“Vengeance is mine and I will repay”: Why we don’t have the right to take revenge on our offenders ourselves - Father Andrei Tkachev
It is common for all people to desire revenge on their offenders, but there is a clear indication in the Holy Scriptures why revenge is unacceptable for Christians. Only this is not at all Tolstoy’s “non-resistance to evil by force” or liberal pacifism. What then? The answer is in today’s part of a series of conversations about the Apocalypse by the famous Orthodox pastor and preacher, Archpriest Andrei Tkachev.
Before us is the open Book of Revelation - the open Apocalypse. Actually, “Apocalypso” is “to open.” And we, remembering the words of this Book “blessed is he who reads and hears the words of the prophecy of this Book,” we try to absorb this living moisture drop by drop so that we can feel good. So that we at least understand something correctly and, perhaps, improve our lives.
Today we will read a very interesting thing from the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse, namely, how the souls of those killed for the Word of God and for the testimonies of Jesus react to the historical process. We believe that souls are immortal; there is enough direct evidence of this in Scripture. And in the Old Testament: for example, the resurrection of the dead by the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and in the New Testament, for example, those raised by the prayer of the apostles. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus also speaks about the immortality of souls. And here is another very clear evidence - from the Apocalypse:
And when He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the word of God and for the testimony that they had. And they cried out with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, Holy and True, do you not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?
That is, the prayerful voice of the martyrs killed for the Name of Christ, for the testimony of God, addressed to God (and turning to God is always a prayer), is enclosed in the question: how long do You, Holy and True Lord, not avenge our blood shed on Earth ? Here we do not see any “forgiveness” that Ivan Karamazov spoke about when he argued that if the murderer and the murdered man meet in the Kingdom of God and embrace brotherly, then I reject such a “ticket of God”, I do not accept such a world.
Apparently, Ivan Karamazov did not read up to these words in the Apocalypse, which clearly demonstrate that this complacent picture does not exist. The souls of the murdered cry out for a fair trial of the bloodsuckers and bloodshed. And this, in general, is correct, this is one of God’s ideas, Divine retribution, Divine justice. We are often indignant: why should we forgive murderers? Keep in mind, of course, that much may not be forgiven. And if you haven’t even read the Holy Bible, but have read, for example, “Anna Karenina” by Leo Tolstoy, then you remember the epigraph from the Book of Deuteronomy: “Vengeance is mine and I will repay.” What does the Lord’s words mean: “I will take revenge,” but don’t interfere. And the Apostle Paul says about this: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give room to the wrath of God.”
That is, revenge will be one way or another, only if you take revenge for yourself, you will close the doors of God to righteous judgment, and what you have done will be imputed to you. Your revenge will be credited to those who suffer from you, and your sin will be credited to you, because you are impatient and vindictive. But if you endure and wait, knowing that He is and He will do, then you will open the doors for the Lord to carry out His righteous Judgment.
This is roughly what is said in the Apocalypse, the quintessence of the entire Old Testament. It contains a lot of Old Testament images, it brings together, focuses all these rays into one point in terms of justice, anger, fear, retribution, punishment... It would seem that the image of the good Jesus that we see on the pages of the Gospel erases everything else. But this is only from a superficial reading. Because Christ himself is quite cruel. His words alone are enough, which He promises to say to us at the Last Judgment, to those on the left: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Do you hear? This is what He said. And He has many such words. As we read in the Gospel last Sunday: “Tie his hands and feet and throw him out into the pitch darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And this is what Jesus said. With all your kindness. And thank God, that’s how it should be. I don’t even know another Jesus, and I didn’t know, and I don’t want to know. He is the King who purchased our eternal redemption with His blood, and He has the right to say whatever He wants. But He doesn’t want anger.
And from the Apocalypse we see that the saints are not “Tolstoyans”, not “Mahatmagandists”. They say: until this just retribution comes, until the one who has blood on his hands will be proud, until the person who commits crimes every day will think that You don’t see. And the psalms say about this: He does not see, He has forgotten, He does not care about it. But we know that You see that not everything is as it seems to us. Everything is much tougher. Get ready for things to get tougher.
The author's opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.
For the past fourteen years, a seminar of researchers and translators dedicated to Russian classical literature has been held annually at the Tolstoy estate in the Tula region. Every year at the end of summer, when the birthday of the great Russian writer Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy approaches (September 9, 1828), when the southern expanses are still warmed by the last warm rays of the sun, and birch trees begin to shed catkins, writers from all over the world.
In one of the small conference rooms, about 30 people sit around an oval table for two days, including professors in the field of literature and cultural studies from different universities around the world, professional translators from Russian into a wide variety of languages, as well as literary scholars from various research centers. Their lectures are devoted to various topics related to the study of the life and work of Tolstoy (often also other Russian writers), new translations, discussions of translation into different languages, etc. In a free and relaxed atmosphere, the scientific research department of the Yasnaya Polyana Museum, headed by Galina Alekseeva, is holding an event that allows Russian literary scholars who have become famous in their field to meet and share their opinions and ideas.
But along with all these serious and respected specialists, ordinary people who have made an interesting discovery or an outstanding act related to Tolstoy or his legacy are also invited to the seminar from time to time. For example, this year the seminar was attended by an Indo-Tamil film director who discovered his grandfather's translation of several of Tolstoy's stories. These stories were translated from English into Tamil in 1930, and this is probably the first translation of Tolstoy's works into Tamil.
And last year, an Indo-Bengali history teacher took part in the seminar, and she staged Tolstoy’s “The Tale of Ivan the Fool” with her students to introduce elementary school students to the historical events of this period. Her production was a success and the play was shown in several more schools across India. And so I, who was not involved in research or translation and did not speak Russian at all, was invited to a seminar in September 2021 to talk about the inconsistencies that I discovered in the novel “Anna Karenina”, as well as about the meaning of the work (“Culture and Literature” , 03/30/2018). In 2021, I was invited again to talk about inconsistencies and give a lecture on cultural issues in the Kreutzer Sonata, translated into Hebrew by Peter Kriksunov (Culture and Literature, 06/17/2019).
Guests arriving for the seminar are accommodated in a hotel at the cultural center. This is an old Soviet building, built of red brick and located in the middle of an oak and pine forest. In the depths of the forest, among beautiful abandoned houses, you can see a children's hospital, also from the Soviet period - these are several large wooden houses surrounded by a tin fence, closed with a bolt. After arriving from Moscow in the twilight of the evening and in the deep silence of the forest, this view seems unearthly.
We arrived on the eve of the seminar right in time for the general introductory dinner. Compared to the last time (September 2019), participants from fewer countries attended this seminar. There were several participants from different regions of Russia (including two Tatars), two came from India (a Sikh and a Tamil), two from Italy, there were also a Turk, a Macedonian, a Japanese woman, a British woman, an Iraqi woman, and I, an Israeli. Most of the lectures were in Russian (with simultaneous translation into English).
El Mundo 02/17/2019 The Guardian 05/13/2019 Medya Gunlugu 03/25/2018
The topics of the lectures were varied. A researcher and translator of Russian literature from Japan spoke about the updated translation of the memoirs of Tolstoy's youngest daughter Alexandra, republished on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of her visit to Japan; the director of the State Tolstoy Museum in Moscow spoke about the archives of one of Tolstoy's aunts, which had only recently been deciphered, and their influence on the study of Tolstoy's works; a researcher from Russia of Tatar origin spoke about the translation of “Youth” into Tatar, another Russian researcher explained the meaning of the epigraph to “Anna Karenina”: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay” (Rom. 12:19); the head of the research department of the Yasnaya Polyana museum spoke about the translations of Tolstoy’s works into English, made during the writer’s lifetime and presented in his personal library, the Turkish translator and publisher told us about the semiotic issues of translating “War and Peace” into Turkish, which was also touched upon many other topics.
On the eve of the first day of the seminar, the British translator Rosamund Bartlett arrived, and with her a group of Australian tourists on a literary tour of Russia. Bartlett translated Anna Karenina into English in 2014 for Oxford University Press, and talked to us about the intricacies of translating nature into English. That evening, after a particularly cheerful and crowded dinner, we listened together to a piano concert from many works that were played in the salons of the Tolstoy family.
For me, the main event was a tour of Tolstoy’s estate, the “cradle and grave” of the writer, as Tolstoy’s wife Sofya Andreevna called him. The estate covers more than a thousand acres. 100 acres are occupied by apple orchards, a smaller part by residential and outbuildings, and the rest of the area is occupied by fields and forests. The estate was founded by the Volkonskys, the family of the writer’s mother. The mother, like other family members, as well as the estate itself, were included in the plot of the epic novel War and Peace. We entered the famous gate with two white turrets and green domes.
To our right is the Voronka River, slowly flowing along the estate and flowing into a small lake, and in front of us is “Preshpekt” - the famous birch alley, beloved by the writer and also played an important role in “War and Peace”. And although many adults and schoolchildren visited the estate that day, the atmosphere of peace and tranquility remained there. The ponies leisurely grazed among the abandoned apple trees, and the warm autumn sun shone above us. We walked slowly down the alley to the family home, a small wooden structure with whitewashed walls, a green roof and a well-kept garden. To this day, the flowers that grew in the garden during Tolstoy’s time are carefully planted here. To the right of the garden in front of the house, Sofia Andreevna’s greenhouse still stands, which is still used by gardeners and employees responsible for maintaining the gardens around the house.
I had the honor and pleasure of visiting the Tolstoy family home twice. Such a tour does not happen often, it is carried out only by prior arrangement and accompanied by a guide - all these measures are taken to preserve the building in its original condition without any restoration. The wooden floor is wobbly and creaky, and upon entry we were asked to put on shoe covers. The first thing we saw upon entering was an English clock, preserved from Tolstoy’s times and still working today. We entered the bright dining room, where there is a grand piano and large oil portraits of family members hanging on the walls. All friends and relatives who came to the estate gathered in this room, and famous musical evenings also took place there.
Tolstoy's offices deserve special mention. Since the house was small and his family was constantly growing, Tolstoy had to change offices as necessary. There are several rooms that Tolstoy used as offices; they contain a desk, a chair, memorabilia, paintings and busts. If you pay attention to the chair, you will notice that it is very low - this is due to the myopia of the writer, who refused to wear glasses, despite poor eyesight, and was forced to sit very close to the written page. Throughout the house there are more than 20 bookcases and shelves, where more than 22 thousand books are stored, some of which were sent to Tolstoy with personal signatures from the authors themselves (Romain Rolland, Maupassant and others), some of which are translations of his own works into different languages, made during the writer’s lifetime.
On the ground floor we saw the room where “Anna Karenina” was written; on the ground floor we visited the room where the writer worked for about 20 years, where Tolstoy’s friend, the artist Repin, painted one of the most famous portraits of the writer. In this portrait, Tolstoy is depicted sitting at a table, apparently writing the novel “Sunday.” We also visited Sofia Andreevna’s bedroom, and the simple but functional room of Tolstoy himself, from which the writer left in the dead of night on October 28, 1910 and never returned there again.
If you leave the house, then at a distance of about 50 meters you can see a building very similar to the house where the family lived, and between the houses there is a space planted with tall oak trees. These two buildings were once wings of the central building of the Tolstoy house, located on the site of a small oak grove. The writer's parents died when he was still a child, and he inherited from them a certain amount of money and a family estate. But during his youth and military service, Tolstoy was a gambler, he was deeply in debt, borrowed heavily from his brother and eventually lost his house. One day, creditors came to Yasnaya Polyana, dismantled the main building, the only wooden structure at that time, and took the house several tens of kilometers from its original location. Tolstoy thought that the empty space left by the house looked ugly, and planted this space with oak trees. His children said that when they asked where their grandmother lived, he pointed to a branch of one of the trees.
Our visit to the estate ended at the writer’s burial place. Tolstoy is buried in the wooded part of the estate. This place was chosen in memory of the game that Tolstoy and his brother Nikolai played as children: Nikolai told his brother that somewhere on the estate he had buried a green stick with a secret carved on it, and that when the stick was found, it the secret will be revealed, all trials of humanity will end, and everyone will be able to live together in brotherhood and love. Tolstoy was only five then, but he noted in his memoirs that all his life he believed in the existence of this green stick. He found a place and bequeathed to bury him there.
Since in the last years of his life he developed his own spiritual and religious teaching, which preached physical labor and non-violence, and also rejected the sacraments of Orthodoxy, he asked to be buried modestly, without religious rites and a cross.
