Homily 26 — First Corinthians 11, verses 2 to 16

“Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” [a]

Having finished his discussion of food sacrificed to idols as was fitting, and having made it complete in every respect, he moves on to another matter. This too was a complaint, but not so serious a one. For what I said before I say again now: he does not set down all the heavy charges one after another. He arranges them in due order and puts the lighter matters in among them, softening what his readers would otherwise find offensive in his letter because of its constant rebuke. That is also why he put the most serious of all last, the one about the resurrection. But for now he goes on to another, lighter matter, saying, “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.”

So when the offense is admitted, he both accuses sharply and threatens; but when it is disputed, he first proves it and then rebukes. What was admitted, he makes weigh more heavily; what was likely to be disputed, he shows to be admitted. Their sexual immorality, for instance, was an admitted fact.

So there was no need to show that it was an offense; in that case he proved how great the wrongdoing was, and built his argument by comparison. Again, their going to court before outsiders was an offense, but not so great a one; so he dealt with it in passing and proved it. The matter of food sacrificed to idols, on the other hand, was disputed; yet it was a very serious evil. So he both shows it to be an offense and enlarges on it at length. [b]

But when he does this, he does not only draw them away from each wrong; he also calls them to its opposite. So he did not only say that one must not commit sexual immorality, but also that one ought to show great holiness. That is why he added, “Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit” (First Corinthians 6, verse 20). Again, having said that one ought not to be wise with the wisdom of outsiders, he is not content with that, but tells him also to “become a fool” (First Corinthians 3, verse 18). And where he advises them not to go to court before those outside, and to do no wrong, he goes further: he takes away going to court altogether, and advises them not only to do no wrong but even to suffer wrong (First Corinthians 6, verses 7 and 8).

And in discussing food sacrificed to idols, he did not say only that one ought to keep away from forbidden things, but also from permitted things when they cause someone to stumble; and not only that one must not harm the brothers and sisters, but not even the Greeks or the Jews. “Give no occasion of stumbling,” he says, “either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God” (First Corinthians 10, verse 32). [c]

So, having finished all his discussion of these things, he next goes on to another charge. What was it? Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled, with their heads bare — for in those days women too used to prophesy. The men, for their part, went so far as to wear long hair, as men who had spent their time in philosophy, and to cover their heads when praying and prophesying. Both of these were Greek customs.

Now he had already warned them about these things when he was with them, and some perhaps listened to him while others disobeyed. So in his letter he treats the sore place again, like a physician bathing it with warm compresses, by the way he addresses them, and so he corrects the offense. That he had warned them in person before is plain from the way he begins. Otherwise, why would he — having said nothing about this matter anywhere earlier in the letter, and moving on from other charges — at once say, “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, just as I delivered them to you”?

You see that some obeyed, and he praises them; and others disobeyed, and he corrects them by what comes afterward, when he says, “If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom” (verse 16). If, when some had done well and others had disobeyed, he had included everyone in his accusation, he would have made the one group bolder and the other more careless. As it is, by praising and approving the one and rebuking the other, he both refreshes the one all the more and makes the other shrink back before him. The accusation by itself might well have wounded them; but now that it comes set against others who have done well and are praised, it carries a sharper sting.

For the present, though, he begins not with accusation but with praise, and high praise: “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.” That is Paul’s character. Even for small matters he weaves a web of high praise. And he does not do it to flatter — far from it. How could a man do that who had no desire for money, or glory, or anything of the kind? No, he arranges everything he does for their salvation. That is why he enlarges the praise, saying, “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.”

In all what things? So far his whole concern was their not wearing long hair and not covering their heads. But, as I said, he is very generous with his praise, to make them more eager. That is why he says, “That you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” It appears, then, that at that time he also used to hand on many things that were not in writing, as he shows in many other places too. But then he only handed them on, whereas now he adds an explanation of the reason for them. In this way he makes the obedient more steadfast, and brings down the pride of the others, who set themselves in opposition. [e]

Further, he does not say, “You have obeyed, while others have disobeyed.” Without stirring up suspicion, he hints at it by the way he teaches in what follows, where he says:

Verse 3: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.”

