Беседа 19

About the rights of marriage. – In relation to Christ, slave and free are equal. – The harmful consequences of envy. 1 Corinthians 7:1–2. And what you wrote to me about is that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, in order to avoid fornication, each have his own wife, and each have his own husband. 1. Having corrected three very important defects, firstly, the division of the church, secondly, (the vice of) incest and, thirdly, covetousness, (the apostle) now speaks more meekly, and among other things offers instruction and advice regarding marriage and virginity, in order to calm his listeners after severe reproaches. In the second letter (to the Corinthians) he acts differently: he begins meekly and ends strictly; here, having finished his speech about virginity, he again turns to denunciations, offering not everything suddenly, but diversifying his speech with both, in accordance with the demands of the time and the properties of objects. He says: “What did you write to me about?” Because the Corinthians wrote to him, should one abstain from one’s wife or not? Answering this and establishing rules about marriage, he also starts talking about virginity. “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” If you, he says, are looking for a very excellent good, then it is better not to marry a woman at all; If you are looking for a state that is safe and consistent with your weakness, then get married. And since it could happen, as it still happens now, that the husband wishes, but the wife does not, or vice versa, then look at how he talks about both. Some claim that his words refer to priests; but, taking into account the following words, I cannot agree with this - then he would not have taught this instruction in a general form. If he had written only about priests, he would have said: it is good for a teacher not to touch a woman; and now he says in general: “It’s good for the man,” not just for the priest; and also: “Are you left without a wife? do not seek a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27). He didn’t say: you are a priest and a teacher, but vaguely; such is his whole speech in general. Having said: “to avoid fornication, each one must have his own wife,” he himself encourages abstinence by the very reason of permission. “The husband show his wife due favor; likewise is a wife like unto her husband” (1 Cor. 7:3). What does “due favor” mean? The wife has no power over her body, but is both a slave and at the same time the mistress of her husband. If you shirk your due service, you offend God; if you want to evade, then only with the permission of your husband, even if it is for a short time. That is why he calls this matter necessary, in order to show that none (of the spouses) has power over themselves, but are slaves of each other. So, when you see that a harlot is tempting you, you say: my body does not belong to me, but to the wife. Let the wife say the same to those who try to violate her chastity: my body does not belong to me, but to my husband. If neither the husband nor the wife has power over their body, then much less over their property. Listen, you who have husbands and who have wives: if you should not consider your bodies to be yours, much less your property. True, in some places of both the Old and New Testaments great advantage is given to the husband; this is what it says: “Your desire is for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16); and Paul in one epistle makes the following distinction (between spouses): “husbands, love your wives... and let the wife fear her husband” (Eph. 5:25, 33); but here (attributed to both) the same power, no more, no less. Why? Because he is talking about chastity. In other respects, he says, let the husband have the advantage, but in chastity - no, neither “the husband has power over his body,” nor the wife (1 Cor. 7:4). Great equality of honor and no advantage. “Do not turn away from one another 26 except by consent” (1 Cor. 7:5). What does it mean? The wife should not, he says, abstain against the will of her husband, and the husband (should not abstain) against the will of his wife. Why? Because great evil comes from such abstinence; This often resulted in adultery, fornication and domestic disorder. After all, if others, having their own wives, indulge in adultery, then much more (will they indulge in it) when they are deprived of this consolation. Well said: do not deprive yourself; what I called deprivation here, I called above duty, to show how great their mutual dependence is: to abstain to one against the will of the other means to deprive, but by will - not. Thus, if you take something from me with my consent, it will not be a deprivation for me; he who takes against his will and by force deprives. Many wives do this, committing a great sin against justice and thereby giving their husbands a reason for debauchery and leading everything into disorder. Unanimity should be preferred to everything; it is most important. If you want, we can prove it with experience. Let there be a wife and a husband, and let the wife abstain, while the husband does not want it. What will happen? Will he not then indulge in adultery, or, if he does not commit adultery, will he not grieve, worry, get angry, quarrel and cause his wife a lot of trouble? What is the use of fasting and abstinence when love is violated? No. How much grief will inevitably arise from this, how much trouble, how much discord! 