THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
Epaphroditus was sent by the Philippians on behalf of the whole city to minister to Paul. Or perhaps he came to him also to bring him something. That he brought money as well, the Apostle indicates at the end of the Epistle, saying, “Having received from Epaphroditus what you sent” (Phil 4:18).
Probably, when he came to the city of Rome, he found Paul in such great and grievous distress that even those close to him could not come to him safely. They too came with fear. This usually happens, especially in great calamities and under extraordinary royal anger.
When someone has offended the king, is shut in prison, and is kept under strict guard, even his own household is forbidden to come to him. This probably happened then with Paul. But Epaphroditus, as a fearless man, despised every danger, if only he might come and minister to Paul and do all that was needed.
Therefore the Apostle presents him as worthy of honor for two reasons. First, he says, he was exposed to mortal danger for my sake. Second, he endured this as the representative of the city. Thus the reward for his danger was reckoned to those who sent him, because the city sent him as its envoy.
For this reason, to receive him with honor and to thank him for his service is to become a special sharer in what he dared. And he did not say, “for my sake,” but, to give greater assurance, he says, “for the work” of God. It was not for me, but for God, that he came “near to death.”
What then? Though by God’s dispensation he did not die, he was nevertheless exposed to danger. He gave himself up in such a way that he would not have refused to minister to me, whatever he might have had to suffer.
If he gave himself over to death for the sake of ministering to Paul, much more would he have done so for the preaching. Or rather, to die for Paul was the same as to die for the preaching.
One may receive the martyr’s crown not only by refusing to sacrifice to idols. Such occasions also make a martyr. If anything should be called wonderful, these latter cases are more wonderful than the former.
He who resolves to die for a lesser matter will resolve still more for a greater one. Therefore, when we see the saints in distress, let us not spare ourselves. The irresolute man can never do anything noble. He who is concerned for safety here must necessarily lose it hereafter.
“That I might fill up,” he says, “what was lacking in your service to me.” What does this mean? The city was not with me, but it rendered me every service through him, since it sent him. Therefore he filled up what was lacking in your ministry.
For this reason he has the right to receive great honor, since he alone did on your behalf what all should have done. The Apostle also points to the first service which those in safety rendered to those in distress. The words, “what was lacking in your service,” refer precisely to this.
Do you see the Apostle’s lofty feeling? It does not come from pride, but from great care for them. He calls their deed a ministry and a lack, so that they would not be exalted, but modest. He did this so that they would not think they had done something great, but would be humbled.
Therefore let us also not be high-minded when we give anything to the saints. Let us not think that in this case we are bestowing a gift on them. We are obliged to do this for the saints, and we give them nothing as a favor.
Those who remain in peace and do not take part in war are obliged to provide maintenance for soldiers engaged in warfare, because the soldiers stand for them. So it is here also. If Paul had not taught, who would then have thrown him into prison? Therefore one must minister to the saints.
If one who campaigns for an earthly king must be supplied with everything, both clothing and food, not merely according to need but even in abundance, how can we fail to supply even necessities to one who wars for the heavenly King?
He fights against more terrible enemies, of whom it is said, “For our warfare is not against blood and flesh” (Eph 6:12). What ingratitude! What thanklessness! What stinginess!
But, as is evident, human fear acts on us more than the fear of Gehenna and the torments to come. For this reason everything has been turned upside down. Civil matters are carried out every day with great zeal, and no omission occurs. But nowhere is there any thought of spiritual matters.
What is demanded by compulsion and extortion, as from servants and slaves, is fulfilled with great readiness. But what is left to our good will and freedom is all abandoned.
I am not speaking against everyone, but against those who refuse almsgiving. Can God not make this a necessary obligation? But He does not wish to do so. He spares you more than those whom you feed.
Therefore He wants you to do this without compulsion, since there is no reward for what is compelled. Yet many of those here are lower than the Jews. Consider how much the Jews gave: tithes, firstfruits, further tithes, still other tithes, other thirtieths, and the shekel.
No one said that the priests gathered too much. The more they received, the greater the reward of those who gave. The Jews did not say, “They take too much, they eat to excess,” as I hear some now say.
Those who build houses and buy fields present themselves as having nothing. But if one of the priests puts on somewhat brighter clothing, has sufficient necessary food, or has a servant so that he is not compelled to do what is unseemly for his rank, this is considered wealth.
In truth, even by these things we are rich. They themselves acknowledge this unwillingly. We, though we have little, are rich. They, though they possess everything, are poor.
How long shall we act without understanding? Is the punishment for doing nothing not enough for you? Must you also add punishment for slander?
Even if you yourself had given him what he has, you would lose your reward if you reproached him with what you gave. In general, if you gave, why do you reproach him?
By saying that you gave him what he has, you first of all testify to his poverty. Why then do you reproach him? You should not have given if you intended to reproach.
But do you say this when another gives? The sin is still heavier, because you have given nothing yourself and reproach him with another’s beneficence.
What reward, do you suppose, belongs to those who hear these reproaches? This reward: they endure it for God. How and why? They could, if they wished, engage in petty trade, even though they had not inherited it from their fathers.
Again, when we say that such a man is poor, I hear many shamelessly saying, “If he wanted, he could be rich.” Then they add bitterly, “His grandfather and great-grandfather and so-and-so were such and such. Yet see what clothing he has put on.”
What then? Tell me, was he supposed to go naked? You speak about this with great care. See that your words do not turn back against yourself. Hear Christ’s admonition: “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt 7:1).
He could, if he wished, engage in trade and commerce, and certainly he would not suffer want. But he did not wish to do so. What benefit, then, does he get from this? Tell me.
Does he wear silk garments? Does he walk proudly through the marketplace, accompanied by a crowd? Does he ride on horseback? Or does he build houses, though he has a place to live?
If he does this, then I too condemn him and do not spare him. I even judge him unworthy of the priesthood. For how can he persuade others not to occupy themselves with such excesses, when he cannot persuade himself?
But if his sin is that he has necessary food in abundance, was he then supposed to go through the world and beg alms? Would that not be shameful for you, his disciple? Tell me.
If your father according to the flesh did this, you would consider it a dishonor. If your spiritual father is compelled to do this, are you not ashamed? Would you not think it better to hide yourself? “And it is a disgrace to children,” it is said, “when their mother is in dishonor” (Sir 3:11).
What then? Should he die of hunger? But this too is not proper to a pious man, because it is not pleasing to God.
Yet when we say this to them, they immediately present their reasonings. They say, “It is written, ‘Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staff’” (Mt 10:9-10). Yet they have three and four garments, and adorned beds.
I have had to groan bitterly now. If it were not improper, I would even have wept. Why? Because we so carefully notice the specks in others, while we have beams in our own eyes and do not feel it.
Tell me, why do you not say this about yourself? Because, they say, this was commanded only to teachers. Therefore, when Paul says, “Having food and clothing, let us be content with these” (1 Tim 6:8), does he speak only to teachers? No, to all people.
This will be clear if we read the passage beginning a little earlier. After saying, “Great gain is piety with contentment” (1 Tim 6:6), and then, “For we brought nothing into the world, and it is clear that we can carry nothing out” (1 Tim 6:7). The Apostle immediately adds, “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge men into ruin and destruction” (1 Tim 6:9).
Do you see that the discourse applies to all? Again, when he says, “Make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its desires” (Rom 13:14), does he not speak to all in general?
What of when he says, “Food is for the belly, and the belly for food, but God will destroy both one and the other” (1 Cor 6:13)? What of when, speaking about the widow, he says, “She who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives” (1 Tim 5:6)?
Is the widow also a teacher? Did he not himself say, “I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12)?
If he does not allow even a widow to live expansively, though she deserves concession because of advanced age, and because of her nature, since the female sex is weaker and requires greater repose, how can a man be forgiven?
If he does not permit such a woman, deserving concession by age and nature, to live expansively, but says that she “is dead while she lives,” how can a man be forgiven for what brings punishment upon an aged woman?
He did not simply say that she should not live expansively. He said, “She who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.” Thus he excluded her from the living, because one who has died is already excluded.
But no one thinks about this. No one reasons about this. I am now compelled to say this, not with the intention of freeing priests from reproaches, but out of concern for you.
They suffer no harm from you, even if they deservedly and justly hear reproaches as gatherers of wealth. Whether you speak or do not speak, they will give answer there to the Judge. Therefore your words do them no harm at all.
If your words are also false, then they, being slandered by you without cause, gain benefit from it, while you harm yourselves. But with you it is not so. Whether you speak truth about them or falsehood, you harm yourselves by the very fact that you speak evil of them.
Why? If you speak the truth, even then you harm yourselves, because you judge teachers and overturn the proper order. One must not judge even a brother, much less a teacher.
If you speak falsely, then unbearable punishment and torment will befall you, since you will give answer for every idle word. Therefore we do and labor in everything for your sake.
But, as I said, no one reasons about this, no one occupies himself with it, no one says anything of this kind to himself.
Do you wish me to add something else? “Whoever does not renounce all that he has,” says Christ (Lk 14:33), “is not worthy of Me” (Mt 10:37). What of when He says, “It is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 19:23)?