This is his account of the reason, and he gives it to make the weaker ones more attentive. The one who is as faithful and steadfast as he ought to be does not ask for any reason or cause for what he is commanded; the command alone is enough for him. But the weaker one, when he also learns the cause, both holds on to what is said more carefully and obeys much more readily.

That is why he did not give the cause until he saw the command broken. What, then, is the cause? “The head of every man is Christ.” Is he, then, the head of the pagan too? Not at all. If “we are the body of Christ, and members of it individually” (First Corinthians 12, verse 27), and it is in this way that he is our head, he cannot be the head of those who are not in the body and do not rank among its members. So when he says “of every man,” we must understand it of the believer. Do you see how everywhere he appeals to the hearer’s sense of shame by arguing from things on high? So it was when he was speaking of love, and of humility, and of almsgiving: it was from there that he drew his examples. [f]

“But the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush at us with a claim that the Son is inferior, which they devise from these words against him. But they trip over their own feet. For if “the man is the head of the woman,” and the head is of the same essence as the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” then the Son is of the same essence as the Father.

But they say: “No, it is not that he is of another essence that we mean to show from this, but that he is under subjection.” What, then, are we to say to this? In the first place, when something lowly is said of him as joined with the flesh, what is said takes nothing away from his being God, since the plan of salvation allows such language. But tell me, how do you intend to prove this from the passage? [i]

“Why, just as the man governs the wife, so the Father governs Christ.” Then, just as Christ governs the man, so the Father governs the Son; for “the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever accept that? If the Son’s superiority over us is the measure of the Father’s superiority over the Son, think how low you will bring him!

So we must not measure everything by the same rule in our own case and in God’s, even though the language used of both is alike. We must give God a superiority that is fitting, as great as belongs to God. If they will not grant this, many absurdities follow. For example: “the head of Christ is God,” and “Christ is the head of the man, and the man of the woman.” If, then, we choose to take the word “head” in the same sense in every clause, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from him. More than that: the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, that we will be to the Son, and the woman in turn to the man. Who will put up with this?

But do you understand the word “head” differently in the case of the man and the woman from the way you do in the case of Christ? Then in the case of the Father and the Son we must understand it differently too. [j]

“Understand it differently how?” According to the occasion. If Paul had meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought in the example of a wife, but rather that of a slave and a master. For what if the wife is subject to us? She is subject as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son too, though he did become obedient to the Father, was obedient as the Son of God, as God. For just as the Son’s obedience to the Father is greater than what we find in human beings toward those who gave them life, so too his freedom is greater. No one, surely, will say that what belongs to the Son in his relation to the Father is greater and closer than among human beings, while what belongs to the Father in relation to the Son is less.

If we admire the Son because he was obedient even to the point of death, the death of the cross, and count this the great wonder about him, we ought to admire the Father too, because he begot such a Son — not as a slave under orders, but as free, giving obedience and giving counsel. For a counselor is no slave. But again, when you hear of a counselor, do not take it as though the Father were in need, but as meaning that the Son has the same honor as the one who begot him. So do not stretch the example of the man and the woman to every detail.

With us, indeed, the woman is reasonably made subject to the man, since equality of honor breeds quarrels. And not for this reason only, but also because of the deception that happened in the beginning (First Timothy 2, verse 14). That is why, you see, she was not made subject as soon as she was made. When God brought her to the man, she heard no such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her. He did say that she was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Genesis 2, verse 23), but of rule or subjection he said nothing to her anywhere. But when she misused her privilege, and she who had been made a helper was found to be a snare and ruined everything, then she is rightly told for the future, “Your turning will be to your husband” (Genesis 3, verse 16). [k]

Here is the reason. It was likely that this sin would throw our race into a state of war. Once it had happened, her having been made from him would have done nothing for peace; rather, this very fact would have made the man even harsher — that she, made as she was from him, had not spared even him, a member of her own body. So God, seeing the malice of the devil, raised up the bulwark of this word. The hostility that was likely to arise from the devil’s evil scheme he took away by this sentence and by the desire planted in us, pulling down the dividing wall — that is, the resentment that her sin had caused. But in God, and in that undefiled being, we must not imagine anything of the kind.

So do not apply the examples to everything, since elsewhere too many serious errors will come from this source. At the beginning of this very letter he said, “All things are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (First Corinthians 3, verses 22 and 23). What then? Are all things ours in the same way as “we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s”? Not at all. Even to the very simple the difference is plain, though the same expression is used of God, and of Christ, and of us. And elsewhere, having called the husband “head of the wife,” he added, “Just as Christ is the head and Savior and Protector of the church, so too the man ought to be of his own wife” (Ephesians 5, verse 23). Are we then to understand in the same way both the saying in our passage and everything written to the Ephesians after it on this subject? Far from it! It is impossible. [m]

For though the same words are spoken of God and of human beings, they do not carry the same force in the case of God and in the case of human beings: those must be understood in one way, and these in another. Yet not everything differently, either; otherwise the words will seem to have been brought in at random and for nothing, and we would get no benefit from them. Just as we must not take everything alike, so neither must we reject everything outright.

To make what I am saying clearer, I will try to show it by an example. Christ is called “the head of the church.” If I am to take nothing of the human sense in the idea, why, I would like to know, is the expression used at all? On the other hand, if I take all of it that way, the height of absurdity will follow. For a head shares the body’s sufferings and is subject to the same things. What, then, ought we to let go, and what to accept? We should let go the details I have mentioned, but accept the idea of perfect union and of being the first source. And not even these ideas without qualification: here too we must form, as far as we can by ourselves, a notion of what is too high for us and fitting for God. For there the union is surer and the source more honorable. [n]

Again, you hear the word “Son.” Do not accept every detail in this case either; yet you ought not to reject everything. Accept whatever is fitting for God — for example, that he is of the same essence, that he is from God. The things that do not fit, and that belong to human weakness, leave on the earth.

Again, God is called “Light.” Shall we then accept everything that belongs to natural light? Not at all. This light gives way to darkness, is confined to a place, is moved by another power, and is overshadowed; none of these may even be imagined of that being. Yet we will not reject everything on this account; we will gather something useful from the example. The enlightening that comes to us from God, the rescue from darkness — this is what we will take from it. [o]

So much in answer to the heretics. But we must also go through the whole passage in order. For perhaps someone might have a doubt here too, and ask himself what sort of crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or the man covered. What sort of crime it is, learn now from this.

Many different symbols have been given to both man and woman: to him, symbols of rule; to her, of subjection. Among them is this one too: that she should be covered, while he has his head bare. If these, then, are symbols, you see that both do wrong when they upset the proper order and break God’s arrangement and their own proper bounds — the man by sinking to the woman’s lower place, and the woman by rising up against the man through her outward dress.

For if exchanging clothes is not lawful — so that she should not be dressed in a cloak, nor he in a mantle or a veil, for “a woman,” he says, “shall not wear what belongs to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22, verse 5) — it is much more improper for these things to be exchanged. The former rules, indeed, were laid down by men, even though God afterward confirmed them; but this one was laid down by nature — I mean being covered or uncovered. And when I say nature, I mean God, for he is the one who created nature. So when you overturn these boundaries, see how great the harm that follows.

And do not tell me that the error is only a small one. First, it is great even in itself, since it is disobedience. Next, even if it were small, it would become great because of the greatness of the things it is a sign of. That it is a great matter is plain from how effectively it serves good order among human beings, keeping ruler and ruled each regularly in their proper places.

So the one who breaks it throws everything into confusion, betrays God’s gifts, and casts to the ground the honor given him from above — and not the man only, but the woman too. For her also the greatest of honors is to keep her own rank, just as the worst of disgraces is to behave like a rebel. That is why he laid it down for both, saying: [p]

Verse 4: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head.”

For there were, as I said, both men who prophesied and women who had this gift at that time, such as the daughters of Philip (Acts 21, verse 9), as there were others before them and after them. Of them the prophet spoke long ago: “Your sons will prophesy, and your daughters will see visions” (Joel 2, verse 28; Acts 2, verse 17).

Now then: the man he does not require to be uncovered always, but only when he prays. “For every man,” he says, “who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.” But the woman he commands to be covered at all times. That is why, having said, “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head,” he did not stop there, but went on to say, “for it is one and the same as if she were shaved.” But if being shaved is always dishonorable, it is plain that being uncovered is always a disgrace too. And he was not content even with this, but added, “The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.” He shows that she ought to be covered not only at the time of prayer but continually.

But with the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair that he frames his argument. Being covered he forbids only when a man is praying; but wearing long hair he discourages at all times. So, just as he said of the woman, “But if she is not veiled, let her also be shorn,” so he says of the man, “If he has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.” He did not say, “if he is covered,” but, “if he has long hair.” That is why he also said at the beginning, “Every man who prays or prophesies having anything on his head dishonors his head.” He did not say “covered,” but “having anything on his head,” showing that even if he prays with his head bare, yet if he has long hair, he is like one who is covered. “For the hair,” he says, “is given for a covering.”

Verse 6: “But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be veiled.” [r]

So at the beginning he simply requires that the head not be bare. But as he goes on he hints both that the rule is permanent, saying, “for it is one and the same as if she were shaved,” and that it must be kept with all care and diligence. For he did not say merely “covered,” but “covered over,” meaning that she should be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by carrying it to an absurdity, he appeals to their sense of shame, saying by way of sharp reprimand, “but if she is not covered, let her also be shorn.” It is as if he had said: “If you throw off the covering appointed by the law of God, throw off also the one appointed by nature.”

But if anyone says, “Why, how can this be a shame to the woman, if she rises to the glory of the man?” we might answer this way: She does not rise; rather, she falls from her own proper honor. For not to stay within our own bounds and the laws God has laid down, but to go beyond them, is not a gain but a loss. Just as the man who desires other people’s goods and seizes what is not his own has not gained anything more, but is made less, having lost even what he had — the very kind of thing that happened in paradise — so too the woman does not gain the man’s dignity, but loses even the woman’s decency that she had. And her shame and disgrace come not only from this, but also from her greed.

Having taken, then, what was admittedly shameful, and having said, “but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved,” he states his own conclusion in what follows: “let her be covered.” He did not say, “let her have long hair,” but, “let her be covered.” He makes the two one, and establishes both in two ways, from what was customary and from their opposites: he declares that the covering and the hair are one, and also that the woman who is shaved is the same as the woman whose head is bare. “For it is one and the same,” he says, “as if she were shaved.”

But if anyone says, “And how is it one, if this woman has the covering of nature, but the one who is shaved does not have even this?” we answer that as far as her will goes, she threw that off too by baring her head. And if her head is not bare of hair, that is nature’s doing, not her own. So just as the woman who is shaved has her head bare, so does this woman in the same way. That is why God left it to nature to give her a covering, so that from it too she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

Then he also gives a reason, as one speaking with free people — something I have pointed out in many places. What, then, is the reason?

Verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and glory of God.”

Here is yet another reason. This is what he means: “A man ought not to cover his head, not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he rules over the woman.” When a ruler comes before the king, he ought to carry the insignia of his rule. No ruler would dare to appear before the one who wears the diadem without his military belt and cloak. In the same way, you must not pray before God without the insignia of your rule — and one of them is having your head uncovered — or you insult both yourself and the one who has honored you.

The same can be said of the woman as well. For her too it is a disgrace not to have the insignia of her subjection. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” So the man’s rule is a natural one.

Then, having made his point, he gives still other reasons and causes, and takes you back to the first creation, saying this:

Verse 8: “For the man is not from the woman, but the woman from the man.” And if being from someone brings glory to the one you come from, being his image brings him much more.

Verse 9: “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

Here again is a second superiority — or rather a third, and a fourth. The first is that Christ is our head, and we are the woman’s head; the second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman is our glory; the third, that we are not from the woman, but she is from us; the fourth, that we are not for her, but she is for us.

Verse 10: “For this reason the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

“For this reason” — what reason, tell me? “For all the reasons that have been mentioned,” he says; or rather, not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “Even if you look down on your husband,” he says, “at least show reverence for the angels.”

So being covered is a mark of subjection and of authority. It leads her to look down, to feel modest, and to keep her own proper virtue whole. For the virtue and honor of the one who is governed is to remain in obedience.

Again, the man is not required to do this, for he is the image of his Lord; but the woman is, and with good reason. Consider, then, how great the offense is when you, honored with so high a privilege, put yourself to shame by seizing the woman’s dress. You are doing the same as a man who has received a diadem and throws the diadem from his head, and puts on a slave’s garment instead.

Verse 11: “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

He had given the man great superiority, saying that the woman is from him, and for him, and under him. So that he might neither lift the men up more than was right nor press the women down, see how he brings in the correction, saying, “However, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” “Please do not look only at the first things,” he says, “and at that first creation. If you look into what came after, each of the two is the cause of the other — or rather, not even so is each the cause of the other, but God is the cause of all.” That is why he says, “neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Verse 12: “For as the woman is from the man, so the man also is through the woman.” [t]

He did not say “from the woman”; he repeats the expression (from verse 7) “from the man.” For this particular privilege still remains wholly with the man. Yet these advantages do not belong to the man, but to God. That is why he also adds, “but all things are from God.” If, then, all things belong to God, and he commands these things, obey, and do not argue.

Verse 13: “Judge for yourselves: is it fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled?” Again he makes them judges of what is being said, as he also did about the food sacrificed to idols. There he says, “Judge for yourselves what I say” (First Corinthians 10, verse 15); here, “Judge for yourselves.” And here he hints at something more fearful, for he is saying that the insult passes on to God. He does not say so outright, but puts it in a milder and more indirect form of speech: “Is it fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled?”

Verse 14: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” [u]

Verse 15: “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Here too he follows his constant practice of giving reasons that everyone accepts. He falls back on common custom, and puts to great shame those who waited to be taught by him things they could have learned even from ordinary human practice. For such things are not unknown even to barbarians. And see how everywhere he uses cutting expressions: “Every man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head”; and again, “But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be veiled”; and here again, “If a man has long hair, it is a shame to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.”

“But if it is given to her for a covering,” you say, “why does she need to add another covering?” So that not nature alone, but her own will too, may have a part in acknowledging her subjection. Nature herself laid down a law in advance that you ought to be covered. Now, please, add your own part as well, so that you may not seem to overturn the very laws of nature. That would be proof of the most insolent recklessness: to fight not only with us, but with nature too. This is why God, accusing the Jews, said, “You have slain your sons and your daughters: this is beyond all your abominations” (Ezekiel 16, verses 21 and 22).

And again, when Paul rebukes the impure among the Romans, he makes the charge heavier in the same way, saying that what they did was not only against the law of God but even against nature: “For they exchanged the natural use for what is against nature” (Romans 1, verse 26). So here too he uses this argument, to show this very thing: both that he is not laying down any strange law, and that even among the pagans these inventions of theirs would all be counted a kind of novelty against nature. Christ also, meaning the same thing, said, “Whatever you want people to do to you, do the same to them,” showing that he was not bringing in anything new. [w]

Verse 16: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

So to oppose these things is contentiousness, not any exercise of reason. Even so, the rebuke he uses is a measured one, to fill them all the more with reproach of themselves — and in truth this made his words the more severe. “We,” he says, “have no such custom” — no custom of contending and quarreling and setting ourselves against others. And he did not stop even there, but also added, “nor do the churches of God,” showing that by not giving way they were resisting and setting themselves against the whole world. Yet even if the Corinthians were contentious then, now the whole world has received this law and keeps it. So great is the power of the Crucified.

But I am afraid that some of our women, though they have taken up the covering, may be found immodest in their conduct and uncovered in other ways. That is why Paul, writing to Timothy, was not content with these things, but added others, saying, “that they adorn themselves in respectable clothing, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair or gold” (First Timothy 2, verse 9). For if a woman ought not to have her head bare, but ought to carry the sign of authority with her everywhere, it is much more fitting for her to show the same in her conduct. So, at any rate, the women of old used both to call their husbands lords (First Peter 3, verse 6) and to give them the first place. [y]

“Because they, for their part,” you say, “loved their wives.” I know that as well as you do; I am not unaware of it. But when we are urging you about your own duties, do not let theirs take up all your attention. For in the same way, when we urge children to obey their parents, telling them that it is written, “Honor your father and your mother,” they answer us: “Mention also what comes next: ‘And you fathers, do not provoke your children to anger’” (Ephesians 6, verses 1 to 4). And when we tell servants that it is written that they should “obey their masters, and not serve only while they are watched,” they too in turn demand of us what comes next, and tell us to give the same advice to masters as well. For they saw that Paul told masters too “to give up threatening.”

But let us not do this, nor go looking into what is commanded to others when we are charged about our own duties. Having someone share the charges will not free you from the blame. Look to one thing only: how you may clear yourself of the charges that lie against you. Adam too laid the blame on the woman, and she in turn on the serpent, but this did not rescue them in the least. So do not say this to me now, but take every care to give your husband what you owe him. For when I am speaking with your husband, urging him to love and cherish you, I do not let him bring up the law laid down for the woman; I require of him what is written for him. So you too, busy yourself only with what belongs to you, and show yourself easy to deal with toward your husband.

Accordingly, if it really is for God’s sake that you obey your husband, do not tell me what he ought to be doing; carry out with exactness the things the Lawgiver has made you answerable for. For this above all is obeying God: not to break the law even when you are treated contrary to it. By the same rule, a man who loves someone who loves him is not thought to be doing anything great; but the one who waits on a person who hates him — he above all is the man to receive a crown. Reckon it the same way yourself. If your husband is hard to bear and you endure it, you will receive a glorious crown; but if he is gentle and mild, what will there be for God to reward in you?

I say these things not to tell husbands to be harsh, but to persuade wives to bear even harshness in their husbands. When each takes care to do his own duty, the neighbor’s part will quickly follow as well. When the wife is ready to bear even rough treatment from her husband, and the husband holds back from insulting her when she is in a temper, then all is calm, a harbor free from waves.

That is how it was with the people of old, too. Each was busy doing his own duty, not demanding his neighbor’s. See, if you look closely: Abraham took his brother’s son with him, and his wife found no fault with him. He told her to travel a long journey, and she did not say a word against this either, but followed. Again, after all those hardships and labors and toils, when he had become master of everything, he gave Lot the first choice. Far from being offended at this, Sarah did not even open her mouth. She said nothing like what many women today say when they see their husbands come off worse in such divisions, and especially in dealings with people beneath them — reproaching them, and calling them fools, senseless, unmanly, traitors and idiots. She said nothing of the kind and thought nothing of the kind, but was pleased with everything he did. [aa]

And here is another thing, and a greater one. After Lot had been given the choice and had thrown the worse share onto his uncle, great danger fell on him. When the patriarch heard of it, he armed all his people and set himself against the whole army of the Persians with only his own household servants. And not even then did she hold him back, or say, as might have been expected, “Husband, where are you going, throwing yourself over cliffs and exposing yourself to such dangers, shedding your blood for a man who wronged you and took everything that was yours? And even if you think nothing of yourself, at least have pity on me, who left home and country and friends and relatives and followed you on so long a journey. Do not bring widowhood on me, and the miseries of widowhood.” She said none of these things; she did not even think of them, but bore everything in silence.

After this, when her womb remained barren, she did not give way to the grief women feel, or lament; it was he who complained, though not to his wife, but to God. And see how each keeps to his own proper part. He did not despise Sarah as childless, or reproach her with anything of the kind; and she in turn was eager to find him some comfort for her childlessness by means of her maidservant. For these things had not yet been forbidden then, as they are now. Now it is not lawful for wives to indulge their husbands in such things, nor for men, whether the wife knows or not, to form such unions, even if the grief of childlessness torments them without end. For they too will hear the sentence, “Their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” Now it is not permitted; but then it had not been forbidden. That is why his wife told him to do it and he obeyed — and even then not for pleasure’s sake.

“But look,” someone will say, “how he drove Hagar out again at her bidding.” Well, this is just what I want to point out: he obeyed her in everything, and she obeyed him. But you who raise this objection, do not look only at this; examine what had gone before as well — Hagar insulting her, and boasting herself against her mistress. What could be more galling than that to a free and honorable woman?

So a wife should not wait for her husband’s virtue before showing her own, for that is nothing great. Nor, on the other hand, should the husband wait for his wife’s obedience before showing mastery of himself, for then it would no longer be his own good deed. Instead, as I said, let each supply his own share first. For if, when the pagans strike us on the right cheek, we must turn the other, much more ought a wife to bear harsh behavior in a husband. [ac]

And I do not say this so that a wife may be beaten. Far from it! That is the worst of disgraces — not for the woman who is beaten, but for the man who beats her. But even if by some misfortune such a partner has fallen to your lot, do not take it badly, my friend. Think of the reward stored up for such things, and of the praise they win even in this present life.

And to you husbands I say this as well: make it a rule that there can be no offense great enough to force you to strike your wife. And why do I say a wife? A free man could not bear to strike even his maidservant and lay violent hands on her. But if it is a great shame for a man to beat a maidservant, it is much more shameful to raise his right hand against a free woman. You can see this even from the lawgivers of the pagans, who no longer compel a woman who has been treated this way to go on living with the man who beat her, since he is unworthy to share her life.

For surely it is the height of lawlessness when your partner in life — she who is joined to you in the most intimate ways and to the highest degree — is dishonored by you like a worthless slave. That is why I would say that such a man — if we must call him a man, and not rather a wild beast — is like someone who kills his father and murders his mother. For we were commanded to leave even father and mother for a wife’s sake. We do not wrong them by it; we fulfill a divine law, and a law so pleasing to our parents themselves that even they, the very people we are leaving, are grateful and bring it about with great eagerness. What but utter madness can it be, then, to insult the woman for whose sake God told us to leave even our parents?

But we may well ask: is it only madness? There is the shame of it too. I would like to know who can bear it. What words could picture it: shrieks and wailing carried through the lanes, and neighbors and passersby running to the house of the man who is disgracing himself, as though some wild beast were ravaging inside? Better for the earth to split open and swallow a man so frantic than for him ever to be seen in the marketplace after that. [ad]

“But the woman is insolent,” he says. Remember all the same that she is a woman, the weaker vessel, while you are a man. That is why you were appointed ruler and given to her as her head: so that you might bear with the weakness of the one placed under you. Make your rule glorious, then; and it will be glorious when the one under it meets with no dishonor from you. A monarch appears all the more dignified the more dignity he shows in the officer under him; but if he dishonors and belittles the greatness of that rank, he is indirectly cutting away no small part of his own glory as well. So too, if you dishonor the one who governs next to you, you will do no ordinary damage to the honor of your own rule.

Consider all these things, then, and master yourself. And think too of that evening when her father called you and handed his daughter over to you as a kind of trust. He separated her from everyone — from her mother, from himself, from the family — and put her whole keeping into your right hand. Remember that, under God, it is through her that you have children and have become a father, and be gentle toward her for that reason as well. [af]

Do you not see the farmers? Once the earth has received the seed, they tend it with every kind of care, even if it has countless drawbacks — for example, if the soil is unkindly, or grows bad weeds, or is plagued by too much rain because of where it lies. Do the same yourself. That way you will be the first to enjoy both the fruit and the calm. For your wife is both a harbor to you and a powerful medicine to cheer your heart. Well, then: if you keep your harbor free of winds and waves, you will enjoy great calm when you come home from the marketplace; but if you fill it with shouting and uproar, you are only preparing a worse shipwreck for yourself.

To prevent this, then, let what I advise be done. When something unpleasant happens in the household, if she is at fault, comfort her, and do not make the trouble worse. Even if you were to lose everything, nothing is harder than to share your home with a wife who bears you no goodwill. Whatever offense you can name, you will tell me of nothing so painful as being at odds with her. So, if only for reasons like these, let her love be more precious to you than anything. For if we are to bear one another’s burdens, much more our own wife’s.

If she is poor, do not throw it in her face; if she is foolish, do not trample on her, but train her instead, because she is a member of you, and you have become one flesh. “But she is frivolous, and a drunkard, and hot-tempered.” Then you ought to grieve over these things, not be angry; to pray to God, to urge her and advise her, and to do everything to remove the evil. But if you strike her, you make the disease worse; for savagery is cured by calmness, not by matching savagery. [ag]

Along with these things, keep in mind the reward from God as well. When you are allowed to cut her off, and you do not do it, for the fear of God, but bear with such great faults — fearing the law laid down in such matters, which forbids sending away a wife whatever disease she may have — you will receive a reward beyond words. And even before the reward, you will gain a great deal: you will make her more obedient, and you yourself will become gentler through it.

It is said, for example, that one of the pagan philosophers had a bad wife, a frivolous and quarrelsome woman. When he was asked why he put up with her when she was like that, he replied, “So that I may have in my house a school and training ground of philosophy. I will be gentler toward everyone else,” he said, “being trained here every day.” Did you cry out aloud? Why, at this very moment I am deeply grieved, when pagans prove better lovers of wisdom than we are — we who are commanded to imitate the angels, or rather, commanded to follow God himself in gentleness.

But to go on: it is said that this was why the philosopher who had a bad wife did not send her away, and some say this was the very reason he married her. But since many men have dispositions that are not altogether reasonable, my advice is that they first do everything they can, and take care to choose a suitable partner, one full of every virtue. If, however, they should fail in this, and the bride they have brought into the house turns out to be neither good nor bearable, then I would have them at least try to be like this philosopher: to train her in every way, and to consider nothing more important than this.

For a merchant will not launch his ship into the deep, or set his hand to the rest of the business, until he has made an agreement with his partner that can secure peace between them. Let us, then, make every effort that she who is our partner in the business of life, and in this ship of ours, may be kept in complete peace within. For then all our other affairs will be calm too, and we will run our course in quiet across the ocean of this present life. Beside this, let house and slaves and money and lands, and even the business of the state itself, count for less with us. And let it be worth more than everything in our eyes that she who sits at the oars with us should not be in mutiny and at odds with us.

Then our other affairs will go forward with a favoring tide, and in spiritual things too we will find ourselves far freer from hindrance, drawing this yoke in one accord. And having done everything well, we will obtain the blessings stored up for us. May we all attain them, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power and honor, now and always, and forever and ever. Amen.