Tolstoy's wish that his grave not become a place of pilgrimage was not fulfilled, and the writer's burial site became a center of attraction for visitors, requiring great care: it needs to be strengthened several times a year, because rains wash away the soil poured on top of the grave. Although the writer was an anarchist and humanist, and was also ostracized by the Russian Orthodox Church (still not reversed), 110 years after his death, people still visit this place, leave flowers, kneel before his grave and make the sign of the cross in reverence fear.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
The role of the epigraph in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy “Anna Karenina” article on literature (grade 10) on the topic
The meaning of the epigraph “Vengeance is mine and I will repay” in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "Anna Karenina"
EPIGRAPH
(Greek epigraph - inscription)
1) in ancient Greece, an inscription on a monument.
2) In European literature, a short statement placed after the title of a work and prefaced by the text or its structurally allocated part (chapter, volume), the meaning of which reveals to readers the content of the narrative that follows it. The epigraph indicates the theme of the work, emphasizes its main idea, and highlights important circumstances of the plot action. Most often, the epigraph turns out to be an accurately or inaccurately quoted saying of someone else (a fragment of the work of a predecessor author, a catchphrase), but it can also serve as the author’s own statement. Epigraphs are aphoristic and laconic.
[Literature and language. Modern illustrated encyclopedia. - M.: Rosman. Edited by prof. Gorkina A.P. 2006].
For the formation of the reader's attitude, not only the epigraph is important, but also its origin; temporal, spatial, sociocultural, personological remoteness of the source.
In the epigraph to his novel “Anna Karenina” L.N. Tolstoy chose words from the New Testament. Epistle to the Romans of the Apostle Paul, ch. 12, art. 19: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give room to the wrath of God. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.”
This epigraph has its own history. V.A. Zhdanov, in his work “The Creative History of Anna Karenina,” dwells on it in detail. He writes that the idea of introducing an epigraph was first reflected on a piece of paper with separate notes for the novel. Among them is the entry: “Vengeance is Mine.” In the fourth incomplete edition of the novel, an epigraph appeared: “Vengeance is Mine.” Probably, from memory, Tolstoy quoted the beginning of the biblical saying: “Vengeance and retribution are mine” (Deuteronomy, chapter 32, art. 35). And while working on the eighth edition of the first part of the novel, Tolstoy added the epigraph: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,” that is, he cited the text of the Gospel from the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (chapter 12, art. 19), but introduced the conjunction and ( canonical text: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”). Most likely, Tolstoy wrote it in by inertia, perhaps remembering the union in the biblical text. It is hardly possible to unconditionally assert, as B. M. Eikhenbaum does, that Tolstoy originally took this biblical saying from Schopenhauer’s book “The World as Will and Idea.” Tolstoy read Schopenhauer's work in 1869, and the Bible, the Gospel, the Epistle of the Apostle Paul, which Tolstoy knew perfectly well before, were in his hands just in the seventies, when the ABC was created and published with four Slavic books for reading , each of which included passages from the Bible and the Gospel.
So, an epigraph is a sign that refers the reader to the source text, updating in his mind the memories and complex associations between two works. The epigraph “Vengeance is Mine and I will repay” refers us, readers and researchers, to the Epistle of the Apostle Paul, which also contains a reference to the Old Testament Fifth Book of Moses. In Deuteronomy (chapter 32, verse 35) we read: “Vengeance and recompense are with me when their foot fails...”
How should we understand the words of the Apostle Paul, to which L.N. refers us? Tolstoy?
Theophylact of Bulgaria in “The Blagovestnik” [book 3, M., 2002, 110-111] interprets this verse as follows: “Give place to the wrath of God in relation to those who offend you. If you avenge yourself, God will not avenge you; and if you forgive, then God will take revenge more severely.”
This idea is developed in more detail in the “Interpretation of the Message of the Holy Apostle Paul” [Creations of Theophan the Recluse, M., 1879, 239-242]: “... most of all we should pay attention to the motivation for non-vengeance exhibited here, namely, the submission of the case to the judgment of God. There is an avenger of truth - God. He will repay if he must. The wrath of God is His righteous retribution: for God has no wrath, but there is a righteous retribution, which seems like wrath to those who are subjected to it.”
Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord, “God takes upon himself the matter of vengeance. Do not interfere in this matter, He seems to say, I myself will repay. You won't be able to do it properly. In your opinion, it is necessary to take revenge now, but according to the best order, it is better to postpone revenge, either for a while, or completely. You can do without revenge at all: the offender himself will come to his senses and correct his injustice; and this is much better. Take revenge on him now, and he will become even more bitter. I sent you this lie for your iniquities and your sins, in order to save you from future retribution. With Me, everything is directed towards ensuring that good comes out of everything for everyone - not temporary, but eternal, not earthly, but heavenly, not visible, but spiritual.”
Thus, we understand the words “vengeance on me” and “I will repay” as a call to non-vengeance, a call not to judge one’s neighbor, not to return evil for evil, because only God has the right to take revenge and repay. Vengeance is not for human judgment.
It is interesting to consider Tolstoy’s epigraph from the point of view of language. To the modern reader, the pronoun ME is presented in the form of the dative case. This brings different meanings to the interpretation. However, in the Old Church Slavonic form ME corresponds to the modern Genitive case with the meaning of belonging! (cf. Art.\Sl. Forever and ever - forever and ever). Those. should be read like this: vengeance is mine, coming from me = my vengeance. Thus, the words of the Lord become clear, which indicate His right of vengeance and retribution.
The word revenge goes back to the word REVENGE - Related to Lithuanian. miju “to change”, Old Indian mḗthati, mitháti “scolds”, mithás “mutually alternating”, Avest. miϑa - “perverse, false”, lat. mūtō, -āre “to change”, mūtuus “mutual, mutual”, Gothic. missô adv. "each other", missa-dēÞs "crime". [Fasmer. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language]. The negative connotation is obvious.
Az – Old Church Slavonic pronoun of the 1st person singular, resp. modern I. In modern language it has a bookish connotation,
RENDER, (book rhetorician). 1. what. Give, render, provide (as a recompense, as a reward for something). Give honor to someone. Give justice. Give due credit. 2. for what. Give back. Repay good for evil. [Ushakov's Dictionary].
Please note that in the canonical text there is no conjunction I. L.N. Tolstoy introduces it. For what? Thus, the author moves away from exact quotation, as if bringing the sacred text closer to everyday speech: the clarity and unconditionality of the canonical “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” is lost. Each hero can, as it were, “try on” this saying for himself, take on the right of judgment. At the same time, revenge and retribution, thanks to the connecting union, expressing equal relations, are placed on the same level. In Tolstoy's artistic world, revenge and retribution seem to merge. Hence, it seems to us, the special “living life” in the novel: good does not always win immediately, some heroes get away with everything, while others are cruelly punished by higher powers.
Of course, without understanding the meaning of the epigraph, it is impossible to adequately perceive the main ideas of Tolstoy’s work. The epigraph “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay” to the novel “Anna Karenina” was written by everyone who wrote about the novel (and it was mainly about the fate of Anna Karenina), trying to unravel its essence. However, the question of the meaning of the epigraph in relation to the novel still remains controversial.
Zhdanov cites such a case in his work. Almost thirty years after finishing Anna Karenina, Tolstoy received a letter from two girls, sixth grade students from Vologda. They asked “in what relation to the content of the novel “Anna Karenina” does the epigraph stand: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay it”,” and expressed how they understood it: “We think this way: that a person who violates moral rules will be punished.” . On the envelope of their letter dated October 29, 1906, Tolstoy wrote: “You are right.”
Did the schoolgirls really guess the meaning of the epigraph?! Probably not. After all, if you carefully read the text of the novel, you can even see the contradiction of their bold thought: Stiva and Betsy Tverskaya are unpunished for the moral violation for which Anna dies.
It seems appropriate to us to turn directly to the opinions of writers, critics and literary scholars regarding the epigraph to Tolstoy’s novel in order to more clearly highlight our understanding of the biblical epigraph.
Dostoevsky understood this epigraph in his own way, devoting more than one chapter to “Anna Karenina” in the “Diary of a Writer” for 1877. The author of “Crime and Punishment” sees in Tolstoy’s novel a new solution to the old question of “the guilt and criminality of people.” Noting that Tolstoy’s thought is expressed “in the enormous psychological development of the human soul, with terrible depth and strength, with a realism of artistic representation unprecedented in our country,” Dostoevsky writes: “It is clear and understandable to the point of obviousness that evil lurks deeper in humanity than doctors assume.” -socialists, that in no social structure can you escape evil, that the human soul will remain the same, that abnormality and sin come from it itself, and that, finally, the laws of the human spirit are still so unknown, so unknown to science, so uncertain and so mysterious, that there are not and cannot yet be either healers or even final judges, but there is one who says: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.” He alone knows the whole secret of this world and the final fate of man” (Vol. 25, pp. 201-202).
Dostoevsky transfers the novel's problems from social to philosophical and sees the reason for Anna Karenina's tragedy in her nature. The author of “Crime and Punishment” considers the tragedy of the heroine of Tolstoy’s novel possible in any society, since evil and sin are hidden in human nature from the very beginning, and do not arise only under the influence of the environment. In this interpretation, Tolstoy’s socio-psychological novel began to resemble Dostoevsky’s philosophical novel, which, pointing out the eternal mystery and mystery of the human soul, recognizes only God as the only moral rewarder who knows fate and therefore can judge people.
For Dostoevsky, it is important that a person “... cannot undertake to decide anything... with the pride of his infallibility...”, because “... he himself is a sinner...” (Vol. 25. P. 202).
But Dostoevsky sees a way out of the situation created for Anna in forgiveness, “... mercy and love.” This exit “... is brilliantly outlined by the poet in the brilliant scene of the novel in the penultimate part of it, in the scene of the fatal illness of the heroine of the novel, when criminals and enemies are suddenly transformed into higher beings, into brothers who have forgiven each other everything, into beings who themselves, by mutual forgiveness they removed lies, guilt and crime from themselves, and at the same time justified themselves with full consciousness that they had received the right to do so” (T. 25. P. 202).
However, it should be remembered that this was a very difficult situation only against the background of Anna’s possible death, when the enemies forgave each other and fell in love with true Christian love. And Tolstoy, realizing this, shows that in everyday life heroes cannot live according to Christian commandments.
A.A. offered his interpretation of the meaning of the epigraph to the novel. Fet. “Tolstoy points to “I will repay,” writes Fet in his article about “Anna Karenina,” “not as the rod of a grumpy mentor, but as the punitive force of things.” At the beginning of the article he put Schiller’s poems: “The law of nature looks after everything itself...”
With this interpretation of the novel as “a strict, incorruptible judgment of our entire system of life,” the epigraph receives a new, more philosophical-historical rather than moral-philosophical meaning—as an indication of the approaching “Last Judgment” over the entire system of life. Tolstoy was familiar with this interpretation of the idea of \u200b\u200bretribution in his novel, referring to Schiller’s words about the “law of nature,” and agreed with it: “Everything that I wanted to say has been said.”
The accusatory point of view was held by Tolstoy's contemporaries - R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik and M.S. Gromeka. For a long time, literary criticism agreed with their position, since Tolstoy himself awarded authorization to Gromeka’s article on the novel Anna Karenina. In a conversation with G. A. Rusanov (1883), Tolstoy called this article “excellent”: “He explained what I unconsciously put into the work. Wonderful, wonderful article! I'm in awe of her. Anna Karenina finally explained! Therefore, we pay great attention to Gromeka’s position, since subsequent literary criticism largely repeated the assessments of this critic.
Thus, Ivanov-Razumnik identified the meaning of the epigraph and the novel and reduced all the themes of Anna Karenina to a narrow theme expressed in the epigraph: “the main theme, the main meaning of Anna Karenina, the whole meaning of the formidable epigraph” is that “a person is not can build her own happiness on the misfortune of another... Anna took this step, - and for this reason “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay...”
But reducing all the complex and broad issues of the novel to one theme contained in the epigraph would impoverish the meaning of Anna Karenina, this novel of “wide breathing.” The meaning of the epigraph extends not only to Anna Karenina, but also to all the characters in the novel, and the ideological content of the work is much broader than the interpretation of the epigraph proposed by Ivanov-Razumnik.
Like Ivanov-Razumnik, M.S. Gromeka believes that “you cannot destroy a family without creating misfortune for it, and you cannot build new happiness on this misfortune.” [Gromeka. Course of lectures, 1893].
This judgment is true only in principle, but when applied to the heroine of Tolstoy’s novel, it does not cover her entire tragedy. Shevtsova, in her dissertation, polemicizes with Gromeka’s point of view: Anna is unhappy not only because she made Alexei Alexandrovich and Seryozha unhappy, but also because, having fallen in love with Vronsky and breaking up with Karenin, she violated universal moral laws. Anna, having gone to Vronsky, commits “adultery”: “And if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” At the same time, the Old and New Testaments treat the adulteress differently. Thus, in Deuteronomy, Moses commanded to stone a woman caught in adultery, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ does not condemn the sinner, because among the scribes and Pharisees who brought her to Him, there was no sinless person (“Whoever is without sin among you, Be the first to throw a stone at her." [Shevtsova Diana Mikhailovna. The functioning of biblical epigraphs in the artistic structure of the novels by L. N. Tolstoy (“Anna Karenina”, “Resurrection”) and F. M. Dostoevsky (“The Brothers Karamazov”): Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 N. Novgorod, 1997 201 p. RSL OD, 61:98-10/298-1]
For a very long time, researchers analyzed Karenina’s tragedy exclusively from the secular side, while Shvetsova considers it from the spiritual, canonical side.
Turning again to the analysis of Gromeka’s article, we cannot but agree with his opinion that there are “laws of the human spirit” “... and it depends on the will of a person to agree with them and be happy or to overstep them and be unhappy.” With this statement, Gromeka acknowledges that a person himself is free to choose the path of crime or agreement with the “laws of the human spirit.”
We also cannot agree with Gromeka’s idea that Anna, having destroyed her family with Karenin, went against the opinions of the world and could not withstand his isolation and condemnation: “You cannot ignore public opinion completely, because even if it is wrong, it still exists an ineradicable condition of peace and freedom, and an open war against it will poison, ulcerate and cool the most ardent feeling.” It is public opinion that worries Anna the least when, in her dying monologue, she thinks about her future life. She does not see the possibility of becoming truly happy in herself. Therefore, public opinion alone, being only a catalyst for the disastrous development of her feelings, could not lead the heroine to suicide (for example, she did not even have thoughts of suicide after the famous scene in the box of the St. Petersburg Opera House, where public opinion was openly expressed by Madame Kartasova: “She she said that it was shameful to sit next to me,” Anna “screamed”, telling Vronsky about the incident in the theater.
Yes, indeed, one of the meanings of the epigraph “Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay” was that people cannot judge other people, because they themselves are no less sinful than those being condemned. Based on the epigraph, a person can only be judged by God, and this, in Tolstoy’s understanding, can be the “eternal moral law” found in the soul of every person.
Undoubtedly, in Tolstoy’s work there is a motif of “living life” heard by Veresaev, protesting against any violation of nature, naturalness, truth. But Veresaev did not raise the question of punishing a person who violated universal human moral laws, and not just the law of his soul, “his own being.”
D.S. Merezhkovsky rightly drew attention to the fact that “the greatest of human crimes, executed by merciless divine justice in the spirit of Mosaic Deuteronomy - “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” - for the creator of Anna Karenina is a violation of marital fidelity.
In modern literary criticism, as in previous Russian pre-revolutionary criticism, the conversation about the epigraph to Anna Karenina continued.
Thus, B. M. Eikhenbaum in the article “Tolstoy and Schopenhauer” (1935) argued that with the epigraph to the novel “Tolstoy obviously wanted to say not that God condemned Anna, but that he, the author, refuses to judge Anna and forbids this to readers. The interpretation of Anna's suicide as punishment disappears. She is a victim to be pitied. The words: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay” refer not to Anna, but to all the characters, to the entire novel as a whole: to that untruth and lies, to that evil and deception, the victim of which Anna dies.”
Thus, already here Eikhenbaum rejects the accusatory logic of the author of the novel in relation to his heroine and focuses on Tolstoy’s verdict on secular society, in which the tragedy of Anna Karenina is played out.
In his book “Leo Tolstoy. The seventies” B. M. Eikhenbaum writes: “However, from Tolstoy’s point of view... Anna and Vronsky are still to blame... before life, before “eternal justice.” They are slaves to their passion, their egoism. Therefore, their love degenerates into suffering - into melancholy, into hatred, into jealousy. ... Anna suffers and dies not from external reasons - not from the fact that society condemns her, and her husband does not give a divorce, but from passion itself, from the “evil spirit” that has taken possession of her. Passion turned into a struggle - into a “fatal duel,” to use Tyutchev’s words.
Anna and Vronsky began to be subject to their own moral judgment (“eternal justice”) only because they, captured by true passion, rose above this world of complete hypocrisy, lies and emptiness and entered the realm of human feelings. ... Levin, who also stood on the edge of the abyss, is saved because he lives life to the fullest and strives for the implementation of the moral law.”
But, Eikhenbaum continues, if “a terrible retribution hangs over everyone who stumbles on their path,” then what about Betsy Tverskaya and other “professional sinners”? With this, Eikhenbaum expressed Tolstoy’s idea that in Tolstoy’s novels all negative characters, devoid of moral sense, do not suffer in Tolstoy’s novels, but all highly moral positive characters suffer and are subject to their own moral judgment.
E.N. Kupreyanova believes that the reason for Anna’s suicide was not only social persecution, but also the destructive development of her own feelings. This meaning is put by Tolstoy in the biblical saying: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,” which is the epigraph to the novel. The epigraph does not cover the full breadth and complexity of what Tolstoy said and described in his wonderful work. The religious idea of divine retribution does not receive artistic embodiment in the novel. Consequently, the biblical epigraph should be understood not in a literal, but in a figurative sense: it is not Betsy Tverskaya, not Countess Lydia Ivanovna and other typical representatives of the depraved secular mob who should judge Anna.”
One cannot but agree with Kupreyanova’s opinion that the epigraph does not cover all the themes of the novel and it should not always be understood in the literal sense. However, the epigraph contains not only the theme of divine retribution, but also Tolstoy’s idea that a person who has violated the moral commandments of Christianity and realized this punishes himself. Therefore, in Kupreyanova’s interpretation, the epigraph really does not receive artistic embodiment in the novel.
N. N. Ardens wrote: “Tolstoy understood the epigraph in a humanistic spirit. He does not threaten anyone and does not promise revenge on anyone. In it he conveys the idea that judgment and condemnation of human actions belongs to God, but not to people. The question of revenge and “retribution” is a matter of “God”, but not of human judgment and human judgment - that is, the right of revenge belongs to me - only God can judge, but not people).”
Ardens correctly noted that Tolstoy, with the epigraph to the novel, wanted to show the incompetence of human judgment and the only possible judgment of God, but Ardens did not say how Tolstoy understood God.
M.B. wrote about this later. Khrapchenko in the book “Leo Tolstoy as an Artist”: “For the author of Anna Karenina, Az is not just Jehovah and even, perhaps, not Jehovah at all, but goodness, which constitutes the condition of true life, those requirements of humanity, without which it is unthinkable.” Thus, God, in Tolstoy’s view, is the highest moral law contained in the human soul, and violation of this law threatens a person with death, coming from himself.
For E.G. Babaev’s epigraph was a reflection of Tolstoy’s moral and philosophical position in the seventies: “Tolstoy thinks about the moral responsibility of a person for his every word and every deed. And the thought of the epigraph consists of two concepts: “there are no guilty people in the world” and “it’s not for us to judge.” Both of these concepts perfectly corresponded to the inner nature of Tolstoy’s epic thinking. Retribution, according to Tolstoy, was in her (Anna’s) soul. Babaev, revealing Tolstoy’s point of view, proves that Anna punishes herself because she realized her deviation from the divine laws of morality, in particular those contained in the Gospel (she fell in love with Vronsky and left Karenin, her legal husband, for him, thereby violating the sacrament of marriage , by which God unites two people).
In our opinion, the point of view of V.V. deserves the closest attention. Nabokov, who wrote in “Lectures on Russian Literature”: “The union of Anna and Vronsky is based only on physical love and is therefore doomed... love cannot be only physical, because then it is selfish, and selfish love does not create, but destroys. That means she is sinful.” According to Nabokov, the epigraph has two meanings: “firstly, society did not have the right to judge Anna, and secondly, Anna did not have the right to punish Vronsky by committing suicide.”
I. F. Eremina believes that the epigraph carries the thought of God's judgment. Anna Karenina, having violated the Christian commandment about the sacrament of marriage, herself turns her life into hell. “The path of adultery is a terrible, painful path, leading to imbalance, disharmony of the personality,” Tolstoy repeats, following the Gospel. “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.” Thus ended the great love, not sanctified by the laws of Christian morality, built on someone else’s grief and misfortune, and which before our eyes turned into a battle of the sexes, where everyone fights for himself, for his power over his loved one.”
One cannot but agree with the point of view of T. P. Tsapko, who believes that “... the epigraph “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay” plays the role of a basis situation that creates philosophical and religious subtext in the storylines of the main and secondary characters. Violation of the moral (divine) law leads to a gradual oblivion of God, to lovelessness, orphanhood, familylessness, and therefore to the perception of the world as a kingdom of chaos, from which there is only one salvation - death. Coming to God is tantamount to recognizing the purposefulness and harmony of the universe, the presence of meaning and love in human life.” Therefore T.P. Tsapko connects the epigraph with the storylines of Anna and Levin and, using their example, traces the loss and acquisition of God as the highest moral law in the soul of man himself.
Ranchin: But another interpretation is possible. According to Christ, “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). Anna is given more than those who are not faithful to Betsy Tverskaya or Steve Oblonsky. She is mentally richer and more subtle than them. And she was punished more severely. This interpretation corresponds to the meaning of the epigraph to the text of the first completed edition of the novel. When the seventh part of Anna Karenina appeared in print, readers and critics remembered the epigraph to the novel. Many thought that Tolstoy condemned and punished his heroine, following this biblical saying. Subsequently, critics were inclined not only to this accusatory point of view, but also adhered to another, exculpatory position that Tolstoy takes regarding his heroine. Thus, criticism saw in the epigraph a reflection of Tolstoy’s position in relation to Anna Karenina and decided the question: who is the author for her - a brilliant prosecutor or a brilliant lawyer?
““Anna Karenina” does not have one exclusive and unconditional truth - in it many truths coexist and simultaneously collide with each other,” this is how E. A. Maimin interprets the epigraph.
We examined typical views on the meaning of the epigraph in the novel Anna Karenina. From this comparison it is clear that some researchers believed that Tolstoy condemned his heroine, and reduced all the ideas contained in the epigraph to this narrow problem. Other researchers understood the epigraph more broadly: as a recognition of moral laws, the failure of which entails the mental suffering of the person himself. Our point of view is close to a broad reading of the epigraph.
As Tolstoy wrote, the thought expressed by the epigraph cannot be particularly emphasized, but it must be considered “in that endless labyrinth of connections.”
Based on this remark by the author of the novel, we attribute the meaning of the epigraph to all the heroes of the novel as follows. Almost every hero of the novel takes upon himself the right to judge his neighbor. However, petty heroes-sinners judge only those around them, and heroes to whom “much has been given” (Anna, Levin, Karenin, Dolly) judge themselves too! Thus, they take for themselves the right to judge and reward, guided by internal morality. For some it is high, for others it is poor. The motif of guilt and judgment runs through the entire work.
Let's turn to the text. For example, Lydia Ivanovna judges Anna - deprives her of a meeting with her son, without even imagining her sinfulness: “Countess Lydia Ivanovna covered her face with her hands and was silent. “If you are asking my advice,” she said, praying and opening her face, “then I do not advise you to do this.”
Lydia Ivanovna wrote the following French letter: “Dear Madam, the memory of you for your son may lead to questions on his part, which cannot be answered without putting into the child’s soul a spirit of condemnation for what should be sacred for him, and therefore I ask understand your husband's refusal in the spirit of Christian love. I ask the Almighty to have mercy on you.”
A lady in the theater judges Anna: “She said it was shameful to sit next to me.”
Anna and Vronsky’s mother judge: “Yes, she finished, just as such a woman should have finished. She even chose a mean, base death.
No, no matter what you say, she’s a bad woman. Well, what kind of desperate passions are these? This is all something special to prove. So she proved it. She ruined herself and two wonderful people - her husband and my unfortunate son.”
These women with poor morals take upon themselves the right to judge Anna and reward her.
But Anna herself judges, but in a different way. At the beginning of the novel, she takes on the task of reconciling Stiva and Dolly. And to the latter’s question about forgiveness, she answers, judging, first of all, her soul: “Yes, but would you forgive?
“I don’t know, I can’t judge... No, I can,” said Anna, after thinking; and, having grasped the position in her mind and weighed it on the internal scales, she added: “No, I can, I can, I can.” Yes, I would forgive. I wouldn’t be the same, yes, but I would forgive, and I would forgive as if it didn’t happen, didn’t happen at all.”
After her fall, her break with the high, heartfelt morality that attracted Anna so much, Karenina begins to judge those around her. First of all, Vronsky. Upon arrival from the theater, she exclaims: “It’s all your fault!” At the end of the novel, the idea of punishing her lover comes to her: “Yes, to die!.. And the shame and disgrace of Alexei Alexandrovich, and Seryozha, and my terrible shame - everything is saved by death. Die - and he will repent, he will regret, he will love, he will suffer for me.” “One thing was needed - to punish him.” With such thoughts, Anna throws herself under the train. And now, at the last moment of her life, the real Anna appears again, with high morals and faith in God. Only at the moment of death (like many Tolstoy’s heroes) the truth is revealed to her and she exclaims: “What am I doing? For what? Lord, forgive me everything!” Now Anna returns the right to judge herself and everyone and reward God. She asks for forgiveness! A heavy, painful stone fell from her soul, this stone was to stand outside of generally accepted morality and judge for herself. She herself tried to repay, it led her to death.
However, do not interpret the epigraph only in relation to Anna’s fate. Levin also judges in search of happiness and harmony. He leaves for the village after a rejected offer and condemns himself to the possibility of happiness. Levin considers himself an unbeliever. Therefore, in his life he does not look for the basis for judgment in the Christian commandments. And he finds it in the law of good: “every minute of her (life) is not only not meaningless as it was before, but has an undoubted meaning of good, which I have the power to put into it.”
Karenin also judges his unfaithful wife, but forgives her! He follows the Christian commandment according to the dictates of his heart.
Vronsky punishes himself for the death of Anna by going to war. The hero tries to reward himself, wanting to die.
The words about the people organically fit into our point of view: “Through humiliation and deprivation of all kinds, the people bought the dear right to be clean from blood and from judgment of their neighbor.”
Thus, in our opinion, the meaning of the epigraph is that the heroes of the novel take upon themselves the right to judge themselves and their neighbors. Accordingly, they arrogate to themselves and God’s right to repay and take revenge. This terrible path leads them to disharmony, misunderstanding, and death.
By quoting verbatim, Tolstoy not only refers us to the sacred text, but also allows his heroes to “try on” these words. An epigraph is one of the ways of dialogizing a monologue, introducing a different, non-author’s point of view into it. And Tolstoy’s epigraph is, as it were, a semantic key to the perception of different heroes: some are only able to condemn others, others condemn and punish themselves, forgive others, and come to faith in God.
The epigraph, taken from the Bible, deepens the semantics of the novel, reflecting the principles of composition of the work as a whole, as well as the system of images.
So who will reward the guardians of the reform?
So who will reward the guardians of the reform??
«Vengeance is mine and I will repay"
“Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give
place for the wrath of God. For it is written: To me
vengeance I will repay, says the Lord."
Apostle Paul, Romans 12:19.
So, in the image of the cannibalistic pension reform (PR), our Russian labor
THE PEOPLE received an insult from the government and the President who joined it.
At the same time, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the President’s promise not to raise the retirement age during His (GDP) reign were violated. What to do and who to complain to? There is little hope for the Constitutional Court. He will get away with it, citing compensation measures and so on. In the Christian tradition, one should trust in the Lord, who will reward the servants of the people for their Apostasy. And if we consider that all Power is from God, then even more so we should not worry too much about revenge. Humbly accept the “gifts” of the President and that’s it. After all, GDP definitely positions itself as a Christian when it lights candles
, venerates
Holy Relics
, visits
Temples
, calmly talks about post-nuclear
PARADISE . The conclusion from all this is simple: do not expect from the President .
But you can’t leave the robber attack of Mammon’s servants
.
Or is it not? We were slowly weaned off thoughts about revolutionary transformation. What are you talking about, according to the same GDP, we have eaten our fill of revolutions. Especially the last one, which began with cooperatives and ended with the liquidation of the USSR and the establishment of the power of criminal
CAPITAL.
So an evolutionary path leading to
gradual population extinction
. Statistics, even combed ones, show exactly this.
Many years have passed, but for some reason militant trade unions
, a strong
public chamber
,
parties
that defend the interests of workers more actively than their own. I am not a sociologist, so I express my opinion based on direct contemplation and some kind of abstract thinking.
Firstly, the Gaidar reform sharply worsened the self-awareness of the masses, which had been damaged even under the Soviets. They desired capitalism, but having received something that they could not even dream of, they found themselves semi-paralyzed
.
When they wake up, THEY wake up, but they are still far from awakening
. The sluggish reaction to PR clearly demonstrates this.
What to do? People categorically refuse to understand that revolutions and liberation movements can be carried out without bloodshed. They refuse and that’s it. Meanwhile, there was a bloodless revolution
under the spiritual leadership of Mahatma Gandhi to liberate the Country from the British.
It was based on a vow of non-interaction
with
the colonialists
, called SATYAGRAHA. The Indians stopped buying goods from the British, and after about two years they left the country.
Why is all this being said? And what if our drinking people accept sobriety as a great blessing?
The country will live completely differently.
Now, like mushrooms after a warm rain, sobriety societies
. The Orthodox Church has taken this matter seriously. And if we are talking about the life and death of Russia, then why not try this seemingly utopian path??
A better answer to the damned PR has not yet been proposed.
So who will reward the pirates for the reform?
And how will the working people respond?? (10.19.18. Lev Kozlenko)
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen!
Click “Subscribe to channel” to read “Tomorrow” in the Yandex feed
Login to the site
Please clarify. “God is love and only love. Doesn't punish anyone. a person punishes himself with his own sin, with its consequences”—the nonverbal words of one theologian, that’s the gist of it. But what about “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”?
We are talking about vengeance on the part of God, which does not fit into the words of this theologian. What about Sodom and Gomorrah? They are destroyed by God. What about the Flood? We can say that this was the time of the Old Testament, but God is not changeable, and He created this way. But recently, somewhere in Thailand, in my opinion, a place where strong debauchery seemed to be practiced was washed away.
It was not the inhabitants of this area who washed away their sins, punishing themselves, just as the inhabitants of Sadom and Gomorah did not throw fire at themselves. God arranged it this way.
What happens when my beloved theologian says things... that are not correct?
Nikita
When asking questions about love and justice, about punishments, etc., you should always remember that God is all-perfect. You can be perfect only if love, justice, etc. everything is equally and harmoniously combined together. Otherwise, there will be not only perfection, but also truth in the relationship. Let's look at a person who creates only out of justice, but without love, or only out of love, but without justice.
What do we get? Justice without love is soulless, and love without justice is partial. So, in this context, it is impossible to talk about justice and love in God in a gap between one and the other.
It can only be said in the sense that God punishes a person for his actions out of love and justice, mercy and justice. The principles of ordinary, classical philosophy - to divide everything into separate parts and only by examining them can one reach the truth - are not suitable in this case. In this matter, as in many others, you need to use only an integrated method - considering everything in a complex, in the relationship of one with the other. Yes, for a more precise concept of one of the aspects we can consider it separately, but to understand the overall picture, we must already take into account all aspects. When considering how God punishes someone, we must always understand that God, as all-perfect, does not punish based on justice, fairness or love alone, but punishes based on all of them combined. Love does not exclude justice (after all, then there would be no justice), justice does not exclude mercy (then there would be no love), etc. and so on. If I'm not mistaken, bl. Augustine once asked the following question (I am not conveying it verbatim, but essentially): one punishes a child, and the other spoils him. Which one of them truly loves the child? And then bl. Augusti clarifies: the one who punishes is his own father, and the one who pampers is a depraved seducer. So which one of them truly loves this child?
Archpriest Stepan Knevets
Saint Theophan the Recluse writes:
“Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give room to the wrath of God. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.”
Deut. 32:35 Ps. 93:1 Prov. 17:13 Sir. 27:28 Sir. 28:1 Jer. 50:15 Jer. 51:56 Matt. 5:39 Luke 6:28 1 Cor. 6:7 Heb. 10:30
I have already said not to repay evil for evil: which means not to avenge oneself. What does the new suggestion not to avenge oneself mean? Or repeating the same thing to strengthen the commandment; because revenge is so tempting and covered up with such plausibility that it is not considered a sin - and yet cases of this in everyday clashes are very frequent.
With this repetition, the Apostle reminds us to be careful, so that it does not break out as a feeling or matter of vengeance. Or, perhaps, when he said this, the Apostle had in mind a special kind of vengeance - by court, namely: when you tolerate some kind of falsehood from another, obviously wrongly, do not seek the restoration of your right through judicial procedure, for: έκδικεΐν - this actually means.
Although this, in a civil sense, is not a reproachable matter; but since the feeling of revenge is still nourished and satisfied, the Apostle does not order legal cases to be initiated at all. Better be patient, better remain offended, as the Epistle to the Corinthians says: why are you not more likely to be offended? (1 Cor. 6:7) - or as the Savior teaches: if anyone wants to take your robe, give him the sap (cf. Matt. 5:40).
Let us attribute this or that intention to the Apostle; most of all, we should pay attention to the motivation exhibited here for non-vengeance, namely, the submission of the matter to the judgment of God. The avenger considers his deed to be just and, taking revenge, holds on to that thought and that feeling that stands for the truth. Suppressing revenge seems to him like a retreat from the truth. The Apostle rejects this thought, saying, as it were: truth will not tolerate anything from your compliance. There is an avenger of truth - God.
Commit the matter to the vengeance of God; He will repay if he must. This is what the words mean: give place to anger - the wrath of God, that is, His righteous retribution: for God has no anger, but there is a righteous reward, which seems like wrath to those who are subjected to it. This is how Saint Chrysostom interprets it: “Whose anger should we give room to? God's And as the offended, he most desires to see this in order to enjoy revenge; then God will give the same thing in greater measure. And if you yourself do not take revenge, then He will be your avenger. So, to Him, says the Apostle, leave vengeance.
This is what the words mean: give room to anger! Blessed Theophylact expresses the same thought somewhat more strongly: “Give, he says, a place for the wrath of God in relation to those who offend you. If you avenge yourself, God will not avenge you; and if you forgive, then God will take revenge more severely.” - The ecumenius adds: “if you avenge yourself, then the wrath of God, when it comes, will not have anything to repay to the offender, because you have already exacted it from him in advance.”
And Ambrosiastes even suggests the idea that the wrath of God, having come, will find that you, having taken to stand for the truth, have transgressed the measure of truth, exacting more than what is due, more than the measure, and, instead of repaying the one who offended you, he will reward you for the excess of recovery that you allowed . And that this is possible, you can judge by the property of anger, which always stands in harmony with vengeance. Anger never observes righteous measures, but always takes beyond measure. This is why the Apostle James wrote: the anger of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God (cf. James 1:20).
Ambrosiastes specifically writes: “in order to preserve the union of peace, the Apostle urges one to abstain from anger, especially because in anger it is impossible not to sin: for one driven by anger usually demands more than what is required by a wrong deed, and thereby causes harm to himself, turning out to be wrong for a reason.” disproportionate punishment, and makes the offender worse, whereas with leniency he could have corrected him.
Why does the wise Solomon teach: do not be truthful to the great ones... there is a righteous one who perishes in his righteousness (cf. Eccl. 7:17, 16): for when anger overwhelms us, the enemy finds a place in us and, under the appearance of truth, instills what is wrong and destructive "
For it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord..
G. Dore. Horsemen trample Jezebel
“For greater conviction, the Apostle brought evidence, reinforcing his word” (St. Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). This is not my commandment; but such is the will of God, such is the law of God’s providential actions for us. God takes upon Himself the matter of vengeance.
Do not interfere in this matter, He seems to say, I myself will repay, this is my business. You won't be able to do it properly. In your opinion, it is necessary to take revenge now, but according to the best order, it is better to postpone revenge, either for a while, or completely. It is possible to do without revenge at all: the offender himself will come to his senses and correct his injustice; and this is much better. - Or - take revenge on him now, and he will become even more embittered; but punish him with something later, and he will soften in heart and improve.
Since you don’t know anything about this, it’s better not to take on this matter. Besides, you, the offended one, have been wrong in many ways. I sent this lie to you as retribution for your untruths and sins, in order to save you from future retribution. If you endure, do you see what misfortune you will prevent? And if you take revenge, you will destroy all the good fruit for you from vain. Your sins remain with you, and expect eternal reward, unless another mistake befalls you to cleanse you. So don't seek revenge.
With the one who wronged you, I know better than you how to deal with the truth, and you accept it as a cure for you and as a ward off of greater and more terrible evil. With Me, everything is directed towards ensuring that good comes out of everything for everyone - not temporary, but eternal, not earthly, but heavenly, not visible, but spiritual. This is what happens when you don't intervene with your truths; and when you interfere, you disturb My orders and, instead of good, you multiply and reap evil.
The words: Vengeance is mine, I will repay - are not read word for word in the Old Testament Scriptures, but this thought is clearly expressed by the prophet Moses in other words, namely: on the day of vengeance I will repay (Deut. 32:35).
The Apostolic Spirit took the thought of the prophetic spirit - the same with the Apostolic - and expressed it in another, powerful word.
icon symbol of Love and Faith
source
and another source
