Sermon VI
Sermon VI
THE ANSWER TO CRITICS OF PAUL:
His apparent human weaknesses (e.g. fear of suffering) only add to the greatness of his spiritual achievement—
Strength of will triumphed over weakness of nature— His occasional display of anger was justified—
His apparent estrangement from John Mark was in the interests of preaching which is the most onerous of tasks.
The Answer to Critics of Paul 91 Today, dearly beloved, it is your wish that we deal with those aspects of Paul's wonderfully ac tive life which afford a handle for criticism to some. We will see that these activities no less than his others contribute rather to his greatness and renown.
What is it that is considered worthy of criti cism? His fear of blows, you say, was conspicuous.
It was obvious when he was beaten with rods, and not only then, but also at the house of the dealer in purple1 when he gave trouble to those who wanted to help him escape from prison. His only concern in all these incidents was to provide for his own safety and not to fall back again into the same predicaments.
What are we to say to such charges? Only this, that nothing shows his greatness and might more than these charges. Why? Because, when the occasion demanded, he displayed the fortitude of an incorporeal angel in facing what appeared to be such formidable threats in spite of such natural deficiencies as a soul that was neither dare-devil nor desperate and a, body that recoiled from blows and trembled before the lash.
When you see him, then, cowering and fear ful, remember those words with which he mounted to the skies and vied with angels, saying: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall
92 Sermon VI tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or hunger, or danger, or the sword? (Rom. 8:35).
Recall those words in which he reckoned these things as naught, saying: For our present light affliction, which is for the moment, prepares for us an eternal weight of glory that is beyond all measure; while we look not at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen (2 Cor.
4:17-18). Add to this the daily tribulations, the daily dying. And let the reckoning restore both admiration for Paul and self-confidence in your self.
His apparent weakness of nature is the clear est proof of his virtue, the fact that he achieved such strength without losing anything of the weak ness proper to the rest of men.
The enormity of the dangers he had to face, many felt, provided this handle for criticism and prompted them to suspect that his greatness came from superhuman power. Accordingly he was allowed to suffer so that you might learn that his nature was the same as everybody else's, but that his will power made him not just a superman but one of the angels. With such a. soul and such a body he endured a thousand deaths, making light of things present and to come. This prompted these marvelous words which many find incredible: For I could wish to be anathema myself from Christ
The Answer to Critics of Paul 93 for the sake of my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3).
It is possible, if only we have the will, to over come every weakness of nature by strength of will, and none of the commandments of Christ are im possible to man. If we utilize such strength as we have, God will gready assist us and will render us immune from all the dangers that beset us.
To fear blows is not reprehensible; what is reprehensible is to commit sin through fear of blows. The one that fears but remains unscarred in the contest is more to be admired than the one who does not fear. For this brings his will power more into evidence. To fear blows is natural; but to refuse to sin on account of this fear is a triumph of will over weak human nature. To grieve is not reprehensible, but to do or say something dis pleasing to God on account of grief is.
If I were to say that Paul was not human, you could rightly raise objections about human frail ties, in order to disprove my statement. But if I say and affirm that he was human, and no better than us by nature but superior in will power only, your objections would be pointless, or rather they would be to Paul's credit, in that they would show how he triumphed over nature in spite of such natural frailties. As well as praising him, you also seal the lips of those who malign him, taking away
94 Sermon VI from them the excuse of human frailty, and com pelling them to exercise will power.
But, you object, he sometimes feared death.
Now that is also perfectly natural. For we who are in this tent sigh under our burden (2 Cor. 5:4).
And again: we ourselves groan within ourselves (Rom. 8:23). You see how he counterbalanced weakness of nature with strength of will. Many martyrs, on their way to death, have often grown pale and been filled with fear and trembling. But that is what made them remarkable: the fact that though they feared death they went forward to meet it for the sake of Jesus. Likewise Paul, though he feared death did not avoid Gehenna because of his love for Christ; though he trembled before death he longed to be dissolved.
And it was not only he, but the head of the apostles also often said that he was ready to lay down his life though he had a dread of death.2
Listen to what Christ has to say to him on that score: But when thou art old they will lead thee where thou wouldst not (Jn. 21:18), meaning a weakness of nature, not of will.
Nature manifests its own weaknesses in spite of us and we cannot eliminate such weaknesses however ardently we wish or try. We cannot be blamed for such weaknesses; instead, they elicit praise. How could fear of death be reprehensible?
The Answer to Critics of Paul 95 Is it not rather praiseworthy to refrain from doing anything sinful out of fear? There is nothing blameworthy in having a nature that is weak, but only in giving into those weaknesses. That man is rightly regarded as great and admirable who over comes weakness of nature by strength of will. In this he shows how effective strength of will is, and he shuts up those critics who say: Why were we not made good by nature? For what difference would it be to be by nature what we can be through free will? In fact it is far better to be good voluntarily than naturally, in that it brings greater rewards and more distinguished praise.
What if nature is strong? It can gain in strength if you wish to maintain your strength of will. Don't you see that the martyrs' bodies were hacked by swords, that their bodies yielded to the steel, but their wills refused to be vanquished.
Tell me, did you not see in Abraham's case, the will triumphing over the flesh,3 when he was ordered to sacrifice his son? His will was clearly stronger than his natural inclination. Did you not see the same thing happen in the case of the Three
Youths?4 Haven't you heard the secular proverb that the will by habit becomes second nature? I would even say 'first' nature, as I have proved by my preceding remarks.
96 Sermon VI You see that nature can become strong and firm, if the will is well-trained and vigilant, and that goodness resulting from free will gains more plaudits than if we were born good. Goodness freely acquired is the only real goodness. I espe cially applaud him when he says; I chastise my body and bring it into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27), when I realize that to be virtuous he had to work at it, and in this he removes an argument for lethargy from his followers who might think that his virtue was easily come by. Again when he says: I am crucified to the world (Gal. 6:14), I applaud his will power. Innate strength can be reproduced by strength of will. If we introduce into view that paragon of virtue itself we will find that he strove to strengthen his natural pow ers with whatever strength of will he possessed.
He grieved when he was beaten, but he made light of the blows as the angelic powers who have no feeling; this you can see from his own words, which can be applied also to our na ture. When he says: The world is crucified to me, and I to the world (ibid.), and again: It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me (Gal.
2:20), what else does he say except that he had quit the body as also when he says: There was given a thorn for the flesh, a messenger of Satan
The Answer to Critics of Paul 97 (2 Cor. 12:7), this only goes to show that pain only reaches the body.
Not that it does not penetrate inward but that it is excluded and repelled by superior strength of will. When he utters all those other marvelous statements, such as that he rejoices in being whipped and glories in being chained, what else does he mean except what I have just been say ing. When he says: 7 chastise my body and bring it into subjection lest perhaps after preaching to others I myself should be rejected (1 Cor. 9:27), he is talking about weakness of nature achieving nobility of will in the manner I have explained.
The two sides are stressed in this way lest you might think that the greatness of his achieve ments belonged to a superhuman nature, causing you to despair; or, on the other hand, lest the smallness might make you depreciate his sanctity, and this in turn would make you turn from de spair to presumption about salvation. Therefore he also stresses the grace of God, seeming to over emphasize it, but really gratefully acknowl edging it, lest you think that it was solely through his own efforts.
He also mentions his own part, so that you will not leave everything to God and just sit there sleeping and belching.
7. Praise of St. Paul
98 Sermon VI You will find canons and norms for every thing, laid down by him with exactitude.
He also cursed on occasion, for instance, Alexander, the coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:14). What of that? His words were said more in sorrow than in anger, and in the interests of truth. It was not his own feelings that were hurt, but he felt that he resisted his teaching. He has vehemently op posed, he says, not 'me' but our words (2 Tim.
4:15). So his curse is both an expression of his love for the truth and of concern for his disciples.
For clearly they were all scandalized at the adversaries of truth escaping unharmed, and that prompted his words.
He also prayed against others, saying: In deed it is just on the part of God to repay with affliction those who afflict us (2 Thess. 1:6), not in any desire that they pay the penalty—heaven forbid—but to bring prompt consolation to those in distress. Therefore he adds: to give the aflicted rest (ibid. v. 7). When he suffered any distress, notice how he philosophizes about it, and returns good for evil saying: We are reviled and we bless, we are persecuted and we bear with it, we are maligned and we entreat (1 Cor. 4:13).
If you say that what was said or done for others was prompted by anger, then presumably Elymas, the sorcerer, was blinded and abused in
The Answer to Critics of Paul 99 anger (Acts 13:11), and Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by Peter in anger (Acts 5:4, 5).
No one is such a fool or a half-wit as to make such an allegation.
We will find Paul saying and doing many other things which seem high-handed, yet it is especially these that show his moderation. When he handed the Corinthian adulterer to Satan, he did it with great love and affectionate disposi tion, and he shows this in his second Epistle.
And when he threatens his enemies in the words: the wrath of God has come upon them to the ut most (1 Thess. 2:16), his words are not full of fury, (for you hear his continual prayers on their behalf) but he wishes to deter them and make them more restrained.
But, you say, he upbraided the priest, saying:
God will strike thee, thou whitewashed wall (Acts 23:3). We are aware that some explain away these words, saying that what he said was prophe tic. I do not find fault with those who say this, for that is how it turned out, and how the man died. A more acrimonious critic, prying too deep ly into the problem, might in refutation object:
If this was a prophecy why should he apologize for what he said, saying: 1 did not know that he was the high priest (Acts 23:5). To this my answer would be that his words were an advice
100 Sermon VI and a warning to be obedient to rulers as Christ was. For Christ, though He had many unutter able things to say of the Scribes and Pharisees, also said: The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do (Mt. 23:2).
So here, too, Paul fulfilled the role of prophet and foretold what was going to happen.
If he separated John 5 he did so in the inter est of preaching. The one who undertakes this duty cannot be soft or irresolute, but must be strong and vigorous. He should not touch this no ble profession if he is not prepared to risk danger and death countless times. Christ Himself says:
If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me
(Mt. 16:24). The one who is not of this disposi tion betrays many others and would be far better if he stayed silent and kept to himself. Once he ascends the pulpit, he assumes a burden greater than his own powers can sustain, since the salva tion of his hearers is at stake as well as his own.
It is absurd if a man who does not know how to steer a boat, or how to combat the waves, should not refuse to take the tiller, however many urge him to do so. Yet a preacher embarks on his task aimlessly and haplessly, and undertakes without reflection a task that is akin to countless deaths.
The Answer to Critics of Paul 101 For neither naval pilot, nor wrestler with wild beasts, nor gladiator, needs to be adjusted men tally to death and slaughter as much as the one who undertakes the preaching office. The dangers are greater, the opponents are more formidable, as here slaughter is not concerned with trivia.
Heaven is the prize; hell is the penalty for those who lose, the destruction or salvation of the soul.
Thai is the set-up not merely for the preacher of the Gospel but for the ordinary layman, since every man is commanded to take up his cross and follow.
And if every man is so commanded, the preacher and pastor are commanded in a special way, and John who was called Mark belonged to their number. Since he was in the very front line of the conflict, and did not distinguish himself for bravery, he was very properly demoted by Paul, lest his indecision should dispirit the others. If Luke says that there was a contention between them, do not think that this is blameworthy.
To be angry is not sinful, but to be unreason ably angry, without any just cause: Unjust anger will not be justified (Sir. 1:28). Therefore, it is not simple, but unjust anger that is censured. Again
Christ said: He who is angry with his brother without cause (Mt. 5:22), not just simply angry'.
And the prophet said: Be angry and sin not (Ps. 4:5; Ephes. 4:26).
102 Sermon VI For if anger could not be resorted to, even when the occasion called for it, it would be useless and pointless to have it. But it cannot be pointless, since Providence implanted it in us to correct sin ners, to stir up spiritual inertia and sloth, and to arouse the sleepy and indolent. The edge of anger has been given to our mind like an edge of a sword to use it when necessary. Therefore Paul often resorted to anger, and was angry though he loved more than those who spoke gently, doing all things to spread the Gospel as the opportunity presented itself.
Gentleness is not essentially good, but only when the occasion calls for it, so that, if it is not in season, gentleness is unlawful and anger is con tumacious.
In saying all this, I am not making any apolo gy for Paul, for he does not need our words: his praise is not from men but from God. 0 My purpose is to instruct my hearers to use the emotions as oc casion demands, as I have said already. In this way we can gain merit from every source, sail with great resources into the still harbor, and obtain imperishable crowns, of which may we all be de serving through the grace and mercy of our Lord
Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and power now and always, forever and ever, Amen.