Беседа 17

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27–28) Exposition 5:27–37. Why does Christ not begin His teaching with the commandment about monotheism? – What desire does Christ forbid? – Why is the very sight of a woman prohibited? – Denunciation of women who love dresses. – You must move away from seducing people, even close ones. – Why did the law allow divorce? – Why is marriage with a released woman prohibited? – Restriction of freedom of divorce. - Prohibition of oaths. – For one who fulfills the commandments of Christ there can be no need for an oath. – Why divorce and oath were allowed in the Old Testament. – The same thing, depending on time, can be both good and bad. – A person in the new covenant is required to have higher perfection than in the old. - How can you get behind the habit of swearing? 1. Having revealed the first commandment in its entirety and having raised it to the highest beginning of spiritual life, the Savior, in gradual order, then moves on to the second commandment, following in this case the order of the commandments of the ancient law. But perhaps someone will say that this is not the second, but the third commandment. And the commandment itself – “thou shalt not kill” – is not the first. The first commandment is “You have one Father, who is in heaven.” In view of this, one can ask: why did the Savior not begin His teaching with this commandment? So why? Because if he had started with the first commandment, He would have had to reveal it more fully, and therefore would have had to talk about Himself. Meanwhile, it was not yet time to offer a detailed teaching about Himself. In addition, until a certain time, He offered only moral teaching, wanting both by His instructions and by His miracles to convince listeners in advance that He was the Son of God. Otherwise, if He, before teaching moral teaching and performing miracles, had said: “You have heard that it was said to the ancients: I am the Lord your God, and besides Me there is no other God; and I tell you that they should give Me the same worship as Him,” then he would only force everyone to look at Himself as if he were going berserk. If, after His preaching and many signs, they called Him mad when He spoke about His equality with God even in secret, then what would not have been said, what would not have been invented, if He had at the very beginning decided to say something about Himself as God? Meanwhile, having preserved the teaching about His deity until a convenient time, He thereby made this teaching acceptable to many. That is why the Savior now kept silent about him. He first won over his listeners with signs and the highest moral teaching, and then he openly expressed it in words. So, now He reveals it little by little - by performing signs and by the very manner of teaching. By prescribing the commandments and completing the law with divine authority, He thereby gradually raised the attentive and prudent listener to an understanding of the dogma of His divinity. The Evangelist says that the listeners marveled at His teaching, because He did not teach like their scribes (Matthew 7:29; Mark 1:22). So, starting with our main passions, that is, anger and desire (since these passions act more powerfully in us and are more characteristic of us than others), the Savior, with great power befitting a legislator, corrected the concept of them, and with all accuracy determined their essence. In fact, He did not say that only the adulterer is punished; but what He said regarding the “killer”, He says the same here, assigning punishment for a lustful gaze, in order to show what His superiority is over the scribes. “Whoever looks at a woman,” He says, “with lust, has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” that is, whoever is accustomed to gazing at bodily beauty, catching lovely glances, delighting his soul with such a sight and not taking his eyes off pretty faces, is already committing fornication. Christ came to deliver from evil deeds not only the body, but even more so the soul. Since we receive the grace of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the Savior first of all cleanses it. But how, you say, is it possible to free yourself from desire? If we wish, it is very possible to kill him and make him invalid. However, Christ here forbids not every desire, but the desire that is born in us from looking at wives. He who loves to look at beautiful faces, most of all, ignites the flame of passion in himself, and making the soul a captive of passion, soon then begins to fulfill the desire. That is why Christ did not say: “whoever lusts has already committed adultery,” but “whoever looks at a woman with lust.” When He spoke about anger, He made some limitation with the word: “in vain” and “in vain.” And speaking of desire, he did not use such a restriction, but completely forbade desire, although anger and desire are both innate to us, and are not without a purpose in us, namely, anger in order for us to punish the wicked and correct those who behave disorderly, and desire so that we can give birth to children, and thus continuously preserve our race. 2. So, why didn’t the Savior use restrictions here too? If we deepen our attention, we will find a very large limitation here too. In fact, He did not just say: whoever desires, because one can desire while sitting in the mountains, but: “whoever looks at a woman with lust,” that is, whoever kindles desire in himself, who, without any coercion, introduces this beast into his calm heart. This no longer happens from nature, but from negligence. Such a desire is also forbidden in the old law, when it says: “Do not stare at someone else’s beauty” (Sir. 9:8). Further, lest anyone say: what harm will it do if I look but am not carried away by passion? – Christ threatens punishment for this very view, so that you, relying too much on yourself, will not fall into sin later. But is it a great sin, you say, if I look and wish, but do nothing bad? No; and in this case you are equal to the adulterers. This is what the Lawgiver has determined, and you should no longer be curious. When you look like this once, twice, three times, then perhaps you will still be able to overcome passion; but if you constantly do and ignite the flame of passion, you will certainly be defeated by it, because you are not above human nature. Just as we, seeing a child holding a knife, although without harm to ourselves, punish him for this and forbid him to touch him in the future, so God forbids passionate views even before the actual crime, so that we will never fall into the crime itself. He who has once kindled a passionate flame within himself, even in the absence of a woman he has seen, constantly builds in his imagination images of shameful deeds, and from them he often moves on to the action itself. Therefore, Christ also prohibits the adulterous movement of the heart. So, what will those who have girls as cohabitants say? They are, by definition of the law, guilty of countless adulteries, because they look upon them daily with lust. That is why blessed Job made it his main law never to allow himself such a view (Job 31:1). Indeed, when you look at a woman, it is already more difficult to refrain from enjoying the one you love. Moreover, the pleasure we receive from viewing is not as great as the harm we suffer from increasing desire; In this way, we ourselves strengthen our enemy, give more freedom to the devil, so that we are no longer able to repel him if we let him inside ourselves and open our hearts to him. That is why the Savior says: do not commit adultery with your eyes, then you will not commit adultery with your heart. You can look at women differently, just the way chaste people look. That is why the Savior did not completely forbid looking at wives, but only looking at them with lust. And if He did not have such an intention, He would simply say: whoever looks at his wife; but He did not say that, but: “whoever looks at a woman with lust,” that is, whoever looks in order to delight his gaze. God did not create your eyes so that you would use them as an instrument of adultery, but so that, looking at His creations, you would revere the Creator. Just as one can be angry in vain, one can also look in vain—precisely when one looks with lust. If you want to look and enjoy your gaze, then look constantly at your wife and love her: no law prohibits this. If you gaze at someone else’s beauty, you will offend both your wife, turning your eyes away from her, and the one you are looking at, since you are touching her contrary to the law. May you not touch her with your hand; but you touched with your eyes. That is why such an act is recognized as adultery and, before future torment, also exposes a person to considerable punishment in the present life. In fact, the whole inside is filled with anxiety and confusion, a great storm arises, a terrible illness arises, and the fate of the person undergoing all this is no better than the fate of those captured and imprisoned in chains. Moreover, often the one that shoots a deadly arrow moves away from the victim, but the wound remains for a long time; or more justly, it is not she who strikes you with an arrow, but you yourself inflict a mortal wound on yourself, looking with lustful eyes. I say this in order to justify chaste women. But if one of them adorns herself in order to attract the gaze of the men she meets, such a woman, even if she does not offend anyone with her beauty, will be subjected to the greatest punishment. She had already prepared the poison, dissolved the poison, but she did not have time to bring the poisoned cup to anyone, or rather, she had already brought this deadly cup, but there was no one willing to drink it. Why, you ask, does Christ not even refer to women in His words? Because everywhere He lays down general laws, although, apparently, he directs them to only men; speaking for the edification of the head, at the same time He gives instruction to the whole body. He knows that husband and wife are one being, which is why he does not distinguish between gender anywhere. 3. If you want to listen to a reproof that concerns only women, then listen to Isaiah, who condemns them in every possible way, ridiculing their appearance, their gaze, their gait, their trailing tunics, their playful gait and bending necks (Is. 3:16). Listen also to blessed Paul, who prescribes many laws to them, and strongly reproaches them for their clothes, for gold jewelry, for braiding their hair, for effeminacy, and the like. And Christ himself secretly expressed the same thing in his subsequent speech. When He commands to pull out and cut off that which seduces us, this shows His anger against women. That’s why he added: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away from you” (Matthew 5:29). He gives such a commandment so that you do not say; Why not look at a woman if she is my relative, or if some other necessity forces me to look at her? In giving this commandment, Christ did not speak about the members - no - He nowhere condemns the flesh, but everywhere accuses the corrupt will. It is not your eye that looks, but your mind and heart. When our soul is turned to some other objects, then the eye often does not see what is in front of it. Consequently, not everything must be attributed to the action of the eye. If Christ had spoken about members, he would have spoken not about one eye, and not only about the right one, but about both. For if anyone is offended by the right eye, he will undoubtedly be offended by the left. So, why did the Savior mention only the right eye and the right hand? So that you know that we are not talking about members, but about people who have a close connection with us. If you love someone so much that you rely on him as your right eye, or recognize him as so useful for yourself that you consider him instead of your right hand, and if he corrupts your soul, then cut off such a person from yourself. And notice the power of expression here. The Savior did not say: leave me alone; but says: “Tear it out and throw it away from you,” wanting to indicate complete removal. Further, since He prescribed a rather strict commandment, He also shows its benefit in both respects - in relation to good and in relation to evil. “For it is better for you,” He says, continuing his allegory, “that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body should be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:29). In fact, when a person close to you does not save himself, and destroys you with himself, then what kind of humanity would it be for both of you to wallow in the abyss of destruction, while, having been separated from each other, at least one of you can be saved? How, you say, did Paul want to be excommunicated from Christ for the sake of his brothers? The Apostle desired this not without benefit, but so that others might be saved; and here there is harm for both. That is why the Savior did not only say: “rip it out,” but also: “throw it away from you,” so that he would never restore ties with a friend if he remained the same as before. In this way you will free him from great condemnation, and you will free yourself from destruction. In order for you to see more clearly the benefit of such a law, let us, if you wish, apply what has been said as an example to the body. If you had to choose one of two things: either, keeping your eye, be thrown into a ditch and die there, or, having lost your eye, keep the other members of your body, would you not agree to the latter condition? This is obvious to everyone. This would not mean that you do not spare the eye, but that you spare all the other members. Talk about men and women in the same way. If your friend who harms you is completely incurable, then he, being cut off from you, will free you from all harm, and he himself will be delivered from great condemnation, since, in addition to his sins, he will no longer be held responsible for your death. Do you see with what meekness and solicitude the law of Christ is fulfilled, and how great love for mankind is revealed in His apparent severity? Let those who rush to spectacles hear this and daily make themselves adulterers! If the law commands us to cut off a harmful friend from ourselves, then what excuse can those who at spectacles daily attract complete strangers to themselves, and themselves invent countless cases of destruction? So, the Savior not only does not allow us to look with lustful eyes, but, having shown the harm that results from this, further strengthens the law, commanding us to tear out, or cut off, the seducing member, and throw it away from us. And this is laid down by the One who spoke a thousand times about love, so that in both cases you would know how great His care is for you, and how He seeks your benefit everywhere. “It is also said that if anyone divorces his wife, he should give her a divorce decree. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31–32). 4. The Savior moves on to a new subject only after he has revealed the previous one in its entirety. So in this case, He shows us another type of adultery. Which one is it? There was a law in the Old Testament that did not forbid anyone who did not love his wife for any reason to reject her and marry another instead. However, the law did not simply order this to be done, but ordered that the wife be given a divorce decree so that she would no longer be able to return to her husband again, in order to preserve in this way at least the appearance of the marriage. If there were no such command in the law, and it were allowed to let go of one wife and take another, and then return the first again, then great confusion would occur; then everyone would constantly take each other’s wives, and this would be obvious adultery. The legislator showed considerable leniency by allowing divorce; but this was done to avoid another, much greater evil. In fact, if the law forced one to keep a hated wife, then the hater could easily kill her. And the Jewish people were capable of this. If the Jews did not spare their children, killed the prophets and shed blood like water, much less would they have spared their wives. Therefore, the Legislator allowed a lesser evil in order to stop a greater one. And that this law was not one of the original ones, listen to how Christ speaks about this: “Moses wrote this because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8), that is, so that when you keep your wives, you do not kill them, but drive them away from you. But since the Savior forbade all anger, prohibiting not only murder, but also all indignation without reason, it was now easy for Him to mention the law regarding divorce. And by always citing the words of the Old Testament, He shows that He teaches not contrary, but in agreement with them, and only strengthens, and does not overthrow, corrects, and does not destroy the ancient teaching. Notice, again, how He always addresses His husband. “Whoever divorces his wife,” He says, “... gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The first, even if he did not take another wife, becomes guilty because he forces his wife to commit adultery, and the other becomes an adulterer because he took someone else’s. Don’t tell me that he expelled his wife, because even if she was expelled, she still remains the wife of the expeller. Further, so that, having placed all the blame on the expeller, and thereby not make the wife more insolent, Christ closed the door for her to marry another, saying: “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Thus eliminating for the released wife any possibility of marrying another husband, Christ forces her, even against her will, to be chaste, and thereby deprives her of the opportunity to give her husband a reason for cowardice. Knowing that she absolutely must either stay with the husband she got first, or, upon leaving his house, be deprived of all refuge, she, even against her will, will have to love her husband. If the Savior does not directly tell her this, you should not be surprised. A wife is a weak creature. That is why, without speaking directly to her, Christ, in a threat regarding her husband, inspires her not to be frivolous. In this case, He acted in exactly the same way as if someone, instead of reproaching his dissolute son, would reprove those who make him such, and would forbid them to be with him and approach him. If the words of Christ seem painful to you, then remember what was said above, where the Savior called those who listen blessed, and you will see that the fulfillment of these words is very possible and convenient. Will the meek, the peacemaker, the poor in spirit and the merciful cast out his wife? The one who reconciles others, will he himself harbor enmity towards his wife? In addition, Christ made His law regarding divorce easy in another way - namely, by allowing it for only one reason: “except for the guilt of adultery.” But in this case too, He had the same chastity in mind. In fact, if He allowed a husband to keep in his house such a wife as she lived with many, then adultery would again result. You see how these words agree with those expressed earlier. In fact, he who does not look at another man’s wife with lustful eyes will not commit fornication; and he who has not committed fornication will not give the husband an opportunity to remove his wife from him. This is why Christ very strictly limits the husband’s freedom and instills fear in him, presenting him with great danger if he removes his wife, since in this case he becomes guilty of her adultery. And so that when you hear the words: “pluck out your eye,” you do not think that this is being said about your wife, Christ promptly resolved your bewilderment, allowing you to divorce her solely on the basis of adultery. “Again you have heard what was said to the ancients: Do not break your oath, but fulfill your oaths before the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all” (Matthew 5:33–34). Why did Christ move on not to theft, but to false witness, passing in silence the commandment regarding theft? Because a thief sometimes swears; and whoever does not swear and does not lie will certainly not want to steal. Thus, with this commandment, Christ also overthrows theft, because lies are born from theft. But what does it mean: “fulfill your vows before the Lord”? This means that in an oath you must speak the truth: “But I say to you: do not swear at all.” 5. Then, in order to further turn his listeners away from the habit of swearing by God, the Savior says: do not swear “neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor the earth, for it is His footstool; nor Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King” (Matthew 5:34–35). By speaking here in the words of the prophets, Christ shows that He does not contradict the ancients. The ancients used to swear first by heaven, sometimes by earth, sometimes by Jerusalem; and at the end of the Gospel one of the cases of such an ordinary oath is shown. Next, pay attention to why the Lord exalts these objects? He exalts them not by their own nature, but by the special attitude of God himself towards them, in accordance with our concept. Since idolatry reigned everywhere at that time, so that the indicated objects would not seem in themselves worthy of respect, the Savior presented the reason that we spoke about, that is, he exposed the glory of God. He did not say: because heaven is good and great; did not say: because the earth is useful; but - since heaven is the throne of God, the earth is the footstool - and thus he encouraged His listeners everywhere to glorify the Lord. “Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black” (Matthew 5:36). Again, here Christ forbids swearing with one’s head not out of respect for a person, otherwise the person himself would be worthy of worship, appropriating the glory of God; It shows that you have no power over yourself, and therefore you do not have the power to swear with your head. If no one agrees to give his son to another, then much less will God give up His creation to you. Although the head is yours, it is the property of another, and you have no power over it to such an extent that you cannot do even the slightest thing for it. Christ did not say that you cannot grow a hair, but that you cannot even change its qualities. But what to do, you say, if someone demands an oath, and even forces it? Let the fear of God be stronger than any compulsion. If you begin to present such pretexts, you will not keep a single commandment. Then you will say about your wife: what if she is violent and wasteful? You will also say about the right eye: what if I love it and start to get kindled? You will also say about the lustful gaze: am I really not allowed to look? You can equally say about anger at your brother: what if I’m hot-tempered and can’t hold my tongue? Thus, it will not be difficult for you to trample all the above commandments. Meanwhile, regarding human laws, you never dare to present such pretexts and say: what if this or that? - but willy-nilly or unwillingly, you will certainly obey the order. Moreover, with regard to the commandment in question, you may not even think of the need to ever swear. Whoever heeded the teaching of the above-mentioned beatitudes and arranged himself as Christ commanded, everyone will consider him worthy of honor and respect, and no one will force him to take an oath. “But let your word be: yes, yes; no no; and anything beyond this is from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37). So, what does the extra one mean against the words: “yes” and “no”? This means an oath, not perjury. Everyone knows, and no one needs to prove, that perjury stems from hostility, and is not only an unnecessary thing, but also ungodly, and an oath is an unnecessary thing and is added unnecessarily. So, you say, the oath was from the evil one? And if it is from the evil one, then why was it allowed by law? You can, however, say the same thing about the wife: on what basis is now considered fornication what was previously permissible? What can you say to this? The fact that much was said then was out of condescension towards those who accepted the law. After all, to honor God with the fat of sacrifices is just as unworthy of Him as it is unworthy of a philosopher to talk idle talk. Nowadays, when virtues have increased, the release of a wife is charged as adultery, and the oath is recognized out of hostility. And if the laws regarding divorce and oath had been the laws of the devil from the beginning, then they would not have been so useful and valid. On the other hand, if these laws had not preceded them, then Christ’s teaching about them would not have been accepted so easily. So, now that the need for these laws has passed, do not look for strength in them. They were needed under the circumstances of that time; however, if you like, they are still needed today. And now their strength is being demonstrated, and especially by the fact that they are deprived of their meaning among us. The fact that they now appear as such serves as the greatest praise for them. They, of course, would not seem like that to us if they had not raised us properly and made us capable of accepting higher laws. The nipples, when they have done their job and the baby becomes capable of eating more perfect food, become useless. And parents, who previously considered nipples necessary for their baby, make them the subject of jokes; and many not only joke, but also smear them with some bitter substance, so that, if they cannot wean the baby off them with words, then by their very deeds they can destroy in him the disposition towards breasts. 6. So Christ, when he said that an oath comes from hostility, he said not because the ancient law originated from the devil, but in order to further distract the listeners from the ancient imperfection. This is what He spoke to His disciples. And as for the insensitive Jews, unrepentantly remaining in their former wickedness, then with the fear of captivity, as if with some bitterness, surrounding their city (Jerusalem), He made it inaccessible to them. But since this could not curb them, and they again, like children striving for breasts, wanted to see this city, God finally hid it from their eyes, destroying it, and removing most of them from it, just as they remove calves from their mothers, in order to eventually force them to lag behind their former habit of mother's milk. If the ancient law had been from the devil, it would not have distracted from idolatry, but on the contrary would have led and plunged into it, because the devil wanted it. But we see that the ancient law did the opposite. And the oath itself in the Old Testament was legalized so that they would not swear by idols. Swear, says the prophet, by the true God (Jer. 4:2). So, the ancient law about the oath brought people not a small, but a very great benefit. Its purpose was for them to move on to solid food. So, you say, the oath is not from evil? - No! and even very evil; but only now, when the highest wisdom is revealed to us, and not then. But how can it be, you say, that the same thing is sometimes good and sometimes not good? But on the contrary, I will say: how can one and the same thing not be good and not good, when all deeds, arts, fruits and everything else irrefutably prove this? See how this is possible, first of all, in relation to ourselves. For example: being carried in your arms at the first age is good, but after that it is harmful. Eating chewed food in infancy is good, but afterwards it is disgusting. Eating milk and resorting to breastfeeding is useful and life-saving at the beginning, but later harmful and dangerous. Do you see how the same thing, depending on time, is good, but later it seems not so? It is good for a boy to wear children's clothes, but indecent for a husband. Do you want to know, on the other hand, how what is proper for a husband is indecent for a boy? Dress a boy in the clothes of an older person, and it will be both funny and dangerous for him to walk, because he will often get confused. Entrust him with civil affairs, entrust him with trade, make him sow and reap - again it will be very funny. And what am I saying about this? The murder itself, recognized by everyone as an invention of the evil one, being committed at a decent time, made Phinehas, who committed it, worthy of the priestly degree (Num. 25). And that murder is the work of the devil, then listen to what the Savior himself says: “You want to fulfill the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:41, 44). But Phinehas was a murderer, and “[this] was counted to him as righteousness,” says Scripture (Ps. 105:31). And Abraham was not only a murderer, but, what’s even worse, a child murderer—and thereby pleased God most of all. Likewise, Peter committed a double murder, and yet it was a spiritual act (Acts 5ff.). So, let us not simply judge matters, but let us carefully delve into the time, the cause, the intention, the difference of persons and all other circumstances - otherwise we will not be able to reach the truth. And if we want to achieve the kingdom, we must try to prove something more against the Old Testament commandments, otherwise we cannot obtain heavenly blessings. If we reach only the age of the Old Testament, we will stand outside the gates of the kingdom: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness,” says the Lord, “of the scribes and Pharisees, then you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:20). And yet, there are people who, even with such a threat, not only do not surpass the ancient truth, but do not even have it. They not only do not avoid oaths, but also transgress them; Not only do they not beware of the lustful gaze, but they also commit the heinous act itself and insanely trample all other commandments, waiting only for one day of torment, in order to then suffer the most severe punishment for their crimes. Such can only be the fate of those who ended their lives in wickedness. They need to abandon all hopes of salvation and not expect anything other than punishment, because only those who are still here can comfortably enter into the struggle, and win, and be crowned. 7. So, do not weaken, man, and do not abolish your good disposition! What is commanded to you is not burdensome. Tell me, how hard is it to avoid an oath? Is there any need to waste money here? Is great effort and exhaustion required? You just have to want it - and everything is done. If someone presents me with a habit as an excuse, then I will tell him that because of this it is easy to fulfill the commandment. If you acquire another habit, that will be the end of it. Remember, for example, many Hellenes, how some of them, being stutterers, with intense effort, corrected a deficiency in their language; while others fell behind the habit of constantly raising and jerking their shoulders randomly, placing a sword on top of them. If you are not convinced by Scripture, then I am forced, to your shame, to convince you by the example of the pagans. God did the same with the Jews, saying: “Go to the islands of Hittim and look, and send to Kedar... and consider: ... has any people changed [their] gods, although they are not gods?” (Jer. 2:10–11). And often he even sends them to dumb creatures, for example. saying: “Go to the ant, you sluggard, look at his actions, and be wise” and “go to the bee” (Prov. 6:6, 8). So now I will tell you: imagine the pagan philosophers, and then you will know what punishment those who transgress the divine laws deserve. Those, for the sake of human respect, used countless works; and you don’t even want to apply the same care to heavenly blessings. If even after this you say that habit is strong, it can deceive even the most careful, then although I agree with this, I will also say that habit can be corrected just as easily as it can easily lead to deception. If you place many guards over you at home, for example, a wife, a slave, a friend, then, prompted and encouraged by everyone, you will easily fall behind a bad habit. And if you do this for at least ten days, you won’t need any more; everything will happily happen and settle down for you, a good habit will again take root firmly in you. So, when you begin to correct a bad habit, then at least once, at least twice, three times, at least twenty times you have broken the law, do not despair; get up and take up the same work again - and you will certainly remain a winner. Oathbreaking is an important evil. If an oath comes from an evil person, then what punishment will be worthy of perjury? Are you praising what I said? But I don’t need your applause, loud reviews and praise. I wish only one thing, that you, listening with silence and understanding, fulfill my words. For me this replaces all your applause and all your praise. If you praise what is said, and do not do what you praise, then this will lead to the most severe punishment and greater condemnation for you, and to shame and ridicule for us. This is not a theater, here you are not watching actors just to applaud. This is a spiritual school. Therefore, one must strive for only one thing, to fulfill what was said, and to prove obedience by deeds. Then I will receive everything from you; and now I am almost forced to despair of you. I did not cease to exhort those who came to me privately in what I am talking about now, and in the general meeting I constantly talked with you about this, and yet I do not see any fruit: you still cling only to the first principles; and this can lead the student to great despondency. See how Paul also grieved because his hearers remained for a long time in the lowest degree of teaching. “[Judging] by the time, you should have been teachers; - he says, “but you must again be taught the first principles of the word of God” (Heb. 5:12). That’s why I cry and feel heartbroken. And if I still see you unsuccessful, then I will finally forbid you to approach these sacred gates and partake of the immortal mysteries, like fornicators, adulterers and those accused of murder. It is better, after all, to offer ordinary prayers with two or three who keep the law of God, than to gather together a multitude of lawless people who corrupt others. Let not a single rich man or a nobleman be arrogant here, let him not be proud. All this is a fable, a shadow and a dream for me. There, beyond the grave, the present rich man will not defend me when I am accused and forced to give an account of why I did not defend the laws of God with due zeal. This is precisely what destroyed the famous elder high priest Eli; although he himself led an impeccable life, nevertheless, together with his children, he suffered a terrible punishment for being careless about the trampled laws of God. If family ties could not free one from guilt, if even a father who did not act with proper severity with his children was subjected to such a heavy execution, then what excuse will we have, who, being free from such ties, spoil everything with our indulgence? So, in order not to destroy you and me and yourself, I ask you: listen to my instructions and, having assigned many observers and advisers to you, give up the habit of oaths - so that, having begun with this, you can exercise with full success in other virtues and enjoy the future blessings, which we all may be deemed worthy to receive through the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion now and forever and ever. Amen. You might be interested in: