged to the future, faith was needed; but they, being occupied with the exact observance of the ceremonial law, opposed the faith. I also think that when He says, "By fables and genealogies," He is also alluding to the Greeks, because they also enumerated their gods.

3. So, let's not engage in research. For this is why we are called faithful, so that we may undoubtedly believe what we are told, so that we may not doubt anything. If what is said to us came from people, then it would be necessary to investigate it; but since it comes from God, it is only necessary to revere it and believe. If we do not believe this, then we will not be convinced that God exists. For how can you know that God exists when you examine Him? The first sign that you know God is that you believe what he says, without requiring explanation or proof. Even the Greeks knew about this: they believed, they say, in the gods, although the latter spoke without giving any proofs. Why? Because they were descendants of the gods. Do you see that the Greeks also knew about this? But why do I speak of gods? They did exactly the same with man, sorcerer and sorcerer, namely with Pythagoras; (they had an expression): he said (αύτός έφη). And at the top of their temples there was depicted silence, which, holding back their lips with a finger and pressing their lips, indicated to all passers-by that they must be silent. Are their beliefs so worthy of respect, and ours not so much, or even deserve to be laughed at? But would not (such a thought) be a sign of extreme madness? It would even be fair to subject the teaching of the Hellenes to investigation, because in it there are contradictions, perplexities, and controversial questions; and our teaching has nothing to do with any of this. Their teaching was invented by human wisdom, and ours was revealed to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Spirit; the former is madness and extravagance, and the latter is properly the teaching of wisdom. There is neither pupil nor teacher, and all are equally engaged in research; here, whether it be a teacher or a student, everyone must learn from the one from whom he needs to learn, be convinced and not doubt, believe, and not reason. The ancients were glorified by faith, and without it everything was corrupted.

But why do I speak of heavenly things? If we also pay attention to what is on earth, we will find that everything here is based on faith, because neither trade, nor crafts, nor anything else of this kind, can exist without it. If here, where everything is full of falsehood and deceit, it is necessary, then how much more so in relation to heavenly things. Therefore, let us hold on to it, let us try to acquire it; By this means we shall free our soul from all pernicious opinions, such as, for example, the doctrine of chance and fate. If you believe that there is resurrection and judgment, you will be able to protect your soul from all these (errors). Believe that God is just, and you will not believe in fate, which is not guided by justice, believe that there is a God who provides for everything, and you will not believe in fate, which supposedly dominates everything; believe that there is punishment and a kingdom, and you will not believe in fate, which robs us of everything that belongs to us, and subordinates us to necessity and violence. You do not need to sow, or plant, or fight, or do anything at all, willingly or unwillingly, what fate has ordained for you will come to pass. Finally, what need do we have for prayer? Why do you want to be a Christian if there is a destiny? After all, you will not be subject to accusation. Where do the arts come from? Could it be that it was also from fate? Yes, they do; and such a person is destined by fate to become wise by labor. But show me a man who would attain knowledge without difficulty. But you can't point it out. Consequently, knowledge does not depend on fate, but on work. But why, they say, is such and such a man, being criminal and wicked, rich, although he has not received an inheritance from his father, while another, working endlessly, remains poor? Such questions, however, are dealt with by those who base everything only on wealth and poverty, and not on vice and virtue. But here you do not say that, but say: Has anyone become evil, despite the fact that he has zealously tried (to be good), or good – living in complete carelessness? If fate has such power, then let it show this power over what is most important – over virtue and vice, and not over wealth and poverty. Again, why is it said that one suffers from sickness, and another enjoys health, one is in glory and the other in contempt? Why does everything go according to one's desire, while the other has innumerable obstacles everywhere? Give up faith in fate, and you will find out why. Firmly believe that there is God Provident, and you will understand this clearly. But I cannot, you say, because the disorder in the state of affairs (on earth) does not make it possible to assume the existence of Providence. If all this depends on God, then how can I believe that God, being good, gives wealth to the lecherous, the criminal, and the covetous, but not to the good man? How can I believe? You need to believe, considering what happens in practice. Ok; So, it depends on fate. Is it guided by justice, or not? You will say: it is unjust. Who created it? Is it God? No, you will say, it did not come from anyone. But how does she, without descending from anyone, do all this? After all, this contradicts one another. Therefore, in general, this is not God's work. Let us, therefore, examine the question: Who created the heavens? You will say - fate. Who is the land, who is the sea, who is the seasons? If, therefore, it has established such a beautiful order and harmony in soulless things, how has it allowed such disorder to occur in us, for whom all this exists? It would be as if someone cared for a house, wishing to make it wonderfully good, and did not have the slightest care for his household. Who preserves the continuity of the seasons? Who determined such harmonious laws of nature? Who gave order to the flow of day and night? It's beyond that fate. No, they say, it happened by itself. But how could such an order appear by itself? Whence then, you will say, these rich men, who enjoy health and enjoy fame, (who have received wealth), some by covetousness, others by inheritance, and others by violence. Why does God allow the wicked to prosper? Because the reward is not here, but in the age to come. Therefore, you point out to me something like this there. Give me first, while I am still here, you say; and there I will not look for anything. But you don't get it because you're looking for it. If you, having not yet experienced pleasures, covet them so much that you prefer them to future goods, how much more (you would seek these latter) if you tasted the purest pleasures. Therefore (God) shows you that (earthly goods) are insignificant, that they constitute something indifferent; if they were not something indifferent, then He would not have given them to them either. Tell me, is it not the same to be black, or tall, or short? So is wealth. Tell me: is not all equally given that which we need, namely, the capacity for virtue, the sharing of spiritual gifts? If you knew what God's blessings are, then, using them on an equal basis with others, you would not be grieved by the unequal distribution of earthly goods, and, knowing the equal division of the former, you would not seek the abundance of the latter. Just as a servant who, receiving food, clothing, and shelter from his master, and enjoying everything else on an equal footing with others, just because he had longer hairs on his head and nails larger, would think that he had more than others, so he (who is endowed with earthly goods) would think in vain about Which he uses only until the time comes. For this reason (God) deprives us (of earthly goods), in order to cool in us the passion for them and to turn away all our desires from them, to direct us to heavenly blessings. And we do not understand this either. Just as a father, when his child has a toy that he places above the necessities, takes the toy from the child in order to force him to turn to the most important object, even if only involuntarily, so God uses all means to bring us to heaven. But you will say: Why does He allow the wicked to become rich? Because He doesn't care much about them. And why kind? He does not do this, but only allows it. However, now I speak of this only slightly, having in mind such people who do not know the Scriptures. If you wanted to believe and listen to the word of God, then I would not need to say what I have just said, because from the word of God we would know everything. But in order that you may be fully convinced that neither riches, nor health, nor fame mean anything, I will point out to you those multitudes of people who could get rich, but gain nothing, and could enjoy health, but exhaust their bodies, and could enjoy fame, but use all means to be despised. Meanwhile, he who is good never strives to become evil. Therefore, let us cease to seek the blessings of this world, and let us strive for the heavenly ones. In this way we can also receive them and will be able to enjoy the eternal food, grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] The text reads άλογος – animal. But it is more likely – άλλογενής – or άλλον γένους – of a different kind.

CONVERSATION 2

"The purpose of exhortation is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith, from which, having departed, some have deviated into idle talk, wishing to be teachers of the law, but not understanding either what they say or what they affirm. (1 Timothy 1:5-7).

1. Nothing is so injurious to the human race as neglecting friendships and taking little care to preserve them; and vice versa – nothing can give such a good direction as the effort to support them with all your might. Pointing to this, Christ says: "If two of you agree on earth to ask for any thing, whatever they ask will be done unto them" (Matthew 18:19); and again: "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (24:12), This was the source of all heresies. In fact, because people do not love their brethren, they envy those who are respected, but from envy comes love of power, and from love of power flow heresies. Wherefore Paul, when he said, "Exhort some not to teach otherwise," shows the way by which this can be attained. What makes up this path? Love. Just as when he says: "Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4), that is, fulfillment, the former is united with the latter, so this commandment has love as its support. The goal of the medical art is health; therefore, when there is health, then little care is needed; And when there is love, few commandments are needed. But what kind of love is he talking about? About sincere, which is not limited to words alone, but stems from spiritual disposition and good thinking and compassion. "From a pure heart," he says, "that is, from a straightforward address, or sincere friendship. After all, even an unclean life produces schisms: "For everyone who does evil hates the light" (John 3:20). Friendship also happens between evil people, for example, robbers love robbers, and murderers love murderers; but this does not come from a good conscience, but from an evil one, not from a pure heart, but from an unclean one, not from an unfeigned faith, but from a feigned and hypocritical one. Bepa reveals to us what is true, and from sincere faith is born love, because one who truly believes in God will never agree to withdraw from love. "From which," he says, "having departed, some have deviated into idle talk." He said well: "retreating," because it takes skill in order to direct the blows directly at the target, and not past it. Therefore, it is necessary that they be guided by the Holy Spirit; There are many reasons that lead one astray from the straight path, but only one goal should be kept in mind. "Desiring," he says, "to be a teacher of the law." You see, there is another reason for this, and that is lust for power. That is why Christ says: "Do not be called teachers" (Matthew 23:8), and again the Apostle: "They do not keep the law, but want you to be circumcised, that they might glory in your flesh" (Galatians 6:13). They, he says, seek honor, and therefore do not pay attention to the truth. "Not understanding," he says, "neither what is said nor what is asserted," and here he accuses them of not knowing the purpose of the law, nor how long its dominion was to last. But why do you, if this proceeded from ignorance, call it sin? Because they did this not only because they wanted to be teachers of the law, but also because they did not have love; moreover, ignorance also originated from here. Indeed, when the soul is given over to carnal objects, then its insight is blunted; and when she turns away from love, then the desire to argue takes possession of her, and her mental gaze is darkened. He in whom an attachment to these quickly transitory (objects) takes root, being intoxicated with passion, can no longer be an impartial judge of the truth. "They do not understand," he says, "what they assert" Probably, they discussed the law and talked much about purifications and other external rites. Then, leaving the refutation (of their teaching) – because it had no meaning, except to serve as a shadow and image of spiritual objects – he turns to that which was much more pleasant. To what exactly? He praises the law, calling the Decalogue the law. Yet he excludes the former (ceremonial ordinances) from the latter (the law), because if these very (the precepts of the law) punish criminals, and remain useless for us, how much more so do the former (ceremonial ordinances). "But we know," he says, "that the law is good, if any man use it lawfully, knowing that the law is not laid down for the righteous" (v. 8, 9). He says that (the law) is good and not good. How is it, you will say, that it becomes bad because someone does not fulfill it properly? And then he remains good; but what he said has this meaning: if anyone fulfills it in practice, the expression: "if anyone uses it lawfully" should be understood here in this way. But when it is explained in words, but transgressed in deed, it means that it is not properly fulfilled. This one also fulfills it, but not for his own benefit.

However, something else can be said about this. What exactly? That if you do the law properly, it will lead you to Christ. For since the purpose of the law is to justify man, and yet he is not able (to do this), it leads to Him who is able (to do it). However, it is also possible to fulfill the law in another way, as it should be, namely, when you keep it out of abundance (good disposition). What does the expression "from excess" mean? Just as it is said that a horse uses the bit properly when it does not jump or bite, but simply wears it, so both the adornment and the law are properly fulfilled by one who does not live chastely because of necessity from the letter (law). Who, then, will properly fulfill it? The one who knows that he has no need of it. Whoever has attained such moral perfection that he fulfills the law, not for the fear of it, but for the sake of virtue alone, fulfills it correctly and without stumbling, that is, when someone fulfills it as a man who does not fear it, but rather disapproves of the punishments prescribed in it. On the other hand, he here calls the righteous one who has already been perfected in virtue. Therefore he fulfills the law well who does not need its guidance.

2. Just as the first principles of literacy are taught to children, while he who supplements them not from them, but from other (sources), acquires greater experience in learning and uses knowledge much better, so he who is above the law is no longer guided by the law, because he who fulfills it not out of fear, but out of love for virtue, fulfills it much more perfectly. Consequently, the one who fears punishment and the one who seeks honor does not fulfill the law equally; it is also not the same – the one who is under the law and the one who is above the law. To do (the law) properly means to live better than the law prescribes, because he fulfills and keeps the law well, who does more than what the law commands, who does not need its guidance. The law for the most part forbids evil; yet it is not through this, but through good works, that a person becomes righteous. Therefore, those who abstain from evil deeds as slaves are not yet fulfilling the purposes of the law; therefore, it is appointed to punish crime. In this way, they also fulfill the law, but only because they fear punishment. "Do you want not to be afraid of the authorities? Do good" (Romans 13:3). Therefore it may be said that (the law) foretells punishment only to the criminal; Meanwhile, what benefit can the law be to him who does (works) deserving of crowns? In the same way, a physician is useful to one who has ulcers, and not to one who is healthy, not to one who is in a good position. "But for the wicked," he says, "and for the disobedient, the wicked, and the sinners" (v. 9). He calls the Jews lawless, as well as disobedient. "The law," he says, "produces wrath" (Romans 4:15): this refers to those who do evil. What, then, is to be applied to him who is worthy of honor? "By the law," he says, "sin is known" (Romans 3:20). How should this be attributed to the righteous? "The law," he says, "the law is not laid down for the righteous" (v. 9). Why? Because he is not subject to punishment – because he does not wait for (the law) to teach him what to do – having within him the grace of the Holy Spirit that instructs him. Spirit. The law is given so that fear and threats deter (from crime). Meanwhile, there is no need for a bridle for a docile horse, and there is no need for instruction to one who has no lack of a guide. "But for the wicked," he says, "and for the disobedient, the wicked, and the sinners, for those who offend father and mother" (v. 9). And he did not stop there, did not content himself with one general indication of sins, but enumerated the sins in particular, in order to make one feel ashamed of the exclusive obedience to the law. Then, having enumerated the particular kinds of sins, he spoke of them in general, although what was said was sufficient to remove (from sin). Who is he talking about? About the Jews, because they were parricides and mother-killers, they were unrighteous and filthy; He alludes to them when he says, "Ungodly and sinner." If they were so, then the law was necessarily given. Indeed, tell me, did they not often worship idols? Did they not attempt to stone Moses? Were not their hands fulfilled with the murder of their closest relatives? Do not the prophets constantly rebuke them for this? Meanwhile, he who philosophizes about heavenly things, all these (reproofs) become superfluous for him. "For offenders," he says, "father and mother, for murderers, for fornicators, homosexuals, predators, liars, perjurers, and for everything that is contrary to sound doctrine, v. 10. He said well, "Sound doctrine," because (all these crimes) constitute the sickness of the depraved soul. "According to the glorious gospel," he says, "of the blessed God, which has been entrusted to me" (v. 11). Therefore, even now the law is needed to establish the Gospel; but for those who believe in him, he is not needed. And he calls it the gospel of glory for no other reason than for the sake of those who are ashamed of persecution and Christ's sufferings. However, partly for other reasons, and partly for this reason, he calls (the Gospel) the gospel of glory, showing that the suffering of Christ constitutes (His) glory, or even (perhaps) he alludes to future (promises). Although the present (our state) is full of shame and reproach, the future will not be at all so: whereas the gospel refers to the future, and not to the present. Why then did the angel say: "For this day there is born unto you in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord; (Luke 2:10)? Because He who was born had to become a Saviour in the future, because He did not begin to work miracles suddenly after He was born. "According to the glorious," he says, "the gospel of the blessed God." Glory: he says, here either of worship of God, or (expresses the idea) that if in the present everything is full of His glory, how much more in the future, when, he says, His enemies will be laid under His feet, when nothing will resist Him, when the righteous will see all these blessings, which neither eye has seen nor ear heard, it did not rise in a man's heart. "I will," says (Christ), "that where I am, they also be with me, that they may see my glory which thou hast given me" (John 17:24).