2. Why, you say, should we abstain? Not so that otherwise one can become unclean, but for a brother, so that he may not have communion with demons, and so that he may not be condemned by an unbeliever. Here it is not the quality (of food), but disobedience and communion with demons that make me unclean, and defilement depends on volition. What is the meaning of the words, "Why blame me for what I am thankful for?"

Is it not foolish, therefore, to give cause for blasphemy for the very blessings for which gratitude is offered? But, you will say, the heathen will say this even when he sees that I do not investigate. No, because not everything is filled with things sacrificed to idols to have such a suspicion; Moreover, you do not eat these things as things sacrificed to idols. Therefore, do not search in vain; and on the other hand, do not take part when you are told that this is sacrificed to idols. Christ gave you grace, magnified you, and set you above all harm, not in order to give rise to bad fame about you, and not in order to offend others so much by the very advantages for which you give thanks that they can blaspheme. And why, you will say, should I not tell a pagan that I eat and not suffer any harm from it, and that I do not do this out of attachment to demons? Because you will not convince him, even if you say it a thousand times, because he (man) is weak and your enemy. If you have not yet convinced your brother, how much more will you not convince the enemy and the heathen. If this one is bound by conscience in relation to things sacrificed to idols, how much more unfaithful. Why should we resort to such means? But are we really to depart from Christ, Whom we have come to know and thank only because our enemies blaspheme us? Let it not be! There is a difference between the two; there is a great gain from suffering blasphemy, but here there is no benefit. For this reason (the Apostle) said above: "If we eat, we gain nothing; if we do not eat, we lose nothing" (8:8). Moreover, he proved that it is necessary to shun and abstain from things sacrificed to idols for other reasons, not only for this, but also for other reasons, which he mentioned above. "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God" (v. 31). Do you see how he passed from a particular subject in instruction to a general one, and taught us an excellent rule – to glorify God in all things? "Give no offense to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God" (v. 32); i.e. do not give anyone any reason to be tempted. Otherwise, your brother will be offended, and the Jew will hate and condemn you even more, and the Gentile will laugh at you as a glutton and a hypocrite. One should not seduce not only the brethren, but, if possible, even those outside. If we are light, leaven, luminaries and salt, then we must enlighten and not darken, hold together and not weaken, attract unbelievers to us and not drive them away from us. Why then do you drive away those whom you should attract? Truly the heathen are offended when they see that we return to these things, because they do not know our way of thinking and that our soul has become above all sensual defilement. The Jews and the weakest of the brethren will experience the same thing. Do you see how many reasons he gave why one should abstain from sacrifices to idols? Namely, because intemperance is useless, superfluous, harms a brother, provokes blasphemy on the part of a Jew, reproach on the part of a pagan, which should not have communion with demons, that such behavior is in some way idolatry. Then, when he said, "Give not offense," he made them responsible for the offense of Jews and Gentiles, and expressed something grievous, see how he makes it acceptable and easy: he makes himself a mediator, and says, "Just as I also please all in all things, seeking not my own benefit, but the benefit of many, that they may be saved" (v. 33). "Be ye imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (11:1).

3. To seek what is useful for society – this is the rule of the most perfect Christianity, this is its exact purpose, this is the height of perfection! This is also expressed by the Apostle with the words: "As I am to Christ." In nothing can you imitate Christ so much as by caring for your neighbors; whether you fast, whether you sleep on the ground, whether you exhaust yourself, if you do not care for your neighbor, you do not do anything important, and for all this you are still far from the model. Abstaining from sacrifices to idols is in itself a useful thing; but I, says (the Apostle), have done many things that are not profitable, for example, I have circumcised and offered sacrifices; Such actions, when considered in themselves, may even destroy the doers and deprive them of salvation, but I have subjected myself to this also for the benefit that follows from it. There is nothing of the kind here: in those actions, if there is no benefit for others, then there can be harm; And here, even if no one is offended, even in this case one should refrain from what is forbidden. I exposed myself not only to harmful, but also to difficult things: "To other churches I caused expenses," he says, "by receiving maintenance from them" (2 Corinthians 11:8); When it was possible to eat and not work, I did not seek it, but resolved to die of hunger myself rather than seduce another. That is why he says: "I please everyone in everything"; whether it is necessary to do anything illegal, or difficult and dangerous, I am subjected to everything for the benefit of others. Thus Paul, being above all in perfection, became inferior to all in condescension.

Truly, no podvig can be great if it does not benefit others. This is evident from the example of one who brought a talent whole and was punished for not multiplying it. In the same way, brother, whether you remain without food, sleep on the ground, eat ashes, and weep continually, but if you do not do any benefit to others, you do nothing important. This was especially what all the great and valiant men of antiquity had in mind; examine their lives carefully, and you will clearly see that each of them did not aim at his own benefit, but that of his neighbors; For this they became especially famous. Thus Moses performed many great miracles and signs, but nothing magnified him so much as the blessed words he said to God: "Forgive them their sin, and if not, blot out me also" (Exodus 32:32). Such was David: "Behold, I have sinned, I have done iniquity; And these sheep, what did they do? let Thy hand be turned upon me, and upon my father's house" (2 Samuel 24:17). Likewise, Abraham sought not his own benefit, but the benefit of many: therefore he exposed himself to dangers and asked God for (people) who had nothing to do with him. Thus they became famous; but those who seek their own benefit, see how they have done harm. Thus, Abraham's nephew, having heard his words: "If you are on the right, then I am on the left" (Gen. 13:9), and having made a choice, having in mind his own benefit, did not find it; on the contrary, his country was burned, but the country of Abraham remained unharmed. Jonah, when he sought the benefit not of others, but of his own, almost perished: the city stood, and he was in danger, was overwhelmed by the waves and drowned; but when he began to seek the benefit of others, then he found his own. James, who did not seek his own benefit from the flocks, received great wealth. Likewise, Joseph, wishing to benefit his brothers, found his own: when his father sent him (to his brothers), he did not say, "Why, do you not know what visions and dreams they are ready to tear me to pieces, what kind of dreams they accuse me of, what kind of love they intend to punish me for your love for me—what will they not do when they meet me in the middle of the field?" He did not say or think anything of the kind, but preferred the service of his brothers to everything; wherefore afterwards he received all the blessings which made him very glorious and famous. So also Moses, – nothing prevents us from mentioning him another time, in order to see how he did not think of his own benefit and sought the benefit of others – while spending his life in the royal palaces, "he considered reproach greater riches than the treasures of Egypt" (Hebrews 11:26), and, abandoning everything, decided to share the misfortunes with the Jews; but not only did he not undergo slavery himself, but on the contrary freed them from slavery. All these deeds are great and worthy of angels.

4. But (the deeds) of Paul have a great advantage. All others, leaving their own well-being, took part in the misfortunes of their neighbors; and Paul did much more. He not only participated in the misfortunes of others, but preferred to endure extreme calamities himself, so that others would enjoy prosperity. It is not the same thing to deny one's well-being and give oneself up to misfortune (together with others), or to subject oneself to suffering, and to give peace and honor to others. There, although it is difficult to exchange well-being for suffering for one's neighbor, there is some consolation in the fact that there are accomplices in suffering; and to subject oneself to sorrows alone, so that others may enjoy joys, is the work of the noblest soul and Paul's zeal.

Not only with this, but also with another great advantage, he surpasses all those we have mentioned above. Abraham and all others exposed themselves to the calamities of the present life, and all in general desired death; and Paul wanted to lose even future glory for the salvation of others. I can point out the third advantage. What is it? That although some of the men mentioned took care of the people who were hostile to them, they were under their leadership; they did what a father would do if he cared for a bad and criminal son, but also a son; but Paul wished to be anathematized for those who were not entrusted to his care, since he had been sent to the Gentiles. Do you see the greatness of his soul and the superiority of his zeal, which surpasses heaven itself? Imitate him; If you do not have zeal to take care of your brother, then remember that otherwise you cannot be saved, and take care of him and his deeds at least for yourself. if you wish, you can convince yourself by experience and from ordinary examples. When a house should catch fire, those who live near it, and care only for themselves, do not prevent the danger, but shut themselves up in their houses for fear that someone will enter and steal something from them, what punishment will they receive? The fire, having reached them, will burn up all their (property); not caring for the benefit of their neighbor, they will lose their own. God, wishing to unite all with one another, has placed everything in such a necessary connection that the benefit of one is combined with the benefit of another: the whole world stands on this. If on a ship, during a storm, the helmsman, neglecting the benefit of others, seeks only his own, he will soon sink both himself and them. If each craft strove only for its own benefit, then life would be impossible, and the very craft that would strive for this would be impossible. Therefore, the farmer does not sow as much as is necessary for himself, otherwise he would have destroyed both himself and others long ago, but he also cares for others; The warrior takes up arms against danger, not only to save himself, but also to secure the cities: the merchant brings not as much as is necessary for himself, but as for many others. But everyone, someone will say, does this not with my benefit in mind, but with his own, he works to acquire for himself money, and fame, and security, so that when he benefits me, he seeks his own. I say the same thing, this is what I wanted to instill for a long time, and to this I directed all my words, in order to show that my neighbor achieves his benefit when he cares for yours. If people were not placed in such a necessity, they would not want to seek the benefit of their neighbor; wherefore God united all things in this way, and did not allow them to attain their own benefit except by the benefit of others. It is natural for people to follow this path for the benefit of their neighbors; but the motive for this should not be borrowed from here, but from the conviction that this is pleasing to God. There is no other way to be saved; if you exercise even in the highest wisdom, but do not care for others who are perishing, then you will not have any boldness before God. Where does this come from? From the words of Blessed Paul: "If I," he says, "give away all my possessions, and give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:3), Do you see what Paul demands of us? Although the giver (of his possessions) apparently seeks the benefit not of his own, but of his neighbor, this alone, he says, is not enough, and it must be done with sincerity and great compassion. That is why God gave us such a commandment, in order to unite us in the union of love. If He demands love from us to such an extent, and we do not show it even less, then will we be worthy of forgiveness? How, someone will object, did God say to Lot through the angels: "Save thy soul" (Gen. 19:17)? But, tell me, when was it and why? When punishment threatened, when it was no longer time to reform, when (the wicked) were condemned and suffered from an incurable disease, when old and young men gave themselves over to the same lusts and were about to be burned, on the day when lightning was about to strike them. Moreover, this was not said about vice and virtue, but referred to punishment sent down from God. What, then, tell me, was to be done? To sit down, accept punishment and burn uselessly? But that would be utter madness. I do not say that one should suffer for no reason and in vain, contrary to the will of God; but when a man leads a vicious life, then I command you, come to him and correct him, if you will, for the good of your neighbor, but if not, then at least for your own benefit; the former is better than the latter, but if you have not yet reached such a height, do so at least for the latter. Let no one seek his own benefit, and then he will find it. Knowing that neither poverty, nor torment, nor anything else can save us, if we do not have high love, let us acquire it first of all, so that through it we may also receive other blessings, present and future, which may we all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

DISCOURSE 26

"I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things, and keep the traditions as I have handed down to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2).

1. Having finished the discourse on the sacrifices of idols as it should have been, and having made it perfect in all respects, (the apostle) passes on to another subject, in which (the Corinthians) also sinned, though not so grievously. As a rule, I repeat again what I said before, he does not place all the strong rebukes in a row, but, arranging them in the proper order, inserts the less strong ones between them, and thus eases the burden that would arise for the hearers from constant reproaches. Therefore, he speaks of the most important subject, namely the resurrection, after all. Now he comes to another, less important thing, and says: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things." When sin is certain, then it strongly rebukes and reproaches; and when a sin is doubtful, then he proves beforehand, and then he convicts: when he speaks of an indubitable sin, he shows the importance of it, and when he speaks of a doubtful sin, he proves the reality (of its sinfulness). Thus, fornication is undoubtedly a sin, and therefore it did not need to prove that it was a sin, but showed the gravity of sin by comparison. To be judged by the unbelievers was a sin, but not so grievous, – therefore he places this sin among others and proves (its sinfulness). The eating of sacrifices to idols, although (in regard to its sinfulness) was subject to doubt, was the greatest evil, and therefore it proves that it is a sin, and explains its importance. By doing so, he not only diverts from sins, but also convinces to the opposite. Thus he says that not only should one not commit fornication, but also carefully observe holiness: "Therefore glorify," he adds, "God in your body and in your spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:20). Also having said that one should not be wise by outward wisdom, he is not satisfied with this, but also commands to be foolish. Exhorting not to sue outsiders and not to cause offenses, then he forbids to sue in general and advises not only not to offend, but also to endure offenses. Speaking of sacrifices to idols, he says that one should abstain not only from what is forbidden, but also from what is lawful, when temptation arises from it, and one should not seduce not only the brethren, but also the pagans and Jews. "Give not offense," he says, "neither to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God." In this way, having completely finished talking about all this, he then passes on to another sin. What sin was this? The women with their heads uncovered and naked both prayed and prophesied, for then the wives also prophesied, and the men grew their hair, like those who studied philosophy, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering to the pagan law in both. The Apostle, being (among the Corinthians), had already given them instruction on this subject; but since, perhaps, some obeyed him, and others turned out to be disobedient, he again through the epistle, like a wise physician, corrects sin with abundant words. And that he personally instructed them on this subject is evident from the beginning of his speech. Why, in fact, having not previously said anything about this in the epistle, but discussing other sins, he suddenly says: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things and keep the traditions as I have handed them down to you." It is evident that some have obeyed him, and whom he praises, and others have been disobedient, and he corrects them with these words, "And if any man should dispute, we have no such custom," v. 16. If he had reproached everyone, both obedient and disobedient, he would have aroused indignation in the former, and increased negligence in the latter; but now, having praised and approved some, and rebuked others, he encourages the former, and puts the latter to shame. Reproach, although in itself can touch, has even greater power when it is combined with praise for those who are in good faith. Wherefore he begins, not with reproaches, but with praise, and with great praise, and says, "I praise you, that ye remember all my things." This is what Paul usually does: for small (merits) he gives great praise, not out of flattery – let it not be! Could he (use flattery) who sought neither money, nor fame, nor anything of the kind? – but in all things having in mind their salvation. That is why he strengthens the praise: "I praise you, brethren," he says, "that you remember all my things." What's all? He spoke only of the non-growth of the hair and the uncovering of the head, but, as I have said, he increases the praise in order to make them more diligent: "that ye are all mine," he says, "remember and keep the traditions as I have handed down to you." Consequently, he had previously taught them many things not in writing, as he expresses in many other places; but before he only left them a tradition, and now he adds a reason. In this way he strengthens the obedient and destroys the pride of the disobedient. He does not say, "You have obeyed, and others have not listened," but, without expressing it directly, he hints at this in the further exposition of his exhortation: "I will also," he says, "that you may know that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ" (v. 3). This is the reason. And he gives it in order to make the weak more attentive. For the believer, as he ought to be, and firm in the faith, needs neither proof nor reason for what is commanded to him, but is satisfied with tradition alone; but the weak, having learned the reason, observes what is said with greater diligence and obeys with greater devotion.

2. For this reason (the Apostle) did not give reasons until he saw the violation of the commandment. What is the reason? "Christ is the head of every man." Therefore also to the Gentile? No. If we are "the body of Christ, and members individually" (1 Corinthians 12:27), and He is our head, then He cannot be the head of those who do not constitute the body and have not become members of Him. Consequently, when we say to everyone, we must mean, to him who believes.

Do you see how everywhere he shames the listener, pointing to the highest? Speaking of love, humility, and mercy, he borrowed proofs from here. And the husband is the head of the woman: and God is the head of Christ. The heretics point us to these words, deducing from them the idea of the humiliation of the Son (before the Father); but they refute themselves. If the head of the woman is the husband, and the head is of one essence with the body, and the head of Christ is God, then the Son is of one essence with the Father. But, it will be said, we do not want to prove from this the difference in essence, but the subjection (of the Son to the Father). What can I say to this? That when something despised is said of Him in His union with the flesh, then it does not demean the Godhead, but refers to His economy. However, tell me, how do you prove your idea from this? As the wife, you say, is subject to her husband, so Christ is subject to the Father. Therefore, just as Christ is the head of man, so is the Father the head of the Son? To every man, says (the Apostle), Christ is the head. But who can ever admit this? If we admit that as much as the Son has precedence over us, so is the Father over the Son, then consider to what extent you humiliate him. Therefore, we should not accept in the same sense everything that is said about us and about God, although it is said in the same way; but one must ascribe to God some special advantage, such as is proper to God; Otherwise, a lot of ridiculous things will happen. See: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the husband is the head of the woman: if in all this speech we take the word head in one and the same sense, then the Son will be lower than the Father as much as we are lower than Him; and the wife will be inferior to us as much as we are inferior to God the Word, so that in what relation the Son is to the Father, so are we to the Son, and the wife to the husband. But who can allow this? You accept the word head in relation to the wife in one sense, and in relation to the husband in another: why do you not receive it in another sense in relation to Christ? It should be received in a different sense in relation to the Son and the Father. How, you will say, is it to be understood otherwise? In the sense of the beginning. If Paul had wanted to express the authority of the one and the subjection of the other, as you say, he would have given the example of the slave and the master, rather than the wife, because the wife, although subject to us, is free and equal. In the same way, the Son, although he obeys the Father, is as the Son of God, as God; and as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than that of men is the obedience of children to parents, so is His disobedience greater. If the relationship of the Son to the Father is greater and more perfect than that of men, then the relationship of the Father to the Son is no less; if we marvel at the Son that He was "obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:8), and impute this to Him as a great merit, then we must also marvel at the Father that He begat such a (Son) who is not subject to Him as a slave, but obeys as a free man and as a counselor; but the counsellor is not a slave. Again, when you hear the word counselor, do not take it as if the Father has need of anything, but that the Son is equal to the Father. In the same way, do not apply the example of husband and wife in everything. With them the wife is justly subject to the husband, because equality could produce enmity, and also because in the beginning there was seduction from the wife; she is not subject immediately after creation: when (God) brought her to her husband, she heard nothing of the kind from God, and the husband did not express anything of the kind to her, but said that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, but spoke nothing to her about authority and subjection; but when she abused her power, turning from a helper into a seductress, and ruined everything, then she justly heard the words: "Thy desire is for thy husband" (Gen. 3:16). if she did not spare her own member, would have irritated her husband even more – then God, seeing the wickedness of the devil, protected them with this word, as if with a wall, destroyed by such a definition the enmity that was to occur after the deception, setting up as it were a bulwark against the natural passion – the rancor arising from sin. But in God, this incorruptible being, nothing of the kind can be assumed. Therefore, do not apply examples to Him in all respects; otherwise you will fall into many and important errors in other places. So also at the beginning of the Epistle (the Apostle) said: "All that is yours; but ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (1 Corinthians 3:22-23).

3. What is it? Is everything ours in one sense, and we are Christ's, and Christ is God's? No; on the contrary, even for the most foolish the difference is obvious, although the same expression is used about God, about Christ, and about us. And in another place, having called the husband the head of the wife, he adds: "As Christ is the head and Saviour and intercessor of the Church, so the husband must be in relation to his wife" (Ephesians 5:23-27). Can we also accept in the same sense all the expressions, both here and said later in the Epistle to the Ephesians on this subject? No; It's impossible. The same expressions are used about God and man: but the one must be understood differently, the other differently; however, not everything is different, because they would be used without cause and in vain, if we did not make any application of them. Just as not everything should be understood in one sense, so not everything should be considered inapplicable. For a better understanding, I will try to explain this by an example. Christ is called the head of the Church; If I do not make any application of this expression, borrowed from man, why is it said to me? And on the other hand, if I apply the whole literal meaning of it, then absurdity will occur, because the head is obsequious to the body and is subject to the same (defects). What is to be rejected and what is to be accepted? It is necessary to reject what I have said, and to accept the perfect union (of Christ with the Church) and that He is the Author and supreme Ruler of it; moreover, it is necessary to understand this not simply, but in the highest degree and in a manner befitting God; His unity is the firmest, and His government is the most perfect. Again: Christ is called the Son; and here again do not accept everything, but do not reject everything, but having accepted that which is befitting God, i.e. that He is of one essence with the Father and is born of Him, do not add what is unseemly and inherent in human weakness. God is also called light; Is it possible to apply to Him all that is proper to the visible light? No; the visible light is limited by darkness and place, is set in motion by another force and is darkened, and in the essence of God it is impossible to imagine anything of the sort. Therefore, let us not reject everything, but derive some benefit from this likeness, meaning the enlightenment given to us by God, and deliverance from darkness. This is against heretics; And now it is necessary to say about the whole passage to be explained. Perhaps someone will be perplexed and ask himself: What is the fault if wives were to be opened, and men were covered? What the guilt consists of here can be seen from the following. Husband and wife are given many different signs, one of authority, and the other of submission, among other things, that the wife should be covered and the husband should be bareheaded. If such are the signs, then both of them sin when they violate the decency and commandment of God, when they transgress their own limits, the husband descending to the humiliation of his wife, and the wife exalting herself with her appearance before her husband. If it is not permissible for them to change their clothes, i.e. for a wife to dress in a man's dress, and for a husband to put on a woman's clothes and a veil – "a woman shall not wear," says (Scripture), "men's clothes, and a man should not dress in a woman's clothes" (Deuteronomy 22:5), then it is all the more impermissible to change clothes. This is legitimized by men, although it was later confirmed by God; and this comes from nature itself, i.e. that the one should be covered and the other not covered. By the name of nature I mean God, because He is the Creator of nature. Therefore, if you transgress these limits, then see how much harm will happen. Do not tell me that this crime is of little importance; it is great in itself, because it is disobedience: and if it were of little importance in itself, it is great because it concerns the sign of great things. And that (this sign) is great is evident from the fact that it brings about the improvement of the (human) race, presenting in the proper form the ruler and the subordinate; but he who acts against this confuses everything, deprives himself of the gifts of God, humiliates the honor bestowed upon him from above, and not only the husband, but also the wife. After all, it is a great honor for her to keep her place, but on the contrary, it is shameful to go beyond the limits. For this reason (the Apostle) says of both of them: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head" (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). At that time, as I have said, there were both men who prophesied and women who had this gift, for example, the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. Of them also the prophet of old said: "Your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions" (Joel 2:28). The Apostle commands the husband not to be open at all times, but only during prayer: "Every man," he says, "who prays or prophesies with his head covered, shames his head." And he commands the woman to be covered at all times; Wherefore, having said, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesies with her head uncovered shall shame her head," he does not stop there, but continues, "For it is as if she had been shaved." If it is always shameful to be shaved, then it is obvious that it is always shameful to be uncovered.

4. (The Apostle) does not stop there, but adds: "A woman shall have on her head a sign of authority over her, for the angels" (v. 10); shows that not only during prayer, but always it must be covered. And he commands the husband not to cover himself, but to his hair: he forbids him to cover himself only during prayer, but he always forbids him to grow his hair. As of the wife he said, "If he will not cover himself, let him cut his hair," so he said of the husband, "If he grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him" (v. 14). He did not say, "If it is covered," but, "If it grows hair." Wherefore also in the beginning He said, "Every man who prayeth or prophesies with his head covered," he did not say, "Covered," but, "With his head covered," signifying that he who prays, though with his head bare, but with his hair grown, is equal to him who is covered, "Since," he says, "the hair is given for a veil," v. 15. "For if a woman will not cover herself, let her cut her hair; but if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered" (v. 6). First he demands that the wife should not uncover her head, and then he explains that she must always be covered: "For this is the same as if she were shaved," and moreover (covered) with all care and circumspection, since he did not simply say: let it be covered (καλύπτεσθαι), but: covered (κατακαλύπτεσθαι), i.e. it must be carefully closed on all sides. He also shows the indecency of the contrary course of action, and strongly reproaches when he says: "If he will not be covered, let him also cut his hair": if, he says, you cast off the veil established by the law of God, then cast off also the veil given by nature. But, someone will say, how can a wife be dishonored, if she ascends to the honor of her husband? Through this, we say, it not only does not ascend, but is deprived of its own honor. After all, not to keep one's own limits and laws established by God, to transgress them, is not exaltation, but humiliation. As he who covets what is not his own, and steals what does not belong to him, does not gain, but is humiliated and loses what he had, as it was in paradise, so the wife in this case does not acquire for herself the nobility of her husband, but also loses the decency of her wife; moreover, it is not only this that is shameful for her, but covetousness itself. Thus, having pointed out what is undoubtedly recognized as shameful, in the words: "And if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved," (the Apostle) finally says on his own behalf: "Let her be covered." He did not say, "Let him grow his hair," but, "Let him be covered," suggesting that both are the same, and proving this from two sides, from the side of the law and from the side of the opposite (by nature). A veil and a grown hair, he says, are one and the same, just as a shaved and naked head are one and the same: "for this," he says, "is the same as if it were shaved." But someone will ask: How is it the same thing when she has a natural veil, and the shaved one does not have even this? She, we shall say, having a naked head, by her own will rejected the natural veil; but if she is not without hair, it is the work of nature, and not hers; therefore, just as the shaved woman has a naked head, so does she. For this reason (God) commanded nature to cover the head with hair, so that the woman, having learned from nature, would cover herself herself. Further, (the Apostle) gives the reason, reasoning with his hearers as with free ones, which I have often observed. What is the reason? "Therefore a man shall not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). Again, the second reason: the husband, he says, should not be covered not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he has authority over his wife. When he who has authority approaches the king, he must bear the sign of his authority. Therefore, just as no one in authority would dare to appear before a diadem without a belt and garments, so do not pray to God without the signs of your authority, i.e. without a bare head, so that you do not bring dishonor to yourself and to him who honors you. The same may be said of the wife: it is dishonourable for her not to have the marks of her subordination. And the wife is the glory of her husband. Therefore, the power of the husband (over the wife) is natural. Having explained this, he further presents other reasons and causes, leads you to the beginning of creation, and says, "For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man" (v. 8). If the descent of the one from the other is the glory of the latter, how much more so is their resemblance. "And the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the husband" (v. 9). This is the second advantage, or, better, the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we (the head) are women; the second is that we are the glory of God, and our glory is the wife; the third is that we are not from the woman, but the woman from us; The fourth is that we are not for her, but she is for us. "Therefore a woman should have on her head the sign of authority" (v. 10). Why exactly? For all the reasons that have been said, and also for the Angels. If you, he says, do not pay attention to your husband, then be ashamed of the angels.

5. Covering, then, is a sign of submission and submission; it encourages us to look down, to humble ourselves, and to observe virtue; but the virtue and honor of a subordinate consists precisely in remaining in obedience. The husband is not prescribed to do this, since he is the image of the Lord himself; but it is just for the wife (it is prescribed). Consider, therefore, how great is the crime when you, who have been vouchsafed such power, dishonor yourself by assuming the form of a wife; You do the same as if, having received a diadem, you threw it off your head, and instead of a diadem you put on a slave's garment. "Yet neither is man without woman, nor woman without man, in the Lord" (v. 11). Since (the Apostle) has ascribed great precedence to the husband, saying that the wife is from him, for him, and under his authority, in order not to exalt husbands more than befitting and not to degrade wives, see what correction he makes, saying: "Nevertheless, neither is the husband without the wife, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." Do not point out to me, he says, only the original advantages and the creation, but pay attention to the following, and you will see that each of them depends on the other. or, better, not one from the other, but all from God. That is why he says: "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is from the man, so is the man through the woman" (v. 12). He did not say, "From the woman"; and through her again: from the husband – this inseparably remains with the husband. However, the author of these advantages is not the husband, but God; therefore he adds: but all is from God. Therefore, if everything is from God, if He commands it, then obey and do not contradict it. "Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" (v. 13). Again he leaves it to them to judge for themselves what has been said, just as he did (in discourse) about things sacrificed to idols; There he said, "Judge for yourselves what I say" (10:15), and here (he says): "Judge for yourselves," and by this he inspires something terrible: here, he says, the offense concerns God: however, he does not say this directly, but expresses himself more leniently and covertly: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if the husband grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if the wife grows her hair, it is an honor to her, since the hair is given to her instead of a veil?" (11:13-15). As in other places he always uses well-known proofs, so here he turns to a well-known custom, and greatly shames his hearers, who expect instruction from him in what they could know from the common custom; and this is not unknown to barbarians. And note how strong the expressions he uses everywhere: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head"; and again: "And if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered"; And here: "If the husband grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if the wife grows her hair, it is an honor to her, since the hair is given to her instead of a veil." But, you will say, if instead of a garment it is given, then why should another be added to one garment? In order to show subordination not only by nature. but also of their own free will. Nature has ordained in advance that you should be covered; and thou shalt add something of thyself, that thou mayest not seem to be transgressing the laws of nature; To resist not only us, but also nature, is a sign of great shamelessness. Therefore God, rebuking the Jews, said: "Thy sons and thy daughters thou hast sacrificed": this is greater than all thy abominations (Ezekiel 16:20). Likewise, Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, denouncing those who indulge in voluptuousness, similarly intensifies the rebuke, noting that their transgression is contrary not only to the law of God, but also to nature: "they have replaced natural use with unnatural use" (Romans 1:26). And here he inspires the same thing, and also that he does not prescribe anything new, and that all pagan innovations are contrary to nature. Christ expresses the same thing when He says: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them" (Matt. 7:12), suggesting that He does not introduce anything new. "And if any man should want to dispute, we have no such custom, nor the church of God" (1 Corinthians 11:16). Therefore resistance is a sign of obstinacy, not of prudence. However, even here he moderately denounces, and at the same time strongly shames them, which made his words very impressive. We, he says, do not have such a custom as to argue, contend and contradict. Without stopping there, he adds: "nor the churches of God," suggesting that by disobeying they are at enmity and oppose the whole universe. But if then the Corinthians contradicted this law, now the whole universe has accepted and preserves it. Such is the power of the Crucified One!