Беседа 26

What is proper for husbands and wives. – The husband should perform feats of wisdom without waiting for the wife to begin first, and the wife should also perform them without waiting for the husband to begin first. “Beating your wife is shameful.” – Saying of the philosopher (Socrates) about an evil wife. 1 Corinthians 11:2. I praise you, brothers, that you remember everything I have and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you. 1. Having finished his speech about idol sacrifices as he should have, and having made it perfect in all respects, (the apostle) moves on to another subject, in which (the Corinthians) also sinned, although not so seriously. He usually, I repeat again what I said before, does not deliver all the strong reproofs in a row, but, arranging them in the proper order, inserts less strong ones between them, and thus lightens the burden that would come to the listeners from constant reproaches. Therefore, after all, he speaks about the most important subject, namely the resurrection. Now he moves on to something else, less important, and says: “I praise you, brothers, that you remember everything that is mine.” When sin is undoubted, then it strongly convicts and reproaches; and when a sin is doubtful, then it proves in advance and then denounces: speaking about an undoubted sin, it shows its importance, and speaking about a doubtful one, it proves the reality (of its sinfulness). So fornication is a sin without any doubt, and therefore he did not need to prove that it is a sin, but showed the severity of sin through comparison. It was a sin to go to court among the infidels, but not so serious, therefore he puts this sin among others and proves (its sinfulness). Eating idol sacrifices, although (in relation to its sinfulness) was subject to doubt, was the greatest evil - therefore he proves that it is a sin and explains its importance. By doing this, he not only deviates from sins, but also convinces them to the contrary. So he says that not only must one not commit fornication, but also carefully observe holiness: “Therefore glorify God,” he adds, “in your body and in your spirit” (1 Cor. 6:20). Having also said that one should not be wise by external wisdom, he is not content with this, but also commands one to be foolish. Exhorting not to sue outsiders and not to cause offense, then generally forbids suing and advises not only not to offend, but also to endure offense. Discussing the sacrifices of idols, he says that one must abstain not only from what is forbidden, but also from what is permitted when temptation arises from it, and one must not tempt not only the brethren, but also the pagans and Jews. “Do not give offense,” he says, “neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). Thus, having completely finished talking about all this, he then moves on to another sin. What kind of sin was this? The women with open and naked heads prayed and prophesied - because then the wives also prophesied - and the men grew their hair long, like those who practiced philosophy, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering to the pagan law in both. The apostle, being (with the Corinthians), had already given them instruction regarding this subject; but since, perhaps, some obeyed him, while others turned out to be disobedient, then again through the letter, like a wise doctor, he corrects sin with abundant words. And that he personally taught them instructions about this is clear from the beginning of his speech. Why, in fact, without having previously said anything about this anywhere in the letter, but discussing other sins, he suddenly says: “I praise you, brothers, that you remember everything that is mine and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you.” It is obvious that some obeyed him, and he praises them, while others turned out to be disobedient, and he corrects them with the following words: “but if anyone wanted to argue, we do not have such a custom” (1 Cor. 11:16). If he were to reproach everyone, both obedient and disobedient, he would arouse indignation in the former, and intensify negligence in the latter; but now, having praised and approved some, and reproached others, he encourages the first, and brings the latter to shame. Reproach, although in itself can touch, has even greater power when combined with praise for those who are doing well. That’s why he begins not with reproaches, but with praise, and with great praise, and says: “I praise you that you remember everything I have.” This is what Paul usually does: he gives great praise for small (merits), not doing this out of flattery - let it not be! could someone who was not looking for money, fame or anything like that (use flattery)? - but in everything keeping in mind their salvation. That’s why he intensifies the praise: “I praise you, brothers,” he says, “because you remember everything that is mine.” What is that all? He spoke only about not growing hair and not covering the head, but, as I said, he intensifies the praise in order to make them more diligent: “that you are all mine,” he says, “remember and keep the traditions as I conveyed to you.” Consequently, he had previously taught them a lot of things not in writing, as he expresses this in many other places; but before he only left them a legend, and now he adds a reason. In this way he further strengthens the obedient and destroys the pride of the disobedient. He does not say: you obeyed, but others did not obey, but, without expressing it directly, he hints at this in the further presentation of his instructions: “I also want you to know,” he says, “that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). This is the reason. And he brings it in order to make the weak more attentive. After all, he who believes, as he should, and is firm in the faith, does not need either proof or reason for what is commanded to him, but is content with tradition alone; but the weak one, having learned the reason, observes what was said with greater zeal and obeys with greater devotion. 2. Therefore (the apostle) did not give reasons until he saw the violation of the commandment. What is the reason? “The head of every man is Christ.” Therefore also to the pagan? No. If we are “the body of Christ, and individually members” (1 Cor. 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. Therefore, with the word: everyone, we must mean: believer. Do you see how everywhere he shames the listener, pointing to the highest? Speaking about love, and about humility, and about mercy, he borrowed evidence from here. The head of a wife is the husband: the head of Christ is God. Heretics point us to these words, deducing from them the idea of ​​​​the humiliation of the Son (before the Father); but they contradict themselves. If the head of the wife is the husband, and the head is consubstantial with the body, and the head of Christ is God, then the Son is consubstantial with the Father. But, they will say, we want to prove from here not a difference in essence, but the subordination (of the Son to the Father). What can I say to this? That when something derogatory is said about Him in His union with the flesh, then this does not degrade the Divinity, but refers to His economy. However, tell me, how do you prove your idea from here? Just as a wife, you say, is subordinate to her husband, so is Christ to the Father. Therefore, just as Christ is the head of the husband, so is the Father the head of the Son? The head of every man, says the apostle, is Christ. But who can ever allow this? If we assume that whatever advantage the Son has over us is the same as the Father has over the Son, then think to what extent you humiliate him. Therefore, we should not take in the same sense everything that is said about us and about God, although it is said in the same way; but we must attribute to God some special advantage, such as is characteristic of God; otherwise a lot of ridiculous things will happen. Look: the head of Christ is God, the head of the husband is Christ, the head of the wife is the husband: if in all this speech we take the word head in 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 lower than us as much as we are lower than God the Word - so that in what relation the Son is to the Father, in the same we are to the Son, and the wife to the husband. But who can allow this? You accept the word head in relation to a wife in one sense, and in relation to a husband in another: why don’t you accept it in a different sense in relation to Christ? It should be taken in a different sense in relation to the Son and Father. How, you say, can we understand it differently? I mean the beginning. If Paul wanted to express the authority of one and the subordination of the other, as you say, he would rather cite the example of a slave and a master, and not a wife, because the wife, although subordinate to us, is free and of equal honor. So the Son, although he obeys the Father, is like the Son of God, like God; and just as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than among people the obedience of children to their parents, so His disobedience is greater. If the relationship of the Son to the Father is greater and more perfect than similar relationships among people, then the relationship of the Father to the Son is no less; if we are amazed at the Son that He was “obedient even to death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8), and we impute this to Him as a great merit, then we should also be amazed at the Father that He gave birth to such a (Son) who is not subject to Him as a slave, but obeys as a free man and as a counselor; an advisor is not a slave. Again, when you hear the word: counselor, do not take it as if the Father needs anything, but as if the Son is equal to the Father. Likewise, do not follow the example of husband and wife in everything. For them, the wife is rightly subordinate to her husband, because equality could produce enmity, and also because in the beginning, seduction occurred from the wife; she was not subordinate immediately after creation: when (God) brought her to her husband, she did not hear anything like that from God, and her husband did not express anything like that to her, but said that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, but he did not say anything to her about power and submission; but when she abused her power, turning from a helper into a seductress, and ruined everything, then she rightly heard the words: “Your desire is for your husband” (Gen. 3:16). Since this sin could arouse enmity in our race - after such an event, the fact that the wife came from her husband would not have served the world; on the contrary, the very fact that, having come from him, she did not spare her own member, would have irritated the husband even more - then God, seeing the malice of the devil, protected them with this word, as if with a wall, destroyed with such a definition the enmity that was supposed to occur after the deception, placing, as it were, a bulwark against natural passion - vindictiveness stemming 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 important errors in other places. So at the beginning of the letter (the apostle) said: “all is yours; But you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:22–23). 3. What then? In one sense is everything ours, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s? No; on the contrary, even for the most unreasonable 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: just as Christ is the head and Savior and representative of the Church, so the husband should be in relation to his wife (Eph. 5:23-27). Can we also accept in one sense all the expressions, both here and those spoken later in the letter to the Ephesians on this subject? No; this is impossible. The same expressions are used about God and man: but one must understand one differently, another differently; however, not everything is different, because they would have been used without reason and in vain if we had not made any application out of them. Just as not everything should be understood in one sense, so not everything should be considered inapplicable. For better understanding, I will try to explain this with an example. Christ is called the head of the Church; If I don’t make any application from this expression, borrowed from a person, then why was it told to me? On the other hand, if I apply the entire literal meaning of it, then absurdity will occur, because the head is servile to the body and is subject to the same (shortcomings). What should be rejected and what should be accepted? We must reject what I said, but accept the perfect unity (of Christ with the Church) and the fact that He is the Author and its supreme Ruler; Moreover, this must be understood not simply, but in the highest degree and in a Godly manner; His unity is the most solid and His rule is the most perfect. Also: Christ is called the Son; and here again, do not accept everything, but do not reject everything, but having accepted what is fitting for God, i.e. that He is consubstantial with the Father and is born of Him, do not add anything indecent and characteristic of human weakness. God is also called light; Is it possible to apply to Him everything that is characteristic of visible light? No; visible light is limited by darkness and place, set in motion by another force and darkened, but in the being of God it is impossible to imagine anything like that. Therefore, let us not reject everything, but derive some benefit from this similarity, meaning the enlightenment given to us by God and deliverance from darkness. It is against heretics; and now we need to talk about the whole explained place. Maybe someone will become perplexed and ask themselves: what fault would it be if wives were to reveal themselves and husbands were to cover themselves? You can see what the fault is here from the following. Husband and wife are given many different signs, one - power, and the other - subordination, among other things, that the wife should be covered, and the husband should have his head bare. If these are signs, then both of them sin when they violate the decorum and commandment of God, when they transgress their own limits, the husband stooping to the point of humiliating his wife, and the wife exalting her appearance before her husband. If they are not allowed 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 clothing and a veil - “a woman should not wear,” says (Scripture), “men’s clothing, and a man should not dress in a woman’s dress” (Deut. 22:5), - then it is all the more impermissible to exchange clothes. This was legalized by people, although later approved by God; otherwise it comes from nature itself, i.e. so that one is covered and the other is not covered. By the name of nature I mean God, because He is the Creator of nature. Therefore, if you transgress these limits, then look how much harm will happen. Don't tell me that this crime is unimportant; it is great in itself, because it is disobedience: and even if it were unimportant in itself, it is great because it concerns the sign of great objects. And that (this sign) is great is evident from the fact that it produces improvement in the (human) race, representing in the proper form the superior and the subordinate; he who acts against this brings everything into confusion, 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 maintain her place, but on the contrary, it is shameful to go beyond the limits. That is why (the apostle) says about both of them: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her own head” (1 Cor. 11:4-5). At that time, as I said, there were men who prophesied, and wives who had this gift, for example, the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. About them the prophet in ancient times said: “Your sons and your daughters will prophesy... they will see visions” (Joel 2:28). The apostle does not command the husband to be open always, but only during prayer: “every man,” he says, “who prays or prophesies with his head covered, disgraces his head.” He commands the wife to always be covered; therefore, having said: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head,” he does not stop there, but continues: “for it is the same as if she were shaven.” If being shaved is always shameful, then it is obvious that being uncovered is always shameful. 4. (The Apostle) does not stop there, but also adds: “a woman should have on her head a sign of authority over her, for the Angels” (1 Cor. 11:10); shows that not only during prayer, but always it should be covered. And he commands the husband not regarding covering, but regarding hair: he forbids covering himself only during prayer, but he always forbids growing hair. As he said about a wife: “if she does not want to cover herself, then let her cut her hair” (1 Cor. 11:6), so about a husband: “if he grows hair, then it is a dishonor for him” (1 Cor. 11:14). He did not say: if it is covered, but: “if it grows hair.” That is why at the beginning he said: “every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered,” he did not say: covered, but: “with his head covered,” expressing that he who prays, although with his head naked, but with his hair grown, is equal to one who is covered: “since,” he says, “hair is given ... instead of a veil” (1 Cor. 11:15). “For if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself” (1 Cor. 11:6). First he demands that the wife not expose her head, and then explains that she must always be covered: “for it is the same as if she were shaved” - and, moreover, (covered) with all care and prudence, since he did not simply say: yes, she is covered 43, but: she is covered 44, i.e. must be carefully closed on all sides. He also shows the indecency of the opposite course of action and strongly reproaches him when he says: “if he does not want to cover himself, then let him cut his hair”: if, he says, you overthrow the veil established by the law of God, then overthrow the one given by nature. But, someone will say, how can a wife be dishonored if she rises to the honor of her husband? Through this, we say, she not only does not ascend, but also loses her own honor. After all, not observing one’s own limits and laws established by God, or transgressing them, is not exaltation, but humiliation. Just as someone who desires what belongs to someone else and steals what does not belong to him does not gain, but is humiliated and loses what he had, as for example it was in paradise, so in this case the wife does not gain the nobility of her husband, but also loses the decency of her wife; Moreover, not this alone is shameful for her, but also covetousness itself. Thus, having pointed out what is undoubtedly recognized as shameful, in the words: “and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved,” (the apostle) finally says on his own: “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 opposite side (from nature). A veil and 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 covering, but the shaven one does not have this? She, we say, having a naked head, by her will rejected the natural veil; if she is not devoid of hair, then this is the work of nature, not her; therefore, just as the shaven one has a naked head, so does she. For this reason (God) commanded nature to cover her head with hair, so that the wife, having learned from nature, would cover herself. Further (the apostle) gives the reason, reasoning with his listeners as free men, which I have noticed many times. What is the reason? “Therefore a man should not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). 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 power over his wife. When someone with power approaches the king, he must have on himself a sign of his power. Therefore, just as no one in power would dare to appear before one clothed with a diadem without a belt and clothing (befitting his rank), so you too without the signs of your power, i.e. without a naked head, do not pray to God, so as not to dishonor both yourself and the one who honored you. The same can be said about the wife: it is dishonorable for her not to have signs of her subordination. 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 reasons, takes you back to the beginning of creation and says: “For man is not from woman, but woman is from man” (1 Cor. 11:8). If the origin of one from the other is the glory of the latter, then how much more so is their similarity. “And man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). This is the second advantage, or better yet, the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we (the head) are wives; 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 wife, but the wife is 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” (1 Cor. 11:10). Why exactly? For all the above (reasons), and also for the Angels. If you, he says, do not pay attention to your husband, then be ashamed of the Angels. 5. So, covering is a sign of submission and submission; it encourages one to look down, to humble oneself, and to practice virtue; the virtue and honor of a subordinate consist precisely in remaining in obedience. The husband is not prescribed to do this, since he is the image of the Lord himself; and the wife is justly (prescribed). Therefore, judge how great the crime is when you, who have been awarded such power, dishonor yourself by taking the form of a wife; you do the same as if, having received a diadem, you threw it off your head and instead of the diadem put on slave clothes. “Neither is man without wife, nor woman without man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). Since (the apostle) attributed great advantage to the husband, saying that the wife is from him, for him and under his authority, then, so as not to exalt husbands more than what is proper and not to humiliate wives, see what amendment he makes, saying: “Nevertheless, neither husband without a wife, nor wife without a husband, in the Lord.” Do not point out to me, he says, only the initial advantages and creation, but pay attention to the subsequent ones and you will see that each of them depends on the other. or, better, not one from the other, but all from God. That’s why he says: “Neither is husband without wife, nor wife without husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the man, so is the husband through the woman” (1 Cor. 11:11-12). Didn't say: from his wife; and through her again: from the husband - this inalienably remains with the husband. However, the culprit of these advantages is not the husband, but God; That’s why he adds: but everything is from God. So, if everything is from God, if He commands it, then obey and do not contradict. “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (1 Cor. 11:13). Again he leaves them to judge for themselves what is said, just as he did (in a conversation) about something sacrificed to idols; there he said: “Judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor. 10:15), and here (he says): “Judge for yourselves,” and by this he suggests something terrible: here, he says, the insult concerns God: however, he does not say this directly, but expresses it more condescendingly and more secretly: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows hair, then it is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since hair was given to her instead of a veil? (1 Cor. 11:13–15). Just as in other places he always uses well-known evidence, so here he turns to well-known custom and greatly shames the listeners, who expect instruction from him in what they could know from general custom; and this is not unknown to the barbarians. And, notice how strong expressions he uses everywhere: “every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head”; and again: “and if a wife is ashamed to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself”; and here: “if a husband grows his hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if a wife grows her hair, it is an honor for her, since the hair was given to her instead of a covering” (1 Cor. 11:4, 6, 14–15). But, you say, if instead of a garment it is given, then why add another to one garment? In order to show submission not only by nature, but also by free will. Nature has determined in advance that you should be covered; and you add something of your own, so that it does not seem that you are violating the laws of nature; to resist not only us, but also nature, is a sign of great shamelessness. Therefore, God, reproaching the Jews, said: “You... sacrificed your sons and your daughters”: this is more than all “your abominations” (Ezek. 16:20, 22). Also, Paul, in his letter to the Romans, denouncing those who indulge in voluptuousness, in the same way strengthens the denunciation, noting that their crime is contrary not only to the law of God, but also to nature: “they exchanged a natural use for an unnatural one” (Rom. 1:26). And here he suggests 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: “As you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12), suggesting that He is not introducing anything new. “And if anyone wanted to argue, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Therefore, resistance is a sign of perseverance, not prudence. However, here too he moderately denounces, and at the same time greatly shames them, which made his words very impressive. We, he says, do not have such a custom as to argue, compete and contradict. Without stopping there, he adds: “neither the churches of God,” suggesting that by disobeying they are at enmity and opposed to the entire 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! 6. But I fear that some wives, having assumed the proper appearance, will not turn out to be shameless in their affairs and will not remain open in other respects. That is why Paul, in his letter to Timothy, not content with the instructions given, added something else and said: “in decent attire, with modesty and chastity, they adorned themselves, not with braided hair, not with gold” (1 Tim. 2:9). If one should not bare one’s head, but wear a sign of submission everywhere, then even more so one should show this in actions. Former wives called their husbands masters and conceded primacy to them. Because, you say, they also loved their wives? And I know this and do not forget; but when we talk about your duties, then do not point out (the duties of) others. When we instill in children obedience to their parents and pronounce the words of Scripture: “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12), then they tell us: prove the following: “And you fathers do not provoke the children to anger” (Eph. 6:4). When we instill in slaves the words of Scripture: “obey your masters..., not only with visible obligingness” (Eph. 6:5-6), then they remind us of what follows and demand that the masters also be indoctrinated: Paul, they say, commanded them to “moderate severity” (Eph. 6:9). But we will not do this, we will not point out the duties of others when we are accused of violating ours; even if reproach falls on you along with others, you will not get rid of the accusation; Therefore, look only at being freed from your sins. Adam also laid the blame on his wife, and she on the serpent; but this did not help them at all. Don’t tell me this either, 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 to the commandment given to his wife, but I demand from him to fulfill what is prescribed to him. Therefore, try to fulfill your duties and show submission to your husband. If you want to obey your husband for God, then do not present to me his duties, but carefully fulfill those that the Lawgiver has assigned to you. This is what obedience to God especially consists of, so as not to break the law, even if you yourself tolerate the opposite. He who loves the one who loves him does nothing important; and whoever loves someone who hates him is especially worthy of crowns. So think about it: if you put up with a cruel husband, you will receive a bright crown; and if you are quiet and meek, then why will God reward you? I say this not to give husbands a reason for cruelty, but to convince the wife to put up with cruel husbands. When everyone tries to fulfill his duties, then his neighbor will not be slow to do the same. So, when a wife is ready to put up with an angry husband, then the husband will not insult the angry wife, then in everything they will have peace and a pier, not disturbed by the waves. This is how it was with the ancients: everyone did his own thing, without pointing out the duties of his neighbor. Look: Abraham took his nephew with him, and his wife did not reproach him for this. He told her to go on a long journey, and she did not resist this, but obeyed. Then, after numerous disasters, efforts and labors, having become the master of all, he gave up the primacy to Lot, and Sarah not only was not upset by this, but did not even open her mouth and did not say anything that many wives say now, when they see that their husbands receive less than others in such divisions, especially those inferior to themselves, they blame them, call them stupid, and senseless, and cowards, and careless, and lazy. She didn’t say or think anything like that, but she was satisfied with everything he did. And even more: when great danger befell him (Lot) after he himself made a choice and left his uncle the worst part, and when the patriarch, having heard about this, armed all his household and went with them alone against the whole Persian army, she did not restrain him and did not say, for example, like this: where are you going, man, throwing yourself into the abyss, exposing yourself to such dangers, preparing to shed blood for the husband who offended you and stole your property? If you do not think about yourself, then have pity on me, who left my home, fatherland, friends and relatives, and followed you on such a journey, do not subject me to widowhood and the disasters associated with widowhood. She didn’t say anything like that, didn’t think anything, but endured everything in silence. Then, remaining barren, she does not grieve or cry, like other such wives, but he sheds tears - however, not before his wife, but before God. And, notice how everyone observes what is due: he does not despise Sarah for her barrenness and does not reproach her for this, and she, for her part, tries to find some consolation for him in childlessness through a slave. It was not prohibited then, as it is prohibited now; Now it is not permissible for wives to do such things to please their husbands, nor for husbands, with or without the knowledge of the wives, to enter into such relationships, even if they feel a thousand times more childlessness; otherwise they will be told: “Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44); Nowadays this is not allowed, but then it was not prohibited. Therefore, his wife suggested this, and he obeyed, and did not do it for pleasure. And look, you will say, how he later, at her own request, expelled (the maid). But with 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 maid insulted her and began to be proud in front of her mistress; and what could be more regrettable than this for a free and honest wife? Therefore, wife, do not expect kindness from your husband and then show yours as well - there will be nothing important in this; and you, husband, do not expect good behavior from your wife, so that after that you yourself can be wise - this will no longer be a feat; but each, as I said, let him be the first to fulfill his duties. If strangers who strike on the right cheek must be offered the other, then all the more must they endure the cruelty of the husband. I’m not saying this so that the husband would beat 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, wife, were married to such a husband, then do not indulge in grief, imagining the reward and praise awaiting you for this in this life. And to you, husbands, I will say: no offense should force you to beat your wife. What am I saying - wife? It is not permissible for a noble husband to beat even a maidservant or lay hands on her. If it is very dishonorable for a husband to beat a slave, then it is even more dishonorable to lay his hand on a free one. This is also instilled by external (pagan) legislators, who do not force a wife to live with her husband who beats her, as with someone unworthy of her cohabitation. It is truly, extremely unlawful to dishonor a life partner who has long shared your needs as a slave. Such a husband, if one can call him a husband and not a beast, in my opinion, is equal to a parricide and a matricide. If we are commanded to leave father and mother for a wife, not as an insult to them, but in fulfillment of the law of God, and for the parents themselves this is so desirable that, being abandoned, they rejoice and marry their children with great zeal, then is it not extreme madness to offend the one for whom God commanded to leave parents? And is it just madness? And dishonor, tell me, who can bear it? What word can describe this (dishonor) when screams and cries are heard through the streets, when neighbors and passers-by flock to the house of one who commits such a vile deed, crushing everything inside like some kind of beast? It would be better if the earth swallowed such a madman than for him to appear again in the marketplace. The wife, you say, is acting impudently? But remember that she is a wife, a weak vessel, and you are a husband. This is why you were placed over her as a boss and head, in order to endure the weakness of a subordinate. Try to make your reign glorious; and it will be glorious when you do not dishonor your subordinate. Just as a king himself is all the more worthy of respect, the more he elevates the honor of the boss (subject to himself), and when he humiliates and dishonors his dignity, then he reduces his own glory no little, so you, by dishonoring the boss who is subordinate to you, humiliate the honor of your own power no little. So, presenting all this, be prudent, and at the same time remember that evening on which the father, having called you, gave you his daughter, as if some kind of pledge, and, having separated her from everything, from her mother, from himself and from the house, entrusted all care of her to your right hand. Think that after God you received children from her, became a father, and therefore be meek in relation to her. 8. Don’t you see how farmers fertilize in every way the land that has received the seeds, even if it had thousands of defects, even if it were, for example, barren, grew bad herbs, and was subject to floods due to the nature of its location? Do the same; then you will be the first to enjoy both the fruits and peace. A wife is a haven and the most important medicine for (seekers of) complacency. If you keep this pier free from winds and waves, you will find great peace in it when you return from the market; but if you disturb and disturb it, you will prepare for yourself a very dangerous shipwreck. So, let it not be this, but let it be what I am talking about. If something unfortunate happens in the house due to her fault, then console her, and do not increase her sorrow, even if you lose all your property, it will not be more regrettable than hostility with your cohabitant; no matter what guilt you present, nothing will be more intolerable than discord with your wife. Therefore, let your love for her be most precious to you. If we must bear each other’s burdens, then even more so our wives. If she is poor, do not reproach her; if she is unreasonable, do not judge, but rather try to teach her; for she is your member; you are one flesh. But would you say that she is talkative, prone to drunkenness, and angry? In this case, one should not be angry, but grieve, pray to God, exhort, admonish her, and do everything to destroy her passion. If you beat and torment her, you will not heal her illness; 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 this out of fear of God, but begin to endure her shortcomings out of respect for the law, which forbids rejecting a wife, no matter how great her illness, you will receive an indescribable reward, and even before the reward - a great benefit, making her more submissive, accustoming yourself to greater meekness in relation to her. They say that one of the external philosophers (Socrates), having an angry wife, talkative and prone to drunkenness, when asked why he tolerated her, answered that she served for him as a home school and an exercise in wisdom: I, he said, by practicing daily with her, I become more meek with others. Are you delighted? And it is very regrettable to me that the pagans are superior in wisdom to us, who are commanded to imitate the angels, or, better, are commanded to imitate God himself in meekness. The said philosopher did not expel his evil wife for this reason; and some say that for this reason he married her. But, since many people are not so prudent, I advise you to try in every possible way in advance to choose a wife who is well-behaved and full of all virtues; If you happen to make a mistake and bring an unkind and even unfit bride into your house, then imitate this philosopher, correct her by all means and consider this matter the most important. The merchant does not launch a ship into the sea and does not begin trading before he has concluded terms with his friend that would ensure their mutual peace of mind. So we will take all measures to maintain every kind of peace within our ship with our accomplices in the worldly field; then everything else will be calm for us, and we will safely cross the sea of ​​real life. We must care about this more than about the house, slaves, money, fields and even civil affairs; What should be most precious for us is not to have enmity and strife with our partner; then everything else will go well for us, and in spiritual affairs we will have greater success, bearing the burden of this life with unanimity; and having completed everything, we will also receive the blessings prepared for us, which may we all be worthy of, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: