Ivan asks
Answered by Alexander Serkov, 01/24/2014

Ivan writes:

"Hello! Please tell me why the Apostle Paul allows Timothy to drink wine? From now on, drink not only water, but use a little wine, for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments (1 Timothy, 5:23).

Peace be with you, Ivan. Yes, such advice. Paul gives Timothy. And what is interesting, this text is here as "insert". Before and after it is a completely different topic. Paul can be understood, this is correspondence, he answers Timothy but what Timothy wrote to him. We do not know all the correspondence, and therefore Pavel's answer seems somehow broken. If we read Paul's letter to Timothy from the very beginning, we find a completely different instruction:

What's the matter? Is Paul contradicting himself? Or does He make an exception for Timothy?

The fact is that in Paul's day, water in the Middle East was often dangerous to drink. Physical illness, such as dysentery, often caused by contaminated water, was common. Therefore, other ways to quench thirst were often suggested.

Some interpreters believe that Paul is here advocating the moderate use of fermented wine for medicinal purposes. They draw attention to the fact that wine has thus been consumed for centuries. But this comment is not justified. Who does not say that he does not have an ailment? Everyone will justify their drinking with illness. And here everyone will have their own measure of moderation. And everyone started with this seduction: "for appetite", "for health", and then "for health!" And it ends with friends drinking near his grave: "for the rest."

Many commentators are of the opinion that Paul is referring to unfermented grape juice (which used to be called wine). But the question is in this case: why advise what is allowed. And what, you can advise only unauthorized and harmful to health? It is very useful, for example, to drink grape juice mixed with a fresh chicken egg. Honey is useful, grape juice is also useful. And Paul advises Timothy to use grape juice, or rather, mix it with water, making a grape drink instead of water.

Sincerely, Alexander Serkov

Read more on the topic "Interpretation of Scripture":

Trees appeared on Earth before man. In the process of evolution, various rudiments remained from the tree to man. So, for example, a head with hair is a fibrous root, a body is a trunk, and the upper and lower limbs- branches of an unwinding spiral, crown-crown of a tree. (But not the head with the body and limbs - rudiments, but the "feeding" members of the hairiness on the head, under the armpits and in the groins). In human reproductive limbs, fruits and seeds ripen in this crown. But it is surprising that the tree with its roots found a source in the earth, and a person, as it were, is nourished from heaven with symbolic roots-hair. It would seem that he does not need to look for heavenly nipples, his mouth already has teeth, and a person will find food for himself on earth. But not by bread alone, as they say... A single heavenly Generator generates thoughts and words in a person's brains. Thoughts, desires and their implementation. Apparently, this is why a person is called the image of God, because he is His obedient receiver. Esotericists who have rebounded are trying to grow longer hair on their heads, because they consider them to be antennas that connect with heavenly teachers. Yes, and many Orthodox priests do not shave or cut their hair, imitating the Levites and Nazirites, remembering the biblical Samson, whose irresistible strength was in his hair. And indeed, there seems to be a connection here: will, hair-hair and power - the root is one and the same. But God does not look at rudimentary tinsel and descends full-fledged thoughts into precious vessels, and unenviable containers feed on frivolity. In the biblical priesthood, allegorical hair means spirituality, not eating, fasting, which gradually develops according to the Bible from seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27). The Lord Himself said: MY STRENGTH IS MADE IN WEAKNESS (2 Corinthians 12:9) And Christ speaks of the same thing, but in somewhat different words: THE TIME WILL COME AND IT IS NOW WHEN TRUE WORSHIP WILL WORSHIP THE FATHER IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH, FOR THE FATHER IS LOOKING FOR SUCH WORSHIPERS YOURSELF (John 4:23). Worshipers in Spirit and truth are, first of all, imitators of God, who does not eat himself, but feeds everyone.
However, it is time to move on to question asked in the title of the article, if not for one but. Hair strands I would like to represent in the form of numbers - so they are more tangible.
The Russian language is rich in numerical display of limits. At the head - the beginning, the beginning, the stash, the authorities or the pier, from which everything begins. Everything ends with extremities - the Ocean, FIRE, the all-seeing OK, WINDOW, HORSES and SKATES, which are, as it were, a continuation, the tail of a horseman and a skater, a ridge on the roof is also the end, the completion of the structure. The ring, fetters, horseshoes, bell, outskirts, nonsense, wheel, rut, pricklyness - also, apparently, from the series of the end, followed by the beginning again. There are ends in which a seven or a week is embedded - these are copies from the phase of the moon and the term of human and any life: seed, family, death, measure, sea, haze, mortuary, stench, dusk, courage, laughter, confusion, smog, gray hair , seat, court ... Winter is also a mutilated seven, but you can slightly fix it if you substitute a deaf C: sima instead of Z. Yes, the Gospel also equates them, Sabbath, the seventh day, and winter (Matthew 24:20). Then spring is a modified figure eight, or it's the same as a two, because the movement of a seed from dormancy begins with a two. And how many distortions of the seven are in the extremities or outskirts of the head: mouths, mustaches, ears, eyes, tongue-yasyk ... Mouths are associated with river mouths, deltoid mustaches too, but what seas should human speeches and sayings flow into? They must fall into the ears of the other person. And a beard, too, along with a mustache. The beard belongs to the same-root family of words: scolding, harrow, furrow, straight, dispute, collection, boron, shore, brother, marriage, gap, nonsense - in short, there is unity and struggle of opposites. As Christ says: not the world, but the sword (Matthew 10:34). Or rather, both. Christ is unequivocal because the time has come to reforge plowshares into swords. A smashing sword is always the edge, the finish, the final, the cross, and the beginning is the edge. The battle ends in peace, the harrow, like the plow, with a furrow, and the furrow, again, with a harrow. Banks - edges, edges and boundaries of the channel. Brother is your opposite, your end. Gap - the end in a certain stronghold and defense. Marriage is the end of loneliness. A beard, like a wart, like a green forest, a certain edge of the head, skin, earth. HOW WELL AND HOW PLEASANT IS THE BROTHERS TO LIVE TOGETHER! THIS IS LIKE A PRECIOUS OIL ON THE HEAD DRINKING ON THE BEARD, AARON'S BEARD DRINKING ON THE hem OF HIS CLOTHING (Psalms 133:1-2). The hair that is on the head is the starting limit of the eight or two, and the mustache and beard, as well as the edges of the clothes, are the ends, sevens (and ones, like an unhatched seed). When beginnings meet ends, it's like brothers. BE WISE LIKE SNAKE AND SIMPLE LIKE DOVE (Matthew 10:16), and the beginnings and endings are just like that, if together. But unity is desirable not only among brothers, but also among husband and wife. A MAN LEAVES HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND CLEANS TO HIS WIFE AND THEY SHALL BE TWO ONE FLESH. THIS MYSTERY IS GREAT; I TALK IN RELATION TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH (Ephesians 5:31-32). Since the speech is translated to the church body, it is better to speak not about husband and wife, but to use other terms: masculine and feminine. The masculine principle is the head, and the feminine, in order to shorten the members of the body for brevity, say, the tail. In the head - the ossified, taught, experienced part of the flock, in the tail - neophytes. That is, not necessarily only men can be at the head of the church, because serious spiritual gifts, such as prophecy, can also be possessed by women. The Apostle Paul showed us the hierarchical chain of subordination: the head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). Blessed is the wife who listens to her husband, she has something to rely on, but a man who denies God is, alas, headless, reckless. But a husband without a wife is also flawed, like a seed that has not sprouted into a tree. After all, a tree is a genealogy, branching, developed branches: father, sons, daughters, grandchildren. When the head is in the singular, its attributes are to think, to express a thought, to see, to hear, well, maybe, some more. But when the “tail” grows, the head can move, turn thoughts into deeds with the help of hands, arouse love and multiply. When a husband and wife are one, it is like a small church with a sacrament, which is sometimes called communion, sometimes the Eucharist, sometimes the breaking of bread.

* * *
We drink wine and break bread
And our reflections in the Moscow River

Light is refracted. This is excited for us And the birds and mosquitoes report.
Our path together is neither sinful nor holy.
Let's make a dreamy deal with you
That we will turn not into dust, but into light
And in new reflections we will refract.
(Inna Lisnyanskaya, At the last picnic).

* * *
Gently sweeps in May spring
The smell of bird cherry, the smell of lilac.
Wandering love golden time
And the nightingales sing again until the morning.

Trills of hugs and trills of kisses
The Angel of Heaven whispers Hallelujah to us.
The night spills intoxicating "wine"
Drink lovers, drink it!

Drink Spring's mischievous fun,
Drink for joy - there will be no hangover.
Full measure, full cup,
God is pleased with our communion.

Drink in the spring. Given by love
May mischievous - young wine.
(Alexander Krylov, Communion)

* * *
We break light / this is how bread is broken /
And we divide it into two and the darkness as brothers:
I - take away the night: in unnecessary junk
Love, dreams, poems are easier to deal with.
A white day for you - for various good deeds,
For joys and meetings, doubts and good luck.
We refract light. You accept the day.
I'm taking the darkness. And - nothing else.
(Galina Samoilova, Refraction)

In the last poem, it is successfully shown that the imperfect part of the spectrum of colors of refracted light falls on the feminine principle, and the perfect part falls on the masculine principle. This axiom also applies to the church body. THE LORD ENTERED LEVI'S DYERY. HE TAKEN SEVENTY-TWO PAINTS, HE THROWED THEM INTO THE VAT. HE PULLED THEM ALL WHITE AND SAID, "LIKE THIS, VERY THE SON OF MAN COME AS A DYER." This seemingly indigestible parable from the Gospel of Philip is actually simply deciphered. It is tied to similar other numbers of Scripture - to seventy, and according to other manuscripts, to seventy-two disciples of Jesus, to seventy weeks of the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27), to seventy times seventy patience preached by Christ (Matthew 18:22), seventy times seventy vengeance for the murder of Lamech (Genesis 4:24). The Levites' dye house is a church body whose members' importance depends on the length of the fast. The one who has accumulated more weeks of patience, manna from heaven, has more impressive spiritual gifts and he belongs to the head of the church, to the masculine principle, whoever has collected less, are considered to be the tail, to the feminine principle. The colors thrown into the vat are a scattered set of collected weeks of fasting, and the white ones taken out are the longed-for unity, the seed that Noah was saved. That is why, instead of the seventy covered sins of Lamech, the number seventy-two sometimes pops up in the Scriptures - as the righteous surviving seed of a broken tree, as a remnant into eternity. This is how the poet interprets the transformation of the seven loaves into the remainder, the seven baskets.
Not enough, Teacher, not enough! Not enough for everyone!
The crowd swayed like rye at sunset
And every seeker was hungry.
God,
Help - there is not enough food in the baskets,
Not enough love, time, money,
Faith, memory, strength, dreams,
Will, mind, tenderness, beauty,
No seats, no tickets, no way out
And the crowd is driven by thirst and profit,
How to divide small into many -
Arithmetic is miserable - you need God.
Everyone needs a handful of miracles
The saints were torn to pieces
Sold by weight in stores...
He sighed, nodded and said "bring the baskets"
(Victoria Susanina, Breaking bread)

But let us return again to the hair as links, strands, orders, hierarchies of the church body. The hair on the head of the masculine principle is the roots that nourish the body from the outside, from Christ. Eyebrows, mustaches and beards are those strands that are designed to nourish the feminine, to nourish the body inside. In turn, the feminine also fluffed out her hair towards the masculine in order to vampire and eat him. (To eat is a rarely used verb from the same-root nouns "capacity", "opening", "pit"). LET SHE NEVER CAPTURE YOU WITH HER EYELASHES, BECAUSE OF THE WIFE THE PRODUCTION IS IMPRESSED TO A PIECE OF BREAD, AND THE WEDDED WIFE CATCHES A DEAR SOUL (Proverbs 6:25-26). In this parable, the natural essence of a woman is expressed - to absorb, absorb any male property and deed. A married woman stimulates and motivates her husband to increase the joint estate, while a harlot only ruins it. It is significant that in this parable the instrument of vampirization is hair and eyelashes. Being a giver, as the highest level of love, is not allowed by nature for a woman - she has neither a beard nor a mustache. Brows? Yes, and she plucks those. True, a woman has nursing nipples, but they are selfish, they feed only their continuation, an elongated tail.
But isn't it time to call me a schizophrenic? What am I giving some mystical meaning to hair? But if over me, then over the prophets Isaiah (15:2-9) and Jeremiah (48:37-47) you can show off. They describe a shorn head and a shaved beard as a catastrophe, an apocalypse. Of course, this is a parable. It can be said that everyone cuts their hair and shave their beards and without any consequences. But the prophets speak of a spiritual meaning. A church that does not fast, or fasts with a lighter, unbiblical fast, fails, becomes the property of a mammon and a treasury of vices. However, in the literal sense, the prophetic parable is true: let's cut the roots and crown of a tree, and what is the result? - log!
The Lord Himself teaches the prophet Ezekiel in the parable of manipulating hair (5:1-3). The hair divided into three parts is the three covenants based on the sum of the fasts: the old covenant of weeks, the new covenant of seven weeks, the eternal covenant of seventy weeks. Why do I sound under the hair of the week of the prophet Daniel? Because Ezekiel, alluding to the besieged Jerusalem (Ezekiel 5:2), refers us to the siege of Jerusalem and its catastrophe in the numerical expression of fasting - this is how the parable is deciphered (Daniel 9:24-27). The goal of Jerusalem, as a church, is to be saved from the fire, the knife and the dust of sin by tying in the skirts and edges of clothes (Ezekiel 5:3) - that is, through the ovary of life, bud, seed. Remember Noah again! Remember the fig tree that puts out its leaves (Matthew 24:32)! And why do I lay out the weeks, adjusting to Daniel, solving the problem, looking ahead of time in response? I am forced to do this by the parable of Ezekiel, calling the scales as a measure (Ezekiel 5: 1), and only sevens show the true weight - these measures, the heights of fasting, on which the will of God is done (Isaiah 58: 6-14)! Other measures are wrong: "WHY DO WE FAST AND YOU DON'T SEE? WE HUMILATE OUR SOULS AND YOU DON'T KNOW?" - LOOK, ON YOUR FAST DAY YOU DO YOUR WILL AND REQUIRE HARD WORK FROM OTHERS (Isaiah 58:3).
Fasting in itself is productive, but it is even more enhanced by prayer. AND THEY SAID TO EACH OTHER: DID NOT OUR HEART BURN IN US WHEN HE SPEAKED TO US ON THE ROAD AND WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE SCRIPTURE TO US? (Luke 24:32). The atmosphere of burning, inspiration, ecstasy is forged by invocative hymns, hymns of thanksgiving, sermons, repentances, reading from Scripture and its interpretation, as if by the voice of God. WHEN YOU GET TOGETHER, MAY ONE OF YOU HAVE A HYMN, ANOTHER HAVE A SERMON, SOMEONE HAS A REVELATION FROM GOD, SOMEONE HAS A MESSAGE IN TONGUES, SOMEONE HAS AN INTERPRETATION (1 Corinthians 14:26, translation by V.N. . Kuznetsova). The Qur'an also requires frequent invocation of God, mention and glorification (Quran 33:41).
But now the time has certainly come to sum up and answer the question of why a woman needs to be covered. Again, I recall the hierarchical chain named by Paul: the head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, the head of Christ is God. And in this chain, the perfect is the patron of the less perfect. In Russia, landowners, governors and other respectable persons have always been considered patrons and benefactors. And even today, in the hierarchical chain, the elder leads, instructs, edifies, provides for the younger, less perfect, and if circumstances require, he makes a stick. It is not for nothing that the verb “cover” has a more intimate meaning - to happen to a male with a female. But the coating does not always mean an amorphous unity, a mixture of milk and water, as if married milk. In order for there to be the necessary difference in potentials, carving out love, mercy, grace, a veil is needed between them, a partition, subordination, signs of distinction. This visible or invisible barrier always exists between a boss and a subordinate, between a seller and a buyer, between members of an organism, between states, between national mentalities, between religions. Even light, uniting with darkness at dusk, separates from it at dawn.

I'm watching a chicken
Bones covered with
Flesh covered
Skin covered with
plumage hidden under
The shell of an egg hidden in
The womb of a chicken

I remember me
A baby hidden behind
A child hidden behind
A teenage girl hidden behind
A young girl hidden behind
woman

I open it
Hidden under one
Hidden under the second
Hidden under the third
Hidden under the fourth
Hidden…

(Rita Pizhma, Hidden)

If this partition is removed, chaos, disorder, lawlessness, immorality begin. Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, at a time when they still believed that communism would be built, removed the partition between the cashier and the workers standing in line for wages: take the money you earned yourself! Alas, this innovation had to be canceled urgently.
Now let's go directly to the words of the Apostle Paul about the prohibition of a woman to stay in church with her head uncovered: ANY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHETIES WITH AN OPEN HEAD SHAMES HER HEAD (1 Corinthians 11:5) and the prohibition of a man to stay in church with his head covered: EVERY HUSBAND, PRAYING OR PROPHETIC WITH HEAD COVERED. SHAMES HIS HEAD (1 Corinthians 11:4). Why such a difference, why double standards when everyone has a patron in the hierarchical ladder?
I already wrote that there are a lot of ways to patronize, cover, overlap, hide. And I can add: the roof covers the house; bridges, dams, freezing - rivers; gray hair, a hat, a crown cover the head, a car tire covers a more delicate and vulnerable rubber chamber, the surface of the wall is covered with plaster, whitewash, wallpaper, etc. Washing with water is also one of the ways of covering, patronizing, cleansing. When Christ washes the lower limbs of the disciples and teaches them to do the same, this is an allegorical sign of forgiveness, an allusion to Daniel's seventy weeks of fasting: the crime is covered, sins are sealed, iniquities are blotted out (Daniel 9:24). Sedmina is a head that does not need washing, it is already clean. Seventy weeks is the tail of the church body, the feminine principle, the imperfection that must be covered, washed away, so that it also becomes perfect. A legitimate question: why is the one and only more perfect than many seventy? Yes, because the One, our God, is more excellent than any hosts, any multitudes. But when the sacred number seventy again becomes unity, fruit, love, seed, it is a blessing.

We all are one way or another
Wounded by a swift fate
But while one calls and cries -
He speaks to him, bowing, the other:
Brother! May it be revealed to you:
No wound is terrible
If she is carefully washed,
Bandaged and forgiven.
(Dmitry Klenovsky)

Yes, the patronage of Christ to a man and the church is not the same as the patronage of a man to a woman, because in the latter case the patronage is sexual. The monogamous essence of marriage does not allow a woman to have another master and charm and vampire other men with her beauty. WHO LOOKES AT A WOMAN WITH LUSH HAS ALREADY COMMITTED WITH HER IN HIS HEART (Matthew 5:28). And a woman, letting her hair down, demonstrating her passionate funnels and whirlpools, softening speeches, wide open, encouraging eyes ... - however, you can’t list all the female tricks - she introduces not only strangers into temptation, but also defiles herself. You can check with the Koran, here is the same warning: O WIVES OF THE PROPHET! YOU ARE NOT LIKE ANY OTHER WOMAN. IF YOU ARE GOD-FEARING, DO NOT SPEAK TENDERLY, LET YOU BE DESIRED BY THE HEART OF DISEASE, BUT SPEAK IN A WORTHY MANNER (Quran 33:32); O PROPHET! TELL YOUR WIVES, YOUR DAUGHTERS AND WOMEN OF BELIEVING MEN TO LOWER THEIR VEILS ON YOURSELF. SO IT WILL BE EASIER TO RECOGNIZE THEM (DIFFERENT FROM SLAVES AND HARTOS) AND WILL NOT BE OFFENDED (Koran 33:59, Kuliev's translation). Insult here must be understood as defilement, harassment and mental lust. But the apostle Paul, admonishing a woman to cover her head in church, first of all cares about the authority of the church. At Christian love feasts, such ecstasy is heated up that the so-called sinful sin is possible. And the woman's veil in this case is a wall of lawlessness and depravity.
The praying husband also has a veil, but not only symbolic rudimentary hair, but reverence and agape, divine love, and cutting hair and taking off a hat or other headdress before God is the same as taking off your head as a sign of respect: You, Lord, are my guide and shepherd! An inveterate sinner who does not have such strands and connections with God constantly steps on a rake, fills bumps on his forehead, falls into nets and traps.
Now it remains to find out why it is essential for angels to cover women as a subordinate status to a man (1 Corinthians 11:10). Man, woman and child are vessels of different capacity and significance. The Apostle Paul recalls this banal axiom: WHEN I WAS A CHILD, I SPOKED LIKE A CHILD, I THOUGHT AS A CHILD, I REASONED AS A CHILD; AND WHEN I BECAME A HUSBAND, HE LEFT THE CHILD (1 Corinthians 13:11). A woman is also an evolutionarily late branch, just as the moon catches up with the sun, so a woman tries unsuccessfully to reach a man. The prophet Isaiah is horrified when the familiar, traditional hierarchy is turned upside down: THE OPPRESSORS OF MY PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN AND WOMEN DOMINATE THEM. MY PEOPLE! YOUR LEADERS HAVE DESTROYED YOU, AND THE WAY OF YOUR PATHS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED (ISAIAH 3:12). Of course, there are exceptions to the rule: indigo children and women who stop a galloping horse ... However, I will quote this anthem extraordinary woman through the mouth of Nekrasov completely.

There are women in Russian villages
With calm gravity of faces,
With beautiful strength in movements,
With a gait, with the eyes of queens, -
Can't the blind see them?
And the sighted one says about them:
“It will pass - as if the sun will shine!
He will look - he will give a ruble!
They go the same way
What all our people go,
But the dirt of the environment is squalid
They don't seem to stick to them. blooms
Beauty, marvelous to the world,
Blush, slim, tall,
Beautiful in every dress
Dexterity for any work.
And endures hunger and cold,
Always patient, even...
I saw how she mows:
What a wave - then a mop is ready!
The handkerchief fell into her ear,
Look, the braids will fall.
Some guy screwed up
And threw them up, fool!
Heavy blond braids
Fell on a swarthy chest,
Bare feet covered her legs,
They prevent the peasant woman from looking.
She took them away with her hands,
He looks angrily at the guy.
The face is majestic, as in a frame,
Burning with embarrassment and anger...
On weekdays, he does not like idleness.
But you don't recognize her
How the smile of fun will drive away
From the face of the labor seal.
Such heartfelt laughter
And songs and dances
Money can't buy. "Joy!"
The men are talking to each other.
In the game, her equestrian will not catch,
In trouble - he will not fail, he will save;
Stop a galloping horse
Will enter the burning hut!
Beautiful straight teeth
What large pearls she has,
But strictly ruddy lips
Keep their beauty from people -
She rarely smiles...
She has no time to sharpen her hair,
She won't dare a neighbor
Grip, ask for a pot;
She does not feel sorry for the poor beggar -
Feel free to walk without work!
Lies on it rigorously
And the seal of inner strength.
It is clear and strong consciousness,
That all their salvation is in work,
And her work is rewarded:
The family does not struggle in need,
They always have a warm house
The bread is baked, the kvass is delicious,
Healthy and well-fed guys
There is an extra piece for the holiday.
This woman is going to dinner
Before the whole family ahead:
Sits like on a chair, two years old
The baby is on her chest
Next to a six year old son
The elegant uterus leads ...
And to the heart of this picture
To all those who love the Russian people!
(N. Nekrasov)
This blissful picture is beautiful, but it’s a pity that a man is not visible on it, what role is assigned to him? I remember the iron lady Margaret Thatcher, how she charmed and devoured Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev along with the Soviet Union. Of course, I say this with great error and exaggeration. And what about our Russian iron women - Irina Khakamada, Svetlana Goryacheva, Elena Mizulina, Irina Yarovaya? Their fighting qualities are incomparable: anyone will be gagged and the dead will be raised from the coffin to prove their ambitions. I have nothing against these statesmen, I just give a well-known example, which is well known and visible. No matter how militant a woman is, she cannot go further than the selfish character from Pushkin's tale of the fisherman and the fish. This is leveled chicken psychology. Of course, in the church, the role of a woman is not a caricature, she is an important element in the creation of the body of Christ, but nevertheless, the female veil is an unmistakable sign for angels, prophetic spirits, into which vessel a less significant revelation should be “poured”. HE (LORD) IS THE ONE WHO BLESSES YOU, AND THE ANGELS SECOND TO HIM (IN THIS BLESSING) TO BRING YOU FROM THE DARKNESS TO THE LIGHT, - HE IS MERCY AND GOOD TO THE BELIEVERS (Quran 33:43, translation of the Gunpowder).
But effeminacy and masculinity are planned in nature as a constant process of metamorphoses of transition from YIN to YANG and vice versa. Therefore, further, the Apostle Paul softens in a categorical decision on the question of who comes first - an egg or a chicken. FOR AS THE WIFE IS FROM THE HUSBAND, SO IS THE HUSBAND THROUGH THE WIFE; EVERYTHING IS FROM GOD (1 Corinthians 11:12).
In conclusion of my reasoning, I present the opinion of an Orthodox priest and an ambitious feminized woman, Lyubov Ryzhkova, on this matter. In addition to God and Christ in Orthodoxy, it is customary to honor patristic and dignitary persons as fathers and teachers, therefore the hierarchy, as a personified religious elite, does not cut their hair and does not take off their hats before God - the Koran calls this association with the One God partners an unacceptable sin.

Priest Konstantin Parkhomenko About scarves and hats...

- Give the girl a hat.
- Mother, pray calmly ...
- No, listen to me. Either put on a hat, or leave the temple right now.
- Mother, a girl can be in the temple without a headdress.
- And I say - you can not!
- I'm a priest myself, what do you argue.
– Ay-yai-yai… The priest himself, but he doesn’t know this… The priest is called… What will he teach others when he himself doesn’t know anything?..

Such a friendly () conversation took place two years ago in the temple of a small Russian town, in which I ended up by chance.
I had a little daughter with me, and she was without a hat.
Again and again similar situations occur, and some of our readers probably fell into them. In fact, why does a woman put on a headdress before entering the temple? And why do men, on the contrary, take it off?
Let's talk about it today.

This tradition dates back to deep Christian antiquity, namely to apostolic times. At that time, every married, respectable woman, leaving the house, covered her head. The head covering, which, for example, we see on the icons of the Mother of God, testified to the marital status of a woman. This head covering meant that she was not free, that she belonged to her husband. To “bare the crown” of a woman or let her hair down was to humiliate or punish her (see Isaiah 3:17); cf. Numbers 5:18). Harlots and vicious women showed their special occupation by not covering their heads.
The husband had the right to divorce his wife without returning her dowry, if she appeared on the street with bare hair, this was considered an insult to her husband.
Girls and girls did not cover their heads, I repeat once again, because the veil was a sign of the special status of a married woman.
So, at home, a married woman took off her veil, leaving the house, be sure to put it on.

Men, leaving the house, could not cover their heads. In any case, if they were covered on the street, it was from the heat, and not because it was supposed to be so. During worship, the Jews also did not cover their heads, with the exception of special cases. So, for example, they covered their heads during fasting or mourning. Those who were excommunicated from the synagogue and lepers were also required to cover their heads.

Now imagine the situation: the Apostles herald the advent of new times. The former has passed, the world has approached the line beyond which everything new will begin! People who have accepted Christ as their Savior are experiencing a truly revolutionary mood. It is not surprising in such a state to reject the old, the former and strive for the new. This is what happened among the Christians of Corinth. Many of them are beginning to teach that traditional forms of behavior and propriety must be abolished. On this occasion Ap. Paul expresses his opinion and says that such disputes are extremely harmful, because they discredit Christians in the eyes of others. Christians appear to outsiders of the Church as brawlers, violators of generally accepted decency and norms of behavior. In order to confirm his words, the Apostle Paul, as he loves and does very often, unfolds a whole theological proof that it is not necessary to violate the accepted norms of behavior. First, let's read the passage in which Paul speaks on this subject.
And then I will take one or two lines and comment. Thus, we will analyze the text more or less thoroughly.

1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2. I praise you, brethren, that you remember everything of mine and keep the traditions as I gave you.
3. I also want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, the husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of Christ.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head.
5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved.
6. For if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself.
7. Therefore, the husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband.
8. For the husband is not from the wife, but the wife is from the husband;
9. And the husband was not made for the wife, but the wife for the husband.
10. Therefore, a woman must have on her head a sign of authority over her, for the angels.
11. But neither a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord.
12. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God.
13. Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a husband grows his hair, then this is a dishonor for him,
15. But if a woman grows her hair, is it an honor for her, since hair is given to her as a covering?
16. And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the church of God.
17. But, offering this, I do not praise you that you are going not for the best, but for the worst.
18. For, firstly, I hear that when you are going to church, there are divisions among you, which I partly believe.
19. For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the crafty ones may be revealed among you (1 Corinthians 11:1-19).

Let's take a closer look at this snippet:

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you, brethren, that you remember everything of mine and keep the traditions just as I conveyed to you.
Ap. Pavel traditionally praises his addressees. Even if they are guilty, the Apostle never begins with reproaches, with criticism. He speaks kind words, in the light of which the guilty should be ashamed that they do not live up to the expectations of the great Paul.
About what legends that people hold, says Paul? Most likely, about the fact that Christians should not go into conflict with the outside world and with non-Christians. “If it is possible for you, be at peace with all people” (Romans 12:18) is the favorite advice of St. Paul, which he often reminds Christians.

I also want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is– husband, but head of Christ– God.
We said above that covering a woman's head meant that she - married She is subject to her husband. That is, the scarf on her head was a sign that she had a husband over her.
His argumentation Ap. Pavel