哥林多前書講道集 第 26 章 第 1/2 段

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Having brought to completion the discourse concerning things sacrificed to idols, as was fitting for him, and having wrought it out most perfectly throughout, he passes on to another matter.

This too was itself a charge, yet not so great a one.

For, as I said before, this I will now also say, that he does not set down all his severe accusations in unbroken succession, but arranging them in the fitting order, he intersperses among them the lighter ones, softening the harshness of the discourse that arises in the hearers from continual rebuke.

Wherefore also he sets down the sharpest of all last, that concerning the resurrection.

But for the present he proceeds to another lighter matter, saying:

Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.

For whenever the sin is acknowledged, he both accuses vehemently and threatens;

but whenever it is doubtful, he first establishes it, and then rebukes;

and the acknowledged sin he heightens, while the disputable one he shows to be acknowledged.

For instance, fornication was an acknowledged sin;

wherefore he had no need to show that it was a sin, but there he established the magnitude of the offence, and carried on his discourse by way of comparison.

Again, going to law before others was indeed a sin, yet not so great a one;

wherefore he both introduced it and established it.

The matter of things sacrificed to idols, again, was disputed, yet was a very great evil;

wherefore he both demonstrates that it is a sin, and heightens it by his discourse.

And whenever he does this, he not only leads them away from the charges, but also brings them on to the contrary virtues.

For neither did he say only that one ought not to commit fornication, but that one ought also to display much holiness.

'Glorify God therefore in your body, and in your spirit.'

And having said again that one ought not to be wise in the outward wisdom, he is not content with this, but bids one even become a fool.

And counselling them not to go to law before the outsiders nor to do wrong, as he proceeds he even does away with going to law altogether, and counsels them not only not to do wrong, but even to suffer wrong.

And discoursing about things sacrificed to idols, he did not say that one ought only to abstain from the forbidden things, but even from the permitted ones, whenever an occasion of stumbling arises;

and that one should strike not the brethren only, but neither the Greeks nor the Jews;

'For be without offence,' he says, 'both to Jews and to Greeks and to the Church of God.'

Having therefore filled up the whole discourse concerning all these matters, after these things he proceeds now to yet another charge.

But what was this? The women were both praying and prophesying uncovered and with the head bare;

for women did prophesy then too;

while the men wore their hair long, as those who had spent their time in philosophy, and covered their heads when praying and prophesying;

each of which was a custom of the Greek law.

Since therefore he had already exhorted them concerning these things when present, and perhaps some obeyed while others disobeyed, for this reason through the Epistle also, like a wise physician, applying his words as a fomentation, he corrects the fault.

For that he had already exhorted them when present is plain from the way he begins.

For why, having said nothing about this anywhere earlier in the Epistle, but coming out of other charges, does he immediately say:

'Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you'? Do you see that some obeyed—those whom he praises—while others disobeyed—those whom he corrects in what follows, saying:

'But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom'? For if, when some had done well and others had disobeyed, he had subjected all to accusation, he would both have made the former more presumptuous and rendered the latter more careless;

but as it is, having praised and approved the one party, and censured the other, he both anointed the former the more and prepared the latter to hide themselves for shame.

For accusation of itself is sufficient to smite;

but whenever it is made by comparison with others who have done well and are being praised, it has a sharper sting.

But for the present he begins not with accusation, but with praises, and with great praises, saying:

'Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.'

For such is Paul's wont: even upon small occasions he weaves great praises, doing this not out of flattery—far from it!

For how could he, who coveted neither money, nor glory, nor any other such thing? but did all for their salvation.

Wherefore also he heightens the praise, saying:

'Now I praise you that you remember me in all things.'

In what sense 'all things'? For so far his discourse to them had been only about not wearing the hair long nor being covered;

but, as I said, he lavishes his praises, making them more eager.

Wherefore he says, 'That you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you.'

So then he was even delivering many things unwritten at that time, which he also declares in many other places.

But at that former point he merely delivered the injunction, whereas now he also sets down the reason for it.

For in this way he both made his hearers stronger, and pulled down the arrogance of those who set themselves in opposition.

Then he does not say, 'You indeed obeyed, but others disobeyed'; rather, without giving offence, he hints at it through his teaching in what follows, speaking thus:

'But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ;'

'and the head of the woman is the man;'

and he lays it down thus, making the weaker more attentive.

Now the believer who is, as he ought to be, both firm and strong, has no need of reason or explanation for whatever he may be enjoined, but is content with the tradition alone;

but the weaker one, when he has also learned the reason, then holds fast what has been said with greater earnestness, and obeys with much readiness.

For this very reason he did not state the cause until he saw the commandment being transgressed.

What then is the reason? 'The head of every man is Christ.'

Is He then also the head of the Greek? By no means.

For if we are the body of Christ and severally members of it, and in this respect He is our head, He could not be the head of those who are not in the body nor counted among its members;

so that when he says 'of every man,' we must understand him to mean 'of every believer.'

Do you see how everywhere he puts the hearer to shame by starting from above? For when he was discoursing on love, and when on humility, and when on almsgiving, it was from that source that he drew his examples.

'And the head of the woman is the man.'

Here the heretics leap upon us, devising from these words some sort of inferiority for the Son;

but they fall foul of their own argument.

For if the man is the head of the woman, and the head is of one substance with the body, and God is the head of Christ, then the Son is of one substance with the Father.

'But it is not the difference of substance that we mean to prove from this,' says he, 'but that He is under rule.'

What then should we say to this? That above all, when anything lowly is spoken of Him while He is in the flesh, what is said is no disparagement of the Godhead, since it is the economy of the incarnation that admits of the saying.

But nevertheless, tell me, how do you now wish to establish this from that text? 'That just as the man rules over the woman,' he says, 'so also does the Father rule over Christ.'

Then in that case, just as Christ rules over the man, so also does the Father rule over the Son;

'for the head of every man,' he says, 'is Christ.'

And who could ever accept such a conclusion? For if the Son's superiority over us is as great as the Father's over the Son, consider to what depth of meanness you are dragging Him.

So that not everything is to be examined in the same way in our case and in the case of God, even though the same terms be used;

rather, we must assign to God a certain proper pre-eminence, and one as great as befits God.

For if they will not grant this, many absurdities will follow.

God is the head of Christ, and He is the head of the man, and the man of the woman.

Therefore, if we take 'head' in the same sense throughout, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him.

But the woman too will be as far distant from us as we are from God the Word;

and what the Son is in relation to the Father, that also shall we be in relation to the Son, and again the woman in relation to the man.

And who will endure this? But do you understand 'head' differently in the case of the woman and the man, and not as in the case of Christ? Then in the case of the Son and the Father also we must understand it differently.

'And how are we to understand it differently?' he asks.

For indeed, if Paul had been seeking to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward a woman as his example, but rather a slave and a master.

For even though the woman is subject to us, yet it is as a woman, as a free person, and as one of equal honour.

And the Son too, even though He became obedient to the Father, yet it was as the Son of God, as God.

For just as the obedience of the Son toward

the Father is greater than that of men toward those who begot them;

so also is the freedom greater.

For surely it cannot be that the Son's relations toward the Father are greater and more genuine than those of men, while the Father's toward the Son are less.

For if we admire the Son because He obeyed so as even to come unto death, and that the death of the cross, and reckon this as a great marvel in Him;

we ought also to admire the Father, that He begat such a One—not as a slave who is commanded, but as a free one who obeys and is a counsellor;

for the counsellor is no slave.

But again, when you hear 'counsellor,' do not take it as though the Father were in need, but as of the Child being of equal honour with Him who begat Him.

Do not, therefore, drag the example of the man and the woman into every point.

For with us the woman is reasonably made subject to the man;

for equality of honour is wont to breed strife;

and not for this reason only, but also because of the deception which came to pass at the beginning.

For this reason she was not made subject immediately upon being created;

neither when He brought her to the man did she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such thing to her;

but that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, this he said;

yet nowhere did he make mention of rule or subjection to her;

but when she had made an ill use of her authority, and she who had been created a helper was found to be a plotter, and had ruined everything, then at last she rightly hears:

'Thy desire shall be to thy husband.'

For since it was likely that this sin would set our race at war within itself (for that she had come from him would have been no help toward peace, once this had happened;

nay rather, this very fact would have made the man the more harsh, namely that she who had come from him did not even spare her own member);

God, discerning the malice of the devil, set up this word as a bulwark, and by this sentence He did away with the enmity that was likely to arise from the treachery, and, as by a partition-wall, He held back the grudge born of sin by means of the inborn desire.

But in the case of God and of that incorruptible Nature, nothing of the kind can be suspected.

Do not, then, receive the examples as applying in every respect, since elsewhere too many grievous errors will meet you from this course.

For indeed even in the opening of the Epistle he said:

'All things are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.'

What then? Are all things ours in the same way, and we Christ's, and Christ God's? By no means; but even to the exceedingly foolish the difference is plain, though the same expression is used of God and of Christ and of us.

And elsewhere too, having called the man the head of the woman, he added:

'Just as Christ is the head and Saviour and protector of the Church, so also ought the man to be of his own wife.'

Shall we then understand what is here said in the same way—both this and all that follows it, written to the Ephesians concerning this subject? Away with the thought!

For the same words are indeed spoken of God and of men;

but the former must be understood in one way, and the latter in another;

and yet again, not everything is to be taken as utterly different;

since otherwise it will seem to have been introduced at random and to no purpose, we reaping no benefit from these things.

For just as not everything is to be taken alike, so neither is everything to be simply cast aside.

But that what I am saying may become clearer, I will try to make it plain by means of an example.

It has been said: Christ is the head of the Church.

Now if I take nothing from what is human, why has this even been said to me? But again, if I take everything, great absurdity will follow;

for the head is of like nature with the body, and subject to the same conditions.

What then must we set aside, and what must we retain? We must set aside these things which I have mentioned, but retain the perfect union, and the first cause and origin;

and not even these simply, but here too we must conceive of what is greater in a manner drawn from the subject itself and befitting God;

for the union is more secure, and the origin more honourable.

Do not take everything even here, yet neither cast everything away; but having received whatever befits God, that He is of the same essence, that He is from Him, leave upon earth the things that are unfitting and belong to human weakness.

Again, God has been called light;

shall we then accept everything that belongs to this light? By no means;

for there this is enclosed by darkness and by place,

and is moved by another power and is overshadowed;

none of which things is it even lawful to conceive concerning that Essence.

But neither on this account shall we cast everything away; rather we shall pluck something useful also from the example, gathering from it the illumination which comes to us from God, and our deliverance from darkness.

So much, then, against the heretics;

but now we must go through the whole passage in its entirety.

For perhaps someone here might be perplexed, asking within himself: what sort of offence was it for the women to be unveiled, or for the men to be veiled? What sort of offence this is, learn now from what follows.

Many tokens, and diverse, have been given to man and to woman: to the one, of rule; to the other, of subjection;

and along with those, this also: that she should be covered, while he should keep his head bare.

If then these are tokens, both sin by confounding the good order and the ordinance of God, and by overstepping their proper bounds: the man falling into her lowliness, and she rising up against the man through her outward appearance.

For if it is not lawful to exchange one's garment, so neither that she should wrap herself in a cloak, and he in a mantle or a veil;

for it says, The garments of a man shall not be upon a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman's robe;

much more, then, ought not these things to be interchanged.

For those things were enacted as law by men, even though God afterwards ratified them;

but this other is from nature—I mean the being covered and the not being covered.

And when I say nature, I mean God;

for He who fashioned nature is Himself its author.

When, therefore, you overturn these bounds, see how many harmful things come to pass.

And do not tell me this, that the thing sinned in is a small matter;

for it is great, even in itself;

and even if it were small, it would become great, since it is a token of great matters.

And that it is indeed great is plain from this, that it affords such good order to our race, arranging in seemly fashion both the ruler and the ruled.

So that he who transgresses confounds all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honour given him from above—and not the man only, but the woman also.

For to her also it is the greatest honour to preserve her own rank, just as it is a shame to rebel.

Wherefore he has laid down the rule in the case of both.

Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head, dishonours his head;

but every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonours her head.

For there were, as I have said, both men and women who prophesied, and women who at that time possessed this gift, as the daughters of Philip, and others before them and after them;

concerning whom also the prophet spoke long before,

saying, Your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions.

The man, then, he does not always compel to be unveiled, but only when he prays;

For every man, he says, praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head, dishonours his head;

but the woman he commands to be covered continually.

Wherefore also, having said, Every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonours her head,

he did not stop at this point only, but went further, saying:

For it is one and the same thing as being shaven.

But if to be always shaven is shameful, it is quite plain that to be always unveiled is likewise a reproach.

And not even with this was he content only, but again he added, saying that the woman ought to have authority upon her head because of the angels.

He shows that it is not only at the time of prayer, but continually, that she must be veiled.

But in the case of the man he no longer plies the argument about the covering, but that about the hair, thus:

for he forbids him to be covered only then, when he prays, but from wearing long hair he turns him away always.

For this cause, just as in the case of the woman he said, But if she is not covered, let her also be shorn;

so also in the case of the man, that If he wears long hair, it is a dishonour to him.

He did not say, If he is covered, but, If he wears long hair.

Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head.

But, Having anything down over his head—showing that even if he prays with his head bare, yet has long hair, he is equal to one that is covered.

For the hair, he says, is given instead of a covering.

But if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn;

but if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For in his opening words he requires only that she should not have her head bare;

but going on, he hints also at continuance, saying, For it is one and the same thing as being shaven—and that with all care and diligence.

For he did not say merely to be covered, but to be covered completely, so as to be exactly wrapped about on every side.

And by the reduction to an absurdity he puts her to shame, laying hold of the matter vehemently and saying, But if she is not covered, let her also be shorn.

For if you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, he says, cast away also that which is from nature.

But if anyone says, And how can this be a shame to the woman, if she ascends to the glory of the man? we would say this, that she does not ascend, but even falls away from her own honour.

For not to abide within one's own bounds and within the laws appointed by God, but to overstep them, is not increase but diminution.

For just as he who covets the things of others, and seizes what is not his own, has not gained anything more, but is diminished, having lost even what he had—which indeed also happened in paradise;

so also the woman does not gain to herself the nobility of the man, but even loses the comely dignity of the woman.

And her shame comes not from this source only, but also from her covetousness.

Having therefore taken the thing acknowledged to be shameful, and having said, But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, he then lays down his own conclusion, saying, Let her be covered.

And he did not say, 'Let her grow her hair long,' but 'Let her be covered,' laying it down as law that these two things are one, and establishing this from both directions—both from what is customary and from what is contrary to it.

For he says that the covering and the long hair are one and the same thing;

and again, that the woman with shaven head and the woman whose head is bare are the same thing.

'For she is one and the same,' he says, 'as the woman who is shaven.'

But if someone should say, 'How then are they one, seeing that the one has the covering which nature gives, while the other, the shaven woman, has not even this?'—we shall answer that, by her own choice, she too has cast that covering away by keeping her head bare.

But if she is not bare of hair, that belongs to nature, not to her own doing.

So then, the shaven woman has her head bare, and this other woman likewise.

For this reason he entrusted it to nature to cover her, so that, learning this even from nature, she might veil herself.

Then he also sets down a reason—as I have often said—conversing with them as with free men.

What then is the reason? 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God.'

For it is not merely because he has Christ as his head that he ought not to cover his head, he says, but also because he rules over the woman.

For the ruler who approaches the king must bear the symbol of his office.

As therefore none of the rulers would dare to appear without girdle and mantle before him who wears the diadem,

so neither should you pray to God without the symbols of your rule—which is to be uncovered—lest you dishonor both yourself and Him who has honored you.

And one might say the very same thing concerning the woman;

for it is likewise a dishonor to her not to have the symbols of her subjection.

'But the woman is the glory of the man.'

So then the rule of the man is according to nature.

Then, after he has declared this, he sets down yet other arguments and reasons, leading you back to the first creation and speaking thus:

'For man is not from woman, but woman from man.'

And if to be from someone is the glory of him from whom one is, much more is it a glory to bear his likeness.

For indeed the man was not created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man.

This is a second superiority again—nay rather, a third and a fourth.

The first, that Christ is our head, but we are the head of the woman;

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 from us;

the fourth, that we are not for her sake, but she for ours.

'For this cause ought the woman to have authority upon her head.'

'For this cause'—what cause, tell me?

For all these reasons that have been mentioned, he says; nay rather, not for these alone, but also 'because of the angels.'

'You despise your husband,' he says; 'stand in awe of the angels.'

So then, to be covered is a mark of subjection and of authority;

for it prepares one to look downward, and to be reverent, and to preserve one's proper virtue.

For the virtue and honor of one who is ruled is to remain in obedience.

For the man is not compelled to do this;

for he is the image of his Master.

Consider therefore the excess of the transgression, when, having been honored with such great authority, you disgrace yourself by usurping the guise of the woman.

And you do the very same thing as if, having received a diadem, you should cast the diadem from your head, and instead of the diadem put on a slave's garment.

'Nevertheless, neither is man without woman, nor woman without man, in the Lord.'

For since he had given great superiority to the man, saying that the woman is from him, and that she is for his sake and under him—

in order that he might neither exalt the men more than was fitting, nor abase the women, see how he brings in the correction, saying:

'Nevertheless, neither is man without woman, nor woman without man, in the Lord.'

'Do not, I pray,' he says, 'examine only the first things, nor that original creation;'

for if you inquire into what came afterward, each is the cause of the other—nay rather, not even so is each the cause of the other, but God is the cause of all;

wherefore he says, 'Neither is man without woman, nor woman without man, in the Lord.'

'For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman.'

'From the woman,' but again, 'from the man;'

for this very thing still remains intact with the man.

But these good deeds are not of the man, but of God;

wherefore he added, 'But all things are from God.'

If therefore all things are from God, and He commands these things, obey and do not contradict.

'Judge in yourselves: is it fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled?' Again he sets them as judges of what is said, just as he did in the matter of things offered to idols;

for there too he says, 'Judge you what I say;'

and here, 'Judge in yourselves;'

and he here hints at something yet more fearful;

for here he says that the insult passes over to God.

But he does not say so plainly, but rather more gently and somewhat more enigmatically, saying:

'Is it fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him;

but if a woman wears long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her instead of a covering.'

What he always does—laying down arguments drawn from common experience—this he works out here too, taking refuge in common custom, and utterly shaming those who waited to learn from him the very things which it was possible to learn even from common custom;

for such things are not unknown even to barbarians.

And observe how everywhere he uses striking, forceful expressions.

'Every man praying, having his head covered, dishonors his head;'

and again, 'But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered;'

and here again, 'If a man wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him;'

'but if a woman wears long hair, it is a glory to her, because her hair is given to her instead of a covering.'

'And if it is given instead of a covering,' he says, 'for what reason must she add another covering?'—so that she may confess her subjection not from nature only, but also from her own choice.

For that you must be covered, nature also, taking the lead, has already ordained by law.

Add therefore also what comes from yourself, lest you seem even to overturn the laws of nature;

which is a mark of great effrontery—to wrestle not only against us, but even against nature.

Wherefore also God, reproaching the Jews, said, 'You have slain your sons and your daughters;'

'this over and above all your abominations.'

And Paul again, rebuking those among the Romans who behaved licentiously, thus heightens the accusation, saying that their practice was contrary not only to the law of God, but even to nature itself.

'For they exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature.'

For this reason also he here rehearses this argument, showing both this very thing, and that he is enacting nothing strange, and that among the Greeks all the innovations of that which is against nature had their origin.

So Christ also, showing this, said:

'Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them;'

making it plain that He introduces nothing new.

'to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.'

So then, to oppose these things belongs to contentiousness, and not to reasoning;

yet even so he made the rebuke measured, instilling the greater sense of shame, which indeed made his word the weightier.

'For we,' he says, 'have no such custom,' as to be contentious and to wrangle and to set ourselves in opposition.

And he did not even stop at this, but also added, 'Neither the Churches of God;'

showing that they set themselves against and oppose the whole world, in not yielding.

But even if the Corinthians were contentious at that time, now the whole world has both accepted this law and kept it;

so great is the power of Him who was crucified.

But I fear lest, having accepted the outward form, some of the women be found in their deeds shameless, and in another way unveiled.

For this reason also, when writing to Timothy, Paul was not content with these things, but added others, saying:

'that they adorn themselves in modest apparel, with reverence and sobriety, not with braided hair or gold.'

For if she ought not to have her head bare, but everywhere to carry about the symbol of subjection, much more must she display this through her deeds.

Thus at any rate the women of former times both called their husbands lords, and yielded to them the pre-eminence.

'For those men also,' one says, 'loved their own wives.'

I too know this, and I am not ignorant of it;

but when we exhort you concerning the things that pertain to you, do not look to what belongs to them.

For indeed, when we exhort children to obey their parents, saying that it is written, 'Honour your father and your mother,' they say to us, 'Say also what follows, that You, the parents, provoke not your children;'

and to the servants, when we say that it is written to obey their masters, and not to serve with eye-service, they too in turn demand of us what follows, bidding us give the same exhortation to the masters also.

'For indeed to those also,' he says, 'Paul commanded to forbear threatening.'