Commentary for (Romans XIII, 1-10; Ephesians II, 19 — III, 7; Ephesians III, 8-21; Ephesians I, 22 — II, 3; Colossians III, 12-16; Matthew XI, 27-30; Matthew XII, 30-37)

Oleksandr Zhabenko 🇬🇧
Glory Be to Jesus Christ!
☀️

(Romans XIII, 1-10)
Today, it is important to read from the Apostle, whose misunderstanding is one of the important and key prerequisites for the formation and existence of the concept of the ‘Russian world’. It is also important in general.

First, a general commentary, and then a longer one on the erroneous and correct understanding of the place.

Romans XIII, 1 — ‘ὑπὸ θεοῦ’ - ‘hypo theou’ - ‘under God; through God’. The deeper meaning of these words and their importance will be discussed in detail below.

Romans XIII, 3 — ‘ἐξ αὐτῆς’ - ‘ex autes’ - ‘from it’. The preposition ‘ex’ (‘ek’ before the next vowel) means here that this praise is human, coming from the authority itself.

Romans XIII, 4 — ‘εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν’ - ‘eis to agathon’ - ‘in good; for good’. The preposition ‘eis’ here indicates the ultimate purpose of those in authority - to be God's servants for the good of the human being. ‘εἰς ὀργὴν’ - ‘eis orgen’ - ‘in anger; in wrath’. Rather the former, if a person is more or less civilised. ‘Anger’ in Scripture does not always mean an emotion, but often a movement of struggle against obstacles.

Romans XIII, 6 — ‘εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο’ - ‘eis auto touto’ - ‘in this very thing; by this very thing’.

Romans XIII, 9 — ‘ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ’ - ‘en to logo touto’ - ‘in this word’. ‘ἐν τῷ ἀγαπήσεις’ - ‘en to agapeseis’ - ‘in: You shall love’.

Citation:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29072023.html

Romans XIII, 1 — 'υπο Θεου' - 'hypo Theou' - underneath God, through God. It is difficult to translate correctly, a place on which a lot depends. If the first option is correct, that is, the location of authority underneath God (literally), then it can be understood that authority as a principle does not oppose God, but is not above Him, but underneath Him, and therefore with such authority as in principle, there is no need to struggle against. If the second option is correct, then authority as a principle is established (appointed) by God (it exists thanks to God, through Him). But in both cases, the words generally mean that authority as such is not something hostile to God, that it is foreseen by Him and can even be established by Him.

In any case, the Greek original text does not use ‘εκ Θεου’, which would indicate God as the Source or Origin of power, from which it begins or originates (compare Acts XVII, 26), just as the Nicaea-Constantinople Creed refers to the Son as ‘ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς’. Similarly, another similar preposition, ‘παρὰ’, which has the etymology of ‘’proximity‘’ and with the genitive case means ‘’from beside‘’, is not used, which is said in particular in relation to the Holy Spirit: ‘παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός’ (John XV, 26). In this way, the apostle implicitly, but clearly, denies two thoughts:
1) that God the Father Himself is the Source, the Beginning of the origin of power in the same way as He is for the Son of God and the Holy Spirit,
2) also that power is supposedly close to God in a special way, that power can be understood as divinely inspired only by the fact of its existence.
The whole explanation then goes on to show the instrumental significance of earthly power. The Russian translation of this passage, as well as the Church Slavonic or Ukrainian translations, do not convey these nuances.

In total, there are 4 prepositions in the text of Scripture that can be translated in Ukrainian, Russian, Church Slavonic and other languages roughly like the Ukrainian ‘from’: ‘ek’, ‘para’, ‘hypo’ and ‘apo’. Moreover, the analysis shows that the first two emphasise a deep origin, which is fundamental, essential and so on, the fourth emphasises detachment, exodus, leaving and the third, which stands in this place — Romans XIII, 1 - has OTHER meanings and is therefore used instead of all the other 3.

The list, as God gives it, will continue and expand to include other examples.

It must be understood that the establishment of authority requires special permission from God or even God's direct will — this may vary from case to case - but this permission does not make the actions of authority God-given or God-ordained. The essential features of power, such as structure, hierarchy, means to deal with evil and punishment, encouragement of good, and respect, are designed by God and embedded in power and are part of God's permission or will, as just described, but the activity of power itself can be lawless and godless in any of its aspects. A partial analogy is the human being created in the image of God - having this image, a person has God's special care and giftings, but they can sin in any way. The body is called to be the temple of God, but there are many sins that directly violate this, and all of them affect it in one way or another. It is the same with power.

