6. But I am afraid that some women, having assumed a proper outward appearance, will not be shameless in their deeds and will not remain open in other respects. For this reason Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, not content with the instructions he had said, added something else and said: "In decent attire, with modesty and chastity, they adorned themselves, not with plaiting of hair, nor with gold" (1 Timothy 2:9). If one should not bare one's heads, but wear everywhere a sign of submission, then all the more should it show this in actions. Former wives called their husbands masters and yielded primacy to them. Because, you say, they also loved their wives? And I know this and do not forget; but when we speak of your duties, do not point out (the duties of) others. When we instill in children obedience to parents and pronounce the words of the Scriptures: "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12), they say to us: "Prove also the following: "And you fathers do not provoke the children to anger" (Ephesians 6:4). When we impress upon the servants the words of the Scriptures: "Obey your masters, not only with apparent servility" (Ephesians 6:5-6), they remind us of what follows and demand that the masters also be admonished: "Paul," they say, "commanded them also to moderate their severity" (Ephesians 6:9). But we will not do this, we will not point out the duties of others, when we are rebuked for transgressing ours; even if reproof falls on you along with others, you will not be delivered from the accusation; therefore, see only that you are freed from your sins. Adam also laid the blame on his wife, and she on the serpent; Do not tell me this, but try to fulfill your duties towards your husband with all prudence. And to your husband, when I exhort him to love and respect you, I do not allow him to point out the commandment given to his wife, but demand of him to fulfill what is prescribed for him. Therefore, you also strive to fulfill your duties and show obedience to your husband. If you want to obey your husband for God's sake, do not present to me his duties, but carefully fulfill those that the Lawgiver has laid upon you. This is especially what obedience to God consists in, so as not to break the law, even if you yourself tolerate the opposite. Whoever loves him who loves him does nothing important; but whoever loves him who hates him is primarily worthy of crowns. Thus think thou also: if thou endure a cruel man, thou shalt receive a bright crown; but if you are quiet and meek, then for what will God reward you? I say this not in order to give husbands a reason for cruelty, but in order to persuade a wife to endure cruel husbands as well. When everyone tries to fulfill his duties, then his neighbor will not hesitate to do the same. Thus, when the wife is ready to bear the wrathful husband, then the husband will not insult the wrathful wife, then in all things they will have peace and a haven, not disturbed by the waves. So it was with the ancients: everyone did his own thing, without pointing out the duties of his neighbor. See, Abraham took his nephew with him, and his wife did not reproach him for it. He commanded her to go on a long journey, and she did not oppose it, but obeyed.

She did not say or think anything of the sort, but was pleased with all that he had done. And still more: when he (Lot)

She didn't say anything like that, she didn't think, but she endured everything in silence. Then, remaining barren, she does not grieve or weep, like other such wives, but sheds tears, not before his wife, but before God. And notice how everyone observes what is due: he does not despise Sarah for her barrenness, nor reproach her for it, and she, on her part, tries to find some consolation for him in childlessness through a slave girl. At that time it was not forbidden, as it is forbidden now; but now it is not lawful for wives to please their husbands in such a way, nor for husbands, with or without the knowledge of their wives, to enter into such relations, even if they feel a thousand times more childless; otherwise it will be said to them: "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44); now it is not allowed, but then it was not forbidden. Therefore, his wife suggested this, and he obeyed, and did not do so for pleasure. And look, you will tell me how later, at her own request, he expelled (the servant). But by this I want to prove that just as he obeyed her in everything, so she obeyed him.

7. Moreover, do not limit yourself to this, but when you say this, pay attention to the previous one, to the fact that the maidservant has insulted her, has become proud before her mistress; And what can be more sorrowful than this for a free and honest wife? Therefore, you, wife, do not expect kindness from your husband, in order to show your own kindness after that – there will be nothing important in this; and you, husband, do not expect good manners from your wife, so that after that you yourself will be wise – this will no longer be a podvig; but each, as I have said, let him be the first to do his duty. If even strangers who strike on the right cheek should be turned to the other, then how much more should the cruelty of the husband be endured. I do not say this so that the husband beats his wife, no; this is extreme humiliation, not for the one who is beaten, but for the one who beats; but if for some reason you, a wife, have been married to such a husband, then do not give yourself over to sorrow, imagining the reward and praise that awaits you for this in this life. And to you, husbands, I say: no offense should compel you to beat your wife. What do I say – a wife? It is not permissible for a noble man to beat even a servant girl and lay hands on her. If it is very dishonorable for a husband to beat a slave girl, then it is all the more dishonorable to lay his hand on a free woman. This is also suggested by external (pagan) legislators, who do not force a wife to live with her husband who beats her, as with an unworthy cohabitation. Truly, it is extremely lawless to shame the accomplice of life, who has long shared your needs, as a slave. Such a husband, if he can be called a husband and not a beast, is, in my opinion, equal to a parricide and a matricide. If we are commanded to leave our father and mother for our wives, not to offend them, but to fulfill the law of God, and for the parents themselves this is so desirable that they, being forsaken, rejoice and perform the marriage union of their children with great zeal, then is it not utter folly to offend her for whom God has commanded to leave her parents? And is it only madness? And dishonor, tell me, who can endure? What word can depict this (dishonor) when shouts and cries reverberate through the streets, when neighbors and passers-by flock to the house of one who does such an abominable deed, crushing like a beast everything that is inside? It would be better if the earth swallowed up such a madman than after that he would again appear in the marketplace. A wife, you say, is acting impudently? But remember that she is a wife, a weak vessel, and you are a husband. For this reason you have been placed over her as a boss and head, in order to endure the weakness of a subordinate. Try to make your rule glorious; and it will be glorious when you do not dishonor your subordinate. As a king himself is the more worthy of reverence, the more he exalts the honor of his ruler, and when he humiliates and dishonors his dignity, then he diminishes his own glory no little, so you, by dishonoring your ruler, do not a little degrade the honor of your own power. Therefore, when you think of all this, be prudent, and at the same time remember that evening on which the father, having summoned you, gave you his daughter, as it were a kind of pledge, and, having separated her from everything, from her mother, from himself, and from the house, he entrusted all the care of her to your right hand. Think that after God you received children from her, you became a father, and therefore be meek in your attitude towards her.

8. Do you not see how farmers fertilize in every way the land that has received seeds, even though it has a thousand defects, even though it is not fruitful, grows bad herbs, is subject to floods because of the nature of the location? Do the same; then you will be the first to enjoy both fruits and tranquility. A woman is a haven and the most important medicine for (seekers) of complacency. If you keep this harbor free from winds and waves, you will find great peace in it when you return from the marketplace: and if you disturb and agitate it, you will prepare for yourself a most dangerous shipwreck. So, let it not be this, but let it be what I am talking about. If anything deplorable happens in the house through her fault, then console her, and do not increase her sorrows, even if you lose all your possessions, it will not be more grievous than enmity with your concubine; Whatever guilt you may present, nothing will be more intolerable than a quarrel with your wife. Therefore, let love for her be most precious to you. If one must bear one another's burdens, how much more should one another's wives. If she is poor, do not reproach; if she is unreasonable, do not condemn her, but rather try to teach her; for she is thy member; You are one flesh. But, you say, she is talkative, prone to drunkenness, angry? In such a case, one should not be angry, but grieve, pray to God, exhort her, admonish her, and do everything to destroy her passion. But if you beat and torment her, you will not heal her illnesses; rudeness is corrected by meekness, and not by mutual rudeness. At the same time, do not forget about the reward from God. If you, having the opportunity to reject her, do not do it out of fear of God, but begin to endure her faults out of respect for the law, which forbids rejecting a wife, no matter how great her illness may be, you will receive an unspeakable reward, and even before the reward – a great benefit, by making her more submissive, accustoming yourself also to greater meekness in relation to her.

It is said that one of the external philosophers (Socrates), having a wife who was wicked, talkative, and prone to drunkenness, when asked why he tolerated her, replied that she served him as a home school and an exercise in wisdom: "I," he said, "by practicing daily with her, become more meek with others. Were you delighted? And I am very sorry that the Gentiles surpass us in wisdom, who are commanded to imitate the angels, or, better, are commanded to imitate God Himself in meekness. For this reason the said philosopher did not cast out his wicked wife; and some say that it was for this reason that he married her. But since many people are not so prudent, I advise you to try in advance in every possible way to choose a wife who is well-behaved and full of every virtue; but if it happens to make a mistake and bring into your house a bride who is unkind and even worthless, then to imitate this philosopher, to correct her by all means, and to consider this matter as the most important thing. A merchant does not put a ship to sea, nor does he undertake to trade before he has made terms with his companion which will secure their mutual tranquillity. In the same way, we will take all measures to preserve all peace within our ship with the accomplice of the field of life; then everything else will be at peace with us, and we will safely cross the sea of real life.

Amen.

CONVERSATION 27

"But when I offer these things, I do not praise you, that you are not going to the best, but to the worst" (1 Corinthians 11:17).

1. First of all, it is necessary to explain the reason for the proposed rebuke; then our speech will be more understandable. What is this reason? As in the beginning the believers, to the number of three thousand, ate food at the common table and had everything in common, so it was when the Apostle wrote this, although not with such exactness, but only as if a certain remnant of the former communion was preserved and observed in subsequent times. The faithful, some of whom were rich and others poor, although they did not give all their possessions for the common good, nevertheless on the appointed days, according to custom, they established common tables, and, after the meeting and communion of the mysteries, they all gathered for a common feast, while the rich brought viands, and the poor and having nothing were invited by them, and thus they all ate together. But later this custom was also destroyed. The reason was that the believers were divided among themselves, numbering themselves one with one and another with another, and saying, I am so-and-so, and I am so-and-so, as the Apostle said and admonished at the beginning of the epistle: "For it has become known to me from the household of Chloe, my brethren, that there are disputes among you. I understand what you say, "I am Paul"; "I am Apollos"; "I am Cephanes";" (1 Corinthians 1:11-12). This does not mean that they called themselves Paul's: he would not have allowed it; but, desiring to exterminate this course of action more strongly and by the roots, he gave his name to show that if anyone were to take even his name, having been torn away from the common body (the Church), in such a case he would act recklessly and exceedingly impiously: if it is impious (to be called) by his name, how much more so by the name of other inferior teachers. And so, when this custom (of the communion of possessions), which is beautiful and most beneficial, was violated, since it served to maintain love, to console poverty, to use wealth, to inspire great wisdom, to preserve humility, when (the apostle) learned that such blessings perish, he justly uses the word of accusation and says: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." In the former rebuke, which did not apply to many who were in good order, he began his speech differently: "I praise you," he says, "that you remember all my things" (v. 2): but here it is the opposite: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." That is why he did not place this (object) in a row after the rebuke of those who ate things sacrificed to idols; Since this (crime) was very serious, he inserted in the middle a speech about hair, so that, passing from one strong rebuke to another equally strong, he would not seem too harsh, and then again he passed on to a more severe one and said: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." What is this? I will talk about this in a moment. And what does it mean: "proposing, I do not praise"? I do not approve, he says, of you because you have made it necessary for me to make suggestions to you; I do not praise that it was necessary to teach you this, that you have need of such an admonition from me. Do you see how at the very beginning he showed all the folly of their behavior? If the sinner should not even need admonition not to sin, then it is obvious how unforgivable sin is. Why does he not praise? "What," he says, "you are not going to the best, but to the worst," that is, you do not progress in virtue. Whereas you should have prospered and grown in love, you have shortened the custom that was already prevalent, and you have shortened it so that it has become necessary for me to exhort you to return to your former order. Then, lest it should seem that he speaks only in favor of the poor, (the Apostle) does not immediately begin to speak of meals: but in order that his rebuke may not be taken by them as unimportant, he uses an expression more striking and more fearful. What does he say? "For in the first place, I hear that when ye are gathered together in the church, there are divisions among you" (v. 18). He does not say, "I hear that you do not institute common supper, I hear that you eat each one separately, and not together with the poor; but he uses an expression that could have shaken their souls more strongly, namely, divisions, which were the cause of this disorder also; and thus again reminds us of what was said at the beginning of the epistle, and what was announced to him by the household of Chlois. "Which I partially believe."

2. Lest they say, "What if some slanderers have lied?" He does not say, "I believe that they may not become more shameless," nor does he say, "I do not believe that the reproof does not seem in vain," but "in part," he says, "I believe," that is, I believe somewhat, and thus makes them attentive and calls them to correction. "For there must also be differences of opinion among you, that those who are skilful among you may be revealed" (v. 19). And by the name of disagreement he does not mean errors about dogmas, but these very divisions. However, if he had spoken about errors regarding dogmas, then even in this case he would not have given cause for temptation. For Christ also said: "Temptations must come" (Matt. 18:7), and yet He did not violate the freedom of the will and did not set life in any kind of necessity and inevitability, but predicted the future, which was to come from the evil human will, not as a result of His prediction, but from the arbitrariness of depraved people. Not because He foretold them, but because He foretold that they were to happen. If temptations were of necessity, and not of the will of those who produce them, then He would have said in vain: "Woe to the man through whom the offense comes" (Matt. 18:7). But we discussed this at length when we considered this place, and now we must turn to the real subject. That (the Apostle) really calls the disorders at meals and the disagreements and dissensions that followed them by differences of opinion is clearly expressed by the following words. Namely, when he said, "I hear that there are divisions among you," he did not stop there, but, wishing to explain what divisions he meant, he goes on to say, "Everyone hastens before others to eat his own food" (v. 21), and again, "Do you not have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God?" (v. 22). Obviously, he is talking about these disorders; and what he calls them divisions, do not be surprised; he wanted, as I said, to have a stronger effect on them by such an expression. If he had understood the dogmatic divisions, he would not have spoken to them so meekly. When he speaks of them, listen to the power with which he both protects and rebukes; it protects you when it says: "If an angel preach to you any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9); rebukes when he says: "You who justify yourselves by the law have fallen away from grace" (5:4); and he calls troublemakers either dogs, "beware," he says, "dogs" (Phil. 3:2), or those who are burned in conscience and servants of the devil (1 Timothy 4:2). But here he does not say anything of the kind, but expresses himself meekly and condescendingly. What is the meaning of the words, "that those who are skilful among you may be revealed"? To shine more brightly. He means that this not only does not harm people who are adamant and firm, but even makes them more visible and glorious. The particle "to" (ινα, "to") does not always mean the goal, but often the consequence of the deed. This is how Christ uses it when He says: "I have come into this world for judgment, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (John 2:39); so also Paul himself, when he speaks of the law: "And the law came after, that transgression might abound" (Romans 5:20). The law was not given to increase the crimes of the Jews; But so it was. And Christ did not come to make those who see blind, but for the opposite purpose: but it was so. In the same way it is necessary to understand the words: "that the skilful may be revealed": the differences of opinion were not in order that the skilful might be revealed, but when the differences of opinion appeared, then it happened. (The Apostle) said this for the comfort of the poor, who endure such neglect. Wherefore he did not say, "That they might become skilful," but, "That the skilful might be revealed," expressing that they had been so before, but mingled with others, and being comforted by the rich, they were not very noticeable, and now confusion and dissension have made them known, just as a storm makes a helmsman famous. Nor did He say, "That ye may be skilful," but, "That those who are skilful may be revealed among you"; As in rebuke He did not point out anyone directly, so as not to make them more shameless, so in His praise He did not make them more careless; but it is expressed indefinitely, leaving the conscience of each one to apply to itself what has been said. It seems to me that here he comforts not only the poor, but also those who have not violated that custom; probably, among them there were also those who observed it. That is why he said: "I partially believe." He justly calls skilful those who not only observed the custom together with others, but also without them did not transgress this beautiful institution. By such praise he tries to arouse greater zeal in both of them. Then he shows the very nature of the crime. What did it consist of? "Ye are gathered," he says, "in such a way that it is not to partake of the Lord's supper" (1 Corinthians 11:20). Do you see how he shames them and offers suggestion under the guise of narration? The outward appearance of the assembly, he says, shows one thing, comes as if from love and brotherly love; You gather in one place and all together: and the table does not correspond to the meeting. He did not say, "When you gather together, you do not eat together, you do not share food with one another," but again he expresses himself differently and much more strikingly: "so," he says, "that this does not mean to eat the Lord's Supper," reminding them of that supper at which Christ taught the terrible mysteries. That is why he called their eating the supper, since at that supper they all reclined together. However, the rich and the poor are not so different from each other as the Teacher and the disciples – the difference between the latter is infinite. But what do I say about the Master and the disciples? – imagine what a difference there is between the Teacher and the betrayer, and yet He Himself reclined with them, did not cast out the betrayer, but also shared salt with him and made him a partaker of the Mysteries.

3. Further, (the Apostle) explains why they do not partake of the Lord's Supper: "For everyone," he says, "hastens before others eat his own food, so that some are hungry, and some are drunk" (v. 21). Do you see how he proved that they put themselves to shame more? They appropriate to themselves what belongs to the Lord, and therefore they humiliate themselves first of all, depriving their table of that which is its greatest dignity. Why and how? The Lord's Supper, that is, the Lord's Supper, must be common; what belongs to the master does not belong to this or that slave, but is common to all; it is the Lord's, he says, therefore it is common. But if it belongs to your Lord, as it really does, then you must not appropriate it to yourself, but, as belonging to the Lord and Master, offer it to everyone in general. It is the Lord's, and you hinder it from being the Lord's, not allowing it to be common, but eating it by itself. Wherefore he adds: "For every one hastens before others." He did not say, "He separates," but, "He hastens," secretly rebuking them for their immoderation and intemperance, which is also explained by what follows: namely, having said this, he continues: "So that some are hungry, and some are drunk"; both, both deficiency and excess, show immoderation. This is the second guilt, which also harms them: the first is that they dishonor their supper; and the second is that they are satiated and drunk, and, what is even worse, while the poor hunger. What should have been offered to everyone in general, they eat alone, and thus fall into satiety and drunkenness. Wherefore he did not say, "Some are hungry, and some are satisfied," but, "Drunk." Each of these deeds is in itself worthy of condemnation; to get drunk without neglecting the poor is criminal; and to despise the poor without getting drunk is a crime; but if both are combined, then imagine how great the crime is. Having shown the wickedness of the deed, he then applies reproach and says with great anger: "Do you not have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate the poor?" (v. 22). Do you see how he transfers the insult from the poor to the church, in order to strengthen his speech? This is the fourth guilt, which is that they insult not only the poor, but also the church. As the Lord's Supper (he says), so you appropriate the very place for yourself, using the church as if it were your home. The Church is not built so that those who gather in it should be divided, but that those who are divided should be united, as the very word "assembly" shows. "And you humiliate the poor." He did not say, "You leave the poor hungry," but with greater reproach: you humiliate them, showing that he cares not so much about food as about the insult done to them (the poor). And the fifth guilt is that they not only despise the hungry, but also humiliate them. With these words, on the one hand, he praises the poor, expressing that they are not so much anxious about the stomach as about dishonor, and on the other hand, he disposes the listener to mercy. Having shown so many criminal things (in their behavior) – the humiliation of the supper, the humiliation of the church, the insult of the poor – he suddenly softens the force of the rebuke and says: "Shall I praise you? [2] For this I will not praise." This is especially surprising that, having shown so many crimes, when he should have expressed his anger more strongly, he acts quite differently, softens his speech and gives them relief. Why is that? He has already touched them greatly, proving the importance of their guilt, and, like an excellent physician, he strikes a blow corresponding to the wounds: he does not cut those who require a deep incision only on the surface – you heard how he cut off the incestuous man from them – and he does not apply iron to those who require easier healing; therefore here also he speaks to them meekly. On the other hand, he mainly tried to make them meek to the poor; therefore he himself converses with them meekly. Further, wishing to shame them in a different way and even more strongly, he turns his speech to a more important subject: "For I," he says, "have received from the Lord Himself that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and having given thanks, broke it, and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me" (vv. 23-24). Why does he mention these mysteries here? Because he needed it very much for the present subject. Your Lord, he says, has vouchsafed everyone one and the same meal, and moreover the most terrible and far surpassing the dignity of all; but you consider others unworthy of your meal, unimportant and insignificant, and since they do not receive from you any of the spiritual blessings, you also take away from them the bodily ones, although they are not yours either. However, he does not say this, so that his words would not be too heavy, but uses a more gentle speech and says: "That the Lord Jesus took bread on the night in which he was betrayed." Why does he remind us of this time, of this supper and betrayal? Not simply and not without reason, but to touch more strongly and by time itself. Whosoever, even if he be a stone, imagining how that night (the Lord) grieved with the disciples, how he was betrayed, bound, led, condemned, how he endured and all the rest, will become softer than wax, will renounce the earth and all the vanity of this world. For this reason (the Apostle) reminds us of all this; He shames us with time, and supper, and betrayal, and says: Your Lord gave Himself up for you, and you do not want to give bread to your brother for yourself?

4. But why does (Paul) say that he received this from the Lord, when he himself was not then, but was among the persecutors? So that you may understand that this supper did not contain anything more than the following ones. And now the same (Lord) does and teaches everything as he did then, and not only for this purpose does he remind us of this night, but in order to move us in another way.

Then he sets forth the very circumstances of the event and says: "He took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you." If you approach the Eucharist (thanksgiving), then do not do anything unworthy of thanksgiving, do not shame your brother, do not despise the hungry, do not get drunk, do not insult the church. Thou art approaching in order to give thanks for the blessings which thou hast received: repay also on thy part, and do not separate thyself from thy neighbor. Christ taught equally to all, saying: take, eat. He gave His body equally to everyone, and do you not want to distribute common bread to everyone equally? And (bread) was broken by Him equally for all, and became the Body equally for all. "And also the cup after the supper, and said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as soon as you drink, in remembrance of me" (v. 25). What do you say? Do you make remembrance of Christ, and despise the poor, and do not tremble? When you make a commemoration for a dead son or brother, your conscience would torment you if you did not fulfill the custom and did not invite the poor; and in making the remembrance of your Lord, do you not even want to share a meal? But what is the meaning of the words, "This cup is the new covenant"? There was also a cup of the Old Testament – libations and the blood of dumb animals; they filled the cup and phial with blood, and after the sacrifice they made a libation. Offering His blood instead of the blood of the dumb ones, (the Lord) reminded Him of the ancient sacrifice, so that when someone heard this, someone would not be confused. Having spoken of the supper, he then joins the present with the past, so that the faithful may now be in the same frame of mind, as if they were present at that very supper, reclining together (with the apostles) and receiving this sacrifice from Christ Himself, and says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes" (v. 26). Just as Christ, having said of the bread and the cup, "Do this in remembrance of me," revealed to us the reason for the institution of the sacrament, and among other things suggested that this reason is sufficient to arouse reverence in us – and truly, when you imagine what your Lord has suffered for you, you will become wiser – so Paul says here: "For as often as you eat, you proclaim the death of the Lord." Such is this supper! Further, he inspires that it will remain until the end of the age, with the words: "Until He comes." "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty against the body and blood of the Lord" (v. 27). Why? Because he sheds blood and slaughters, and does not offer sacrifice. As then those who pierced (the Lord) did not pierce in order to drink, but to shed (His blood), so also does he who partakes unworthily and receives no benefit. Do you see how terrible his speech was, and how much he touched them, showing that if they intended to drink (the blood of the Lord) in this way, they would unworthily partake of those who were set before (the mysteries)? And does not he approach unworthily who despises the hungry, and in addition to despising him, puts him to shame? If not giving (alms) to the poor deprives a man of the kingdom of heaven, even if he be a virgin, as well as not giving generously, for they (virgins) also had oil, but not in abundance, then imagine how great the evil will be if so many crimes are committed.