John Chrysostom
“And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:23). But Christ is not God’s in the same sense in which we are Christ’s. What, then, do these words mean? When I rise, He says, then you will know that I am not separated from the Father, but have the same power, and that I always abide with you. At that time the events themselves will proclaim the help given to you by Me. The enemies will be subdued, you will receive boldness, dangers will disappear, the preaching will flourish each day, and all will yield and submit to the word of piety. “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you” (Jn 20:21). Do you see that here also the same expression does not have the same force? If we take it in one meaning, the Apostles will differ in nothing from Christ.
Read more (985 words)
“All things are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:22-23). What then? Are all things ours, we Christ’s, and Christ God’s in one and the same sense? No. On the contrary, even to the most unreasonable the difference is plain, though one and the same expression is used of God, of Christ, and of us. Elsewhere, having called the husband the head of the wife, he adds: as Christ is the head, Savior, and protector of the Church, so also the husband should be toward his wife (Eph 5:23-27). Can we take all the expressions in one sense, both here and in what was said afterward in the Epistle to the Ephesians on this subject? No, that is impossible. The same expressions are used of God and man, but some must be understood in one way and others in another. Yet not everything is different. They would have been used without cause and in vain if we made no application from them. As not everything must be understood in one sense, so not everything must be regarded as inapplicable. To make this clearer, I will try to explain it by an example. Christ is called the head of the Church. If I make no application from this expression, borrowed from man, why was it said to me? On the other hand, if I apply its whole literal meaning, absurdity will follow. For a head is of the same passions as the body and is subject to the same infirmities. What, then, must be rejected, and what accepted? We must reject what I have mentioned, but accept the perfect union of Christ with the Church, and that He is her Cause and supreme Ruler. Moreover, this must be understood not simply, but in the highest degree and in a manner befitting God. His union is most firm, and His rule most perfect. Again, Christ is called Son. Here again, do not accept everything, yet do not reject everything. Accept what befits God, namely, that He is consubstantial with the Father and is begotten of Him. Do not apply what is improper and belongs to human weakness. Likewise God is called light. Can one apply to Him everything that belongs to visible light? No. Visible light is bounded by darkness and place, is set in motion by another power, and is darkened. In the being of God it is impossible even to conceive anything of this kind. Therefore let us not reject everything, but draw some profit from this likeness. Let us understand the illumination granted to us by God and deliverance from darkness. This is against the heretics. Now we must speak about the whole passage being explained. Someone may perhaps be perplexed and ask himself: what fault would there be if women were uncovered and men covered? You can see the fault from what follows. Many different signs have been given to man and woman: to the one, signs of authority, and to the other, signs of subjection. Among them is this sign, that the woman should be covered, and the man should have his head uncovered. If these are signs, then both sin when they violate good order and the commandment of God. They transgress their own bounds, the man descending to the low estate of the woman, and the woman exalting herself by her outward appearance above the man. If they are not permitted to exchange garments, that is, for the woman to dress in men’s clothing and the man to put on women’s clothing and a veil, then far less is it permitted to exchange these coverings. “A woman shall not wear,” Scripture says, “that which pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment” (Deut 22:5). That was established by men, though afterward confirmed by God. But this comes from nature itself, namely, that the one should be covered and the other not covered. By nature I mean God, because He is the Creator of nature. Therefore if you transgress these boundaries, see how much harm follows. Do not tell me that this transgression is slight. It is great in itself, because it is disobedience. Even if it were slight in itself, it is great because it concerns the sign of great realities. That this sign is great is plain from the fact that it produces good order in the human race, showing the one who rules and the one who is subject in their proper form. The one who acts against this throws everything into confusion. He deprives himself of the gifts of God and degrades the honor given him from above, and this applies not only to the man but also to the woman. For it is a great honor for her to keep her place. Conversely, it is shameful to go beyond her bounds. Therefore the Apostle says of both: “Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor 11:4-5). At that time, as I said, there were men who prophesied, and women who had this gift, such as the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. Of them the Prophet also said of old: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28). The Apostle commands the man to be uncovered not always, but only during prayer. “Every man,” he says, “praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head.” But he commands the woman to be covered always. Therefore, after saying, “Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head,” he does not stop there, but continues: “For that is one and the same as if she were shaven.” If being shaven is always shameful, then it is evident that being uncovered is also always shameful.