But there are also significant differences. In particular, the image of God is a greater gift to a person than power. And a person, with or without power, must first and foremost take care of it, as well as the likeness of God.

Quoting:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/27092023.html

(Ephesians II, 19 — III, 7; Ephesians III, 8-21)
Ephesians II, 20 — 'θεμελιω' - 'themelio' - 'the foundation'.

Ephesians II, 21 — 'συναρμολογουμενη' - 'synarmologoumene' - 'fitted together from separate parts to form a whole'.

Ephesians II, 22 — 'συνοικοδομεισθε' - 'synoikodomeisthe' - 'built together from different materials'. In this way Paul emphasises that the earthly Church is formed by different people with different backgrounds.

Ephesians III, 2 — 'οικονομιαν της χαριτος' - 'oikonomian tes kharitos' - 'the stewardship ('oikonomia') of grace'. We could also say administration of grace. Paul means that the apostles (and also their successors) received grace to be used for the building up of the church, for the growth of the faithful in God (including the apostles themselves and their successors.

Ephesians III, 9 — 'οικονομια του μυστηριου' - 'oikonimia tou mysteriou' - 'the stewardship (oikonomia) of the mystery'. Similar to the above, but here it emphasises God's special manifested trust in people (just as entrusting a great mystery indicates a level of trust and relationship).

Ephesians III, 10 — 'πολυποικιλος σοφια' - 'polypoikilos sophia' - 'very varied, manifold (high) wisdom'. It is said first of all as a negation of the idea of the monotony and uninterestingness of God's wisdom. That is, in no way the latter two. And since God's wisdom is not monotonous and uninteresting, it is always desirable for a person, not only for the mind, but also for the feelings and will, and is capable of nourishing the whole person.

Ephesians III, 15 — 'πατρια' - 'patria' - 'family, clan; tribe; fatherhood'. There is a profound theological thought here, which you can read more about here:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Trinity.html

Ephesians III, 17 (18) — 'τεθεμελιωμενοι' - 'tethemeliomenoi' - 'founded (having a foundation)'. Compare with what is said above.

Ephesians III, 19 — 'γνωναι τε την υπερβαλλουσαν της γνωσεως' - 'gnonai te ten hyperballousan tes gnoseos' - 'to come to know and surpass knowledge'. The Apostle Paul expresses a bold hope that later Christians will come to know God better. It is the idea of better knowledge, inexhaustible knowledge that lies behind the words to surpass knowledge.

This is a rich passage, so there are many words and phrases at the top. I will comment briefly.

The parable of the Trinity and Christ is well written about the housemates of God here:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/theology.at.ua/prytcha.html (Ukrainian)

Paul calls the participation of believers from all nations in God's purpose for the salvation of people through Christ as the mystery of Christ. In fact, his apostolic work was devoted to spreading faith in Christ among different nations. That is why a significant part of Paul's personal position is here.

to the rulers and authorities in heaven — to the angels (dominions and authorities are the names of the angelic ranks, known as the middle link in the angelic hierarchy). These ranks are responsible for power and dominion over sin, over the devil, over evil, and thus the earthly Church through Jesus Christ amazes the angelic powers with the power of Christ for the victory over the devil, sin and death.

Quotation:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/25092023.html

(Ephesians I, 22 — II, 3)
A difficult theological passage that needs explanation.

The reading from chapter I suggests several important theological thoughts.

I will focus on the logic of the construction of two verses, and then the other points, which I will not dwell on, will be clearer.

In fact, verses 22-23 say that God the Father gave Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to be the Head of the Church (compare this with what is said in the work On the Trinity at
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Trinity.html
), and God (here the whole Trinity is meant, for the Father has willed it, the Son has indeed incarnated and become a human being, and the Holy Spirit continues to work in the Church, sanctifying it and indeed making it the Body of the Son of God, in particular through the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist) has made the Church the Body of Jesus Christ.

These verses also mean that the Church has thus become fullness (completeness, a kind of final destination, the Son of God will never leave her) of the Son of God through His human nature, in particular the body, but also He as God gives everything fullness, meaning, significance, fills everything with gifts, bestows everything with what it is (i.e. the nature of all creation is most closely, intimately connected with the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and depends on Him), and this is most of all not even in the creation and care of creation (although this is prominent in the whole of God's house-building)), but in the Incarnation and salvation of the world.

In chapter II, Paul speaks of the state of creation and people before union with Christ, the state of death, and the dominion of the devil because of the impossibility of complete victory and the elimination of sins. The place of residence of the evil spirits, together with their leader, the devil, called prince (princes do not have full power), is called air (given that they do not live in the spiritual heaven, being cast down from there; people also live surrounded by air, i.e. air here is the environment of human life). The translation according to the spirit — the word according to is not in the original, and we can (I think also we should) simply read …according to the prince who rules in the air, {that is,} the spirit who works in the sons of disobedience....

Verse 3 says that those who accepted Christ in adulthood had previously lived like the Gentiles, in an environment with people and demons (in fact, this confirms the idea that the air is the environment of not only demons but also people). In fact, the Church here confronts this very environment of life (which can also be called death) of both people and demons, in the air.

Verse 13 echoes 2 Corinthians I, 1-7:

Quotation:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/10082023.html

2 Corinthians I, 3 — 'οικτιρμων' - 'oiktirmon' - 'compassions, pities' (plural in the original).

2 Corinthians I, 3 — 'παρακλησεος' - 'parakleseos' - 'consolation, encouragement, comfort'. This word in its various forms is the key word in today's reading.

2 Corinthians I, 4 — 'παρακαλων' - 'parakalon' - 'comforts, entreates, encourages'. 'παρακαλειν' - 'parakalein' - 'to comfort, to be able to comfort, to console, to encourage'. 'παρακλησεος' - 'parakleseos' - 'comfort, consolation, entreaty, encouragement'. 'παρακαλουμεθα' - 'parakaloumetha' - 'comforted, encouraged' (the last two words are repeated in verse 6, and the first one is also repeated in verse 7).

2 Corinthians I, 5 — 'παρακλησις' - 'paraklesis' - 'comfort, encouragement, exhortation'.

2 Corinthians I, 7 — 'κοινωνοι' - 'koinonoi' - 'partners, partakers'.

Christ has compassion for the faithful, and in their suffering His suffering is multiplied. But when the faithful think of Christ, His compassion and love give them comfort, a spiritual comfort that comes from the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. Therefore, Christ's compassion for the faithful gives them comfort, consolation, and encouragement. The mere mention of it, the memory of it, is already a certain comfort, but there is also an important meaning here in that it additionally moves the Holy Spirit to comfort people. We can say that Christ has compassion for the faithful, and this comforts them, but the Holy Spirit also comforts the faithful so that He can also comfort Jesus Christ with them.

I would like to say more about verse 6. Why are the sufferings of the apostles (saints in general) for the comfort of the faithful (to a certain extent)? Because the apostles and saints in their sufferings are examples of virtues that encourage and comfort the faithful in their suffering, if they are faithful and loving. God's comfort, God's encouragement in the Holy Spirit, is greater than suffering and compassion. That is why the faithful remember the examples of the suffering of the saints, because they are more comforting and encouraging than the sadness of suffering.

Why the comfort of the apostles (saints) is for the comfort of the faithful is easier to understand, because it is a great comfort and encouragement to rejoice together.

Quotation:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/06062023.html

(Colossians III, 12-16; Matthew XI, 27-30)
I would also like to note that Paul mentions pity ('οικτιρμος') among the virtues we need, which can also be translated as mercy, compassion, sympathy. It should be emphasised here that in the Christian understanding, this virtue implies active help, i.e. it is not just a state, experience, feeling, or sensation, but it is a movement of help, which can be said to be close in meaning to moving with compassion. That is, it is an active state of manifestation of practical love where there is such an opportunity. At the same time, where it is not possible to show practical love, the same word does NOT mean compassion. It is impossible to have compassion for people in their suffering from the sins of hardness of heart and cruelty, because it is impossible for a loving heart to experience together anger and cruelty, which are the antonyms of mercy. For the same reason, God does not have compassion for hardened and cruel sinners, also blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, because their state is the very opposite of mercy, and this also shows why human forgiveness is important for God's mercy.

Coming back to Ephesians III, 15, the 'lineage, ancestry, a family, tribe, kindred’ is a profound theological thought that also needs to be considered in more detail.

The point is that in order to understand it, we need to remember what the Scripture says about the Father and the Son of God.

In the words of the Gospel of John, ‘as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself’ (John V, 26), it is shown that divine, right fatherhood is associated with ‘πατρια’ — ‘granting to have’ in oneself what is transmitted. If a person receives gifts from their people, their nation through their parents, then it is right, divine, that they should ‘have these gifts in themselves’.

Here it is impossible to reduce a person to ‘a part of his or her own family, lineage, nation, tribe, or people’, and it is also impossible to do the opposite — to reduce a people, tribe, or lineage to a group of individuals. In fact, this particular passage of Scripture rejects all totalitarian systems because they attempt the former, as well as all anarchic systems because they attempt the latter.

Instead, the concept of the ‘Russian world’ tries to do the former, to oblige people, Russian Christians, to think of themselves only within the framework of ‘a part of their own, the Russian, people, which is obviously made up of different ethnic groups.’ In comparison with the Father and the Son, this deprives them of the full ‘sonship of their people’. Therefore, in reality, the concept of the ‘Russian world’ is anti-patriotic.

In the light of all the above discussion of power, let us return to Romans XIII, 1-10, and look further at the following.

Ouotation:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29072023.html

It should be emphasized that it is mostly understood that it is not about the specific implementation, realization of authority, but the very phenomenon, the very principle of its existence as such in general. A specific authority, a specific implementation of the principles of authority may well not be from God, including it may be directly anti-God. But the existence of authority as such, as a certain essential principle of the existence of people (and also of angels) does not contradict God, so it cannot be fought with.

The next verse reveals this idea more deeply — whoever opposes the principle of authority as such (stands for anarchy in various forms, lack of management, control, influence, or against forms of authority that are established by God, for example, Church authority) is opposed to God's establishment, and by this confrontation, they brings judgment upon themselves. No, not even God Himself judges such a person, but God's appointment.

Next, when Paul speaks of evil, he uses the word 'κακον' and its related words, which mean evil in the absolute sense, something totally unworthy, bad, evil, and apparently refer to the crimes first of all (perhaps, exclusively). If it is more about sins, then another word is used more often.

It can be said that authority can also be understood as the rule of law as a principle.

For the sake of the rule of law, for the state to be governed by the rule of law (and we can add, to be social), taxes are paid.

That is why Paul says to give credits. You can also talk about patriotism here. If it is true, authentic, genuine, then it is needed to give a worthiness to it.

The second part is about the commandment of love, which does not do evil, and therefore includes other commandments.

Let us look at the Old Testament in this regard. The people of Israel ‘begged’ for a king, even though God did not want one, and there was even a prophecy that this authority might be far from ideal (1 Samuel VII).

Continuing the theme, let's look at the topic of taxes and freedom. It is generally not paid enough attention to, and this is also the prerequisite.

In the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew XVII, 24-27), there is a story when the apostle Peter, and through him to Jesus, was visited by tax collectors for the temple.

Compared to the more well-known story of the question of the lawyers, this story is much less well known because it has much more freedom and a call to action. But it is this story that speaks directly to what Christ Himself thinks about this issue. And here we can think about why in this story Christ has more freedom to express His opinion than in the story with the tricky question of the tax to Caesar. In that situation, Christ had much more limited opportunities for freedom to express His thought in a way that He could calmly, clearly and distinctly express it. Of course, as Lord, He said exactly the right thing, but in terms of the opportunity to speak, He had less room to speak openly, whereas in the situation with Peter, it was the opposite — Peter was one of the closest disciples and, of course, Peter would have supported the very different views of his Teacher, and he certainly would not have wanted to accuse Christ.

Christ says that people are free, and therefore it is worth thinking about how not to restrict people's freedom, and the state should work on this, it should move towards increasing people's freedom.

Another somewhat paradoxical vector of thought should be how to get the treasury filled through ‘miracles’, or, to put it simply, through something that does not require huge efforts. Just as Peter received the money for the tax miraculously by doing a few simple things, so too should Christians try to put this Gospel ideal into practice. The government that tries to do this is more Evangelical in this matter. If we compare the Russian authorities with others in this regard, the former has no advantage, but rather a deficit.

See also an important piece about the authority here:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Power.html

(Matthew XII, 30-37)
Matthew XII, 32 — ‘οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι’ - ‘oute en touto to aioni oute en to mellonti’ - ‘neither in this age nor in the future’.

Matthew XII, 33 — ‘ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ’ - ‘ek gar tou karpou’ - ‘because of the fruit’.

Matthew XII, 34 — ‘ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας’ - ‘ek gar tou perisseumatos tes kardias’ - ‘for out of the abundance of the heart’.

Matthew XII, 35 — ‘ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ’ - ‘ek tou agathou thesaurou’ - ‘from the good (eventually, in the end) treasure’. ‘ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ’ - ‘ek tou ponerou thesaurou’ - ‘from the evil (eventually, in the end) treasure’.

Matthew XII, 36 — ‘ἐν ἡμέρᾳ’ - ‘en emera’ - ‘in the day’.

Matthew XII, 37 — ‘ἐκ (γὰρ) τῶν λόγων’ - ‘ek (gar) ton logon’ - ‘(for) from the words’.

Here, the preposition ‘ek’ indicates the source of origin.

For more information about the Gospel reading, please refer to the following links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29072023.html
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6UFRMqsq66/

Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!