2. If a husband and wife do not agree with each other in the house, then their house is no better than a ship tossed by waves, on which the helmsman does not agree with the helmsman. That is why (the apostle) says: “Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, to exercise in fasting and prayer.” Here he means prayer performed with special care, because if he forbade those who copulate to pray, then where would the time for unceasing prayer come from? Therefore, you can copulate and pray with your wife; but with abstinence, prayer is more perfect. He didn’t just say: pray, but: abide, because the (marriage) matter only distracts from this, and does not produce defilement. “And then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you.” So that you do not think that this is a law, it also adds a reason. Which one? “Lest Satan tempt you.” And so that you know that it is not the devil who is the only perpetrator of adultery, he adds: “through your intemperance.” “However, I said this as permission, and not as a command. For I desire that all people should be, as I am, in self-control (1 Cor. 7:6-7). This is what he often does when he teaches about difficult matters, presenting himself as an example and saying: “Imitate me” (1 Cor. 4:16). “But everyone has his own gift from God, some this way, others that way” (1 Cor. 7:7). Having expressed a strong conviction in the words: “your intemperance,” he again encourages them and says: “each has his own gift from God,” expressing not that this virtue does not require our effort, but, as I said, encouraging them. If (abstinence) is a gift, and a person himself does not contribute at all, then why does he continue: “To the unmarried and widows I say: it is good for them to remain as I do. But if they cannot abstain, let them marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9)? Do you see the prudence of Paul, how he shows the superiority of abstinence, and does not force anyone who cannot abstain, fearing that a fall might occur? “For it is better to marry than to be inflamed.” Shows how great the power of lust is. And the meaning of his words is as follows: if you feel a strong attraction and kindling, then save yourself from labor and exhaustion, so that you do not become corrupted. “But to those who marry, I command not I, but the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:10). Intending to repeat the commandment clearly prescribed by Christ regarding the fact that one should not divorce one’s wife, except in the case of adultery, he says: “Not I.” The above was not clearly stated (by Christ), although it was in accordance with His teaching; and this He stated clearly; This is the difference between expressions: I and not I. And so that you do not take the words (of the apostle) as human, he adds: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40). What is this commandment proclaimed by the Lord to those getting married: “a wife should not divorce 27 her husband, but if she divorces, she must remain single, or be reconciled with her husband, and the husband should not leave his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11)? Since it happens that spouses separate either due to abstinence, or for other reasons, or due to displeasure, he says: it would be better if this did not happen at all; if this has already happened, then let the wife remain with her husband, although not for copulation, but so as not to know any other husband. “To the rest I say, and not the Lord: if a brother has an unbelieving wife, and she agrees to live with him, then he should not leave her; and a wife who has an unbelieving husband, and he agrees to live with her, should not leave him” (1 Cor. 7:12-13). Just as, when talking about staying away from fornicators, (the apostle) made this matter easier by adding: “and not everyone is fornicator of this world” (1 Cor. 5:10), so here he makes sure that (the commandment) is very convenient to fulfill. If, he says, a wife has an unfaithful husband or a husband has an unfaithful wife, then they should not leave each other. What are you saying? Should an unfaithful man remain with his wife, but a fornicator should not? Is fornication more important than unbelief? Fornication is of little importance, but God is greatly concerned about your benefit. So about sacrifice He says: “leave the gift... and be reconciled to your brother” (Matthew 5:24). So in the parable of the debtor of ten thousand talents: He did not punish the one who owed ten thousand talents; and he punished the one who demanded a hundred denarii from a slave like himself. Further, so that the wife does not fear becoming unclean from cohabitation (with such a husband), the apostle says: “For an unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife..., and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (1 Cor. 7:14). But if he who cleaves to a harlot becomes one body with her, then does it not follow that he who cleaves to an idolater becomes one body with him? Thus, she is one body with him, but does not become unclean; and the purity of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband, just as the purity of a faithful husband overcomes the uncleanness of an unfaithful wife. 3. Why is impurity overcome here and cohabitation is permitted, but in the case of a wife’s adultery, the husband is not forbidden to expel her? Because here there is hope that the lost part will be saved through marriage; and there the marriage has already been broken; there both persons are corrupted, but here only one is guilty. Let me say approximately: she who has once fallen into adultery is unclean; If he who cleaves to a harlot has one body with her and himself becomes unclean, then both of them will be deprived of purity. But that’s not the case here, but how? The idolater is unclean, but the wife is not unclean. If she had participated with him in something in which he was unclean, i.e. in wickedness, then she herself would become unclean; but now in another the idolater is unclean, and in another his wife participates with him, in which he is not unclean, because in marriage and copulation they mutually participate. Moreover, there is hope here that the wife of the unfaithful will convert him, since she is his own; and there it is very difficult. How can a wife, having previously dishonored her husband, served another and violated the rights of marriage, make her husband again, who was offended and who became like a stranger to her? After adultery, the husband is no longer a husband: but here, if the wife is an idolater, the rights of the husband are not violated. Moreover, she lives with an infidel not simply, but according to his desire. That is why (the apostle) said: “He also is pleased to live with her” (1 Cor. 7:13). And is there, tell me, what harm comes from the fact that they remain in union, when piety is preserved intact, and good hope remains for the conversion of the infidel, and reasons for unnecessary quarrels are avoided? Here (the apostle) speaks not of those who have not yet been married, but of those who have been married; he did not say: if someone wants to marry an infidel, but: if someone has an infidel, i.e. If someone, after marriage, accepts pious teaching, and the other person remains in unbelief and meanwhile wishes to live together, then the marriage will not be dissolved. “For an unbelieving husband,” he says, “is sanctified by his wife”: such is the abundance of your purity! How, is a pagan really holy? No, he did not say: holy, but: “sanctified by the woman”; He said this not in order to recognize the pagan as a saint, but in order to calm the wife as much as possible and arouse in the husband a desire for the truth. Impurity does not lie in the bodies that are combined, but in the will and thoughts. Then the proof is presented: if you, being unclean, give birth to a child who does not come from you alone, is it really unclean or only half pure? In the present case, it is not unclean: “otherwise,” continues (the apostle), “your children would be unclean, but now they are holy,” i.e. not unclean. He calls them saints in order to again ward off the fears of the spouses with such a strong name. “If an unbeliever wants to get a divorce, let him get a divorce” (1 Cor. 7:15). Here the issue is no longer about adultery. What does it mean: “if an unbeliever wants to get a divorce”? For example, if he commands you to make sacrifices and participate in his wickedness by right of marriage, or to leave, then it is better to leave marriage than piety. “A brother or sister is not related in such cases.” If the infidel daily insults and starts quarrels because of this, then it is better to separate. This is expressed (by the apostle) with the words: “God has called us to peace.” He (the unfaithful) himself gives the reason for this, just like the adulterer. “Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?” (1 Cor. 7:16). This refers to the words: “should not leave him.” If your husband doesn’t bother you, then stay, he says, with him; this may be beneficial; stay and exhort, advise, convince; no teacher can convince like a wife. However, (the apostle) does not force her and does not absolutely demand this from her, so as not to place too heavy a burden on her again; advises not to despair and leaves it in doubt, due to the uncertainty of the future. “Why,” he says, “do you know, wife, won’t you save your husband? Or do you, husband, why do you know if you won’t save your wife?” And further: “only each act as God has determined for him, and each as the Lord has called. If anyone is called to be circumcised, do not hide yourself; If anyone is called uncircumcised, do not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything. Everyone remain in the rank in which they are called. Whether you are called to be a slave, do not be embarrassed” (1 Cor. 7:17-21). All this, he says, means nothing for faith; Therefore, do not argue and do not be embarrassed; faith is above all this. Everyone in whatever rank you are called to, remain in that rank. Are you called in marriage to an unfaithful wife? Stay with her; do not cast out your wife because of her faith. Called a slave? Don't worry; remain a slave. Is the uncircumcised called? Remain uncircumcised. Did you believe when you were circumcised? Stay circumcised. This is what the words mean: to each “as God has determined for him.” None of this is an obstacle to piety. You were called in the condition of a slave, another in marriage with an unfaithful woman, another in circumcision. 4. This is how he views slavery. Just as circumcision brings no benefit and uncircumcision does no harm, so are slavery and freedom. But to show this as clearly as possible, he says: “but if you can free yourself, use the best” 28, i.e., serve all the more. Why does he command that one who can become free remain a slave? In order to show that slavery not only does not harm, but also provides benefits. I know that some claim that the words: “make the best use of” 29 are said about freedom, and they explain them this way: if you can become free, then free yourself. But such a thought would be completely contrary to Paul’s intention: while comforting the slave and proving to him that slavery does not cause him any harm, he would not command him to seek freedom, since then another could say: but if I cannot become free, then I suffer humiliation and harm? So, Paul does not mean this, but wants to show, as I said before, that he who is freed from slavery does not receive any benefit: even though, he says, it was in your power to become free, you had better remain a slave. Then he gives the reason: “For the servant who is called in the Lord is the freeman of the Lord; likewise, he who is called free is a servant of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:22). In relation to Christ, he says, both are equal. Just as you are a servant of Christ, so is your master. But how can a slave be free? (Christ) freed you not only from sin, but also from external slavery, although you remain a slave. He does not allow a slave to be a slave, nor a person to remain in slavery; this is wonderful. When is a slave free while remaining a slave? When he is freed from passions and mental illnesses, when he does not indulge in selfishness, anger and other similar passions. “You are bought at a price; Do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:23). This is said not only to slaves, but also to free people, because it is possible both in slavery not to be a slave, and in freedom to be a slave. When is a slave not a slave? When he does everything for God, when he serves unhypocritically and not out of man-pleasing: this means being a slave of people and remaining free. And when is a free man a slave? When he serves people in something bad, in gluttony, greed, or ambition. Such a person, although free, is more enslaved than any slave. Here is an example of both: Joseph was a slave, but did not servile people, and therefore in slavery he was freer than all the free; he did not submit to the mistress, who persuaded him to satisfy her lust. The mistress, on the contrary, was free, but turned out to be lower than any slave, turning to the slave with flattery and persuasion, and yet unable to persuade him, a free man, to do what he did not want. Truly, he was not a slave, but eminently free: did slavery serve as an obstacle to virtue for him? Listen, you slaves and free: who turned out to be a slave, the one who was asked, or the one who asked? The one who convinced, or the one who despised her convictions? So, there are limits to slavery set by God, there are laws to what extent it can extend, which should not be violated. When the master does not demand anything contrary to the will of God, then one must obey him and submit; but it should not extend further: this is how the slave remains free! If you extend further, you become a slave, although you are free. This inspires (the apostle) with the words: “Do not become slaves of men.” And if it were not so, if he commanded to leave the masters and try to gain freedom, then how would he begin to say the following: “in what rank is anyone called, brethren, in that let each one remain before God” (1 Cor. 7:24)? And in another place: “Slaves who are under the yoke should consider their masters worthy of all honor... Those who have faithful masters should not treat them carelessly, because they are brothers... and do good to them” (1 Tim. 6:1-2)? He commands and commands the same thing in his epistles to the Ephesians (Eph.6:5) and the Colossians (Col.3:22). From this it is clear that he does not reject external slavery, but what comes from vices, which happens to free people, and the most serious thing, even if a free person is subjected to it. How did Joseph's brothers benefit from being free? Didn't they turn out to be more servile than any slave, deceiving their father, lying before the merchants and before their brother? But he was not like that, but everywhere and in everything he was truthful and remained free; and nothing could enslave him, neither bonds, nor slavery, nor the love of a mistress, nor a stay in a foreign land - he always remained free. This is the highest freedom, which shines even in slavery. 5. This is Christianity: it provides freedom even in slavery. Just as a body, by nature vulnerable, turns out to be invulnerable when, being hit by an arrow, it does not suffer any harm, so a truly free person turns out to be so when, being under the power of masters, he does not become a slave. That is why (the apostle) commands us to remain in slavery. If it were impossible for a slave to be a Christian, as he should be, then the pagans would accuse piety of great weakness; but having learned that slavery does not in the least hinder piety, they will be surprised at the sermon. Truly, if neither death, nor scourging, nor bonds harm us, then much less slavery; if fire, iron, thousands of violence, disease, poverty, wild animals and other cruel and countless disasters did not harm believers, but also made them the strongest, then how can slavery harm them? It is not this slavery that is harmful, beloved, but true slavery—slavery to sin. If you have not been subjected to it, then go ahead and rejoice; No one can cause you any harm, because you are alien to slavery in your soul. If you were subjected to it, then, even if you were free a thousand times, freedom will not bring you any benefit. What is the use, tell me, if you do not serve man, but servile passions? People often know how to show mercy, but these rulers are never satisfied with your misfortunes. Are you serving man? But the master also serves you; he provides you with food, takes care of your health, clothes, shoes and everything else; It’s not so much that you’re afraid of offending your master, but that he’s worried that you won’t suffer a lack of what you need. But he is reclining, and you are standing? So what of this? This happens not only to him, but also to you. Often, when you lie down and sleep sweetly, he not only stands, but also suffers many troubles in the marketplace and is deprived of sleep worse than you. So what? Did Joseph suffer anything from his mistress that she suffered from her passion? He did not do what she wanted to force him to do, but she did everything that her mistress commanded her, i.e. lust, which did not leave her before until it brought her to shame. What master, what cruel tyrant would give such orders? Ask, he says, your slave, beg your captive, seduce the slave; if he rejects you, proceed again; if, despite your frequent proposals, he does not agree, find a secluded place, use violence and indulge in ridicule. What is more dishonest, what is more shameful than such suggestions? If after that you do not have success, then slander him and deceive your husband. What low, what shameful orders, how cruel, inhuman and insane! Does any master command what lust then commanded to this woman, the queen? And she did not dare to disobey. Nothing of the sort happened with Joseph; on the contrary, everything served to his glory and honor. Do you want to see another husband who received many orders from a cruel mistress and did not dare to disobey? Remember Cain, how he was overcome by envy. She commanded him to kill his brother, to lie before God, to upset his father, to be shameless, and he did everything and did not disobey in anything. But is it surprising that this mistress had such power over one (person)? It often destroyed entire nations. So the women of Midian almost captured and enslaved the Jews, seducing them all with their beauty (Num. 25). Paul protects against such slavery when he says: “Do not become slaves of men,” i.e. Do not obey people when they command something shameful, and even to yourself. Having thus purified and elevated the minds of his listeners, he further says: “Concerning virginity, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give advice as one who has received from the Lord grace to be faithful to Him” (1 Cor. 7:25). Continuing his speech, he gradually reaches virginity; Having taught and enlightened them (the Corinthians) with a conversation about abstinence, he moves on to a higher subject and says: “I have no commandment, but ... I recognize it as better” (1 Cor. 7:25–26). Why? For the same reason that he gave in the conversation about abstinence. “Are you united with your wife? don't look for a divorce. Are you left without a wife? do not seek a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27). These words do not contradict the previous ones, but completely agree. There he said: “unless by consent”; and here he says: “Are you united with your wife? don’t look for divorce.” One does not contradict the other, because what is done against the will is dissolution; and if both (husband and wife) abstain by consent, this is not dissolution. 6. So that what has been said is not accepted as law, (the apostle) adds: “Nevertheless, even if you marry, you will not sin” (1 Cor. 7:28). Further refers to circumstances, urgent need, shy times and grief. Marriage is accompanied by many difficulties, which he points out both here and in the conversation about abstinence. There he said: the wife does not control herself; and here he says: “you are connected.” “And if a virgin marries, she will not sin”: does not mean a virgin who has chosen virginity; such a one (by getting married) sins. If widows are condemned who, having once decided to remain widowed, enter into a second marriage, then even more so the virgins. “But such will have tribulations according to the flesh.” But, you say, together there is pleasure. And this, look how (Paul) limited the shortness of time: “the time,” he says, “is already short” (1 Cor. 7:29), i.e. we are already commanded to go from here and prepare for the exodus, but you strive inside. If marriage were not accompanied by any sorrows, and in this case it would be appropriate to strive for the future; if it is accompanied by sorrows, then what is the need to impose a burden on oneself? What is the need to take on such a burden, which even having accepted it must be borne as if it had not been accepted? “So those who have wives,” he says, “should be as if they had not.” Having said something about the future, then he again turns to the present, namely: the spiritual, that one cares about the affairs of her husband, the other about the affairs of God (1 Cor. 7:34); and worldly, that “I want you to be without worries” (1 Cor. 7:32). However, he leaves this to their will. Whoever, having indicated what is worthy of election, again forces him to do so, does not seem to trust his own words; (and Paul) by his very compliance encourages and inclines even more: “I say this,” he says, “for your own benefit, not to put bonds on you, but so that you serve decently 30 and unceasingly” (1 Cor. 7:35). Let the virgins hear that this is not what defines virginity: she who cares about worldly things is not a beautiful virgin. Having said: “There is a difference between a married woman and a virgin” (1 Cor. 7:33), (the apostle) here explains what their difference is from each other. The distinguishing feature of a virgin and a non-virgin is not marriage or abstinence, but freedom from worries (for one) and a lot of worries (for the other). It is not cohabitation that is evil, but an obstacle to wisdom. “If anyone considers it unseemly for his virgin” (1 Cor. 7:36). Here, apparently, he is talking about marriage, but he directs everything towards a speech about virginity; allowing a second marriage, he says: “only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). What does it mean: about the Lord? With chastity, with honesty. These virtues are needed everywhere and should be taken care of; otherwise it is impossible to see God. If we do not now dwell on virginity, let no one accuse us of laziness. We have compiled a whole book on this subject, in which we have outlined everything as accurately as possible, and therefore we consider it unnecessary to repeat the same thing here again. Sending the listener there, we will only say here that we must observe abstinence: “try to have peace...,” says (the apostle), “and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). So, in order for us to be worthy to see God, we will, whether in virginity, in the first marriage, or in the second, succeed in this virtue, and we will be made worthy of the kingdom of heaven, by the grace and love for mankind 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” Gr. “μη αποστερειτε αλληλους “ – do not deprive (yourself) of each other – I.I. Gr. χωρισθηναι - “to separate” - Chrysostom obviously means by this not a formal divorce, but the termination of marital communication - I.I. Gr. ευσχημον beautiful - I.I. You might be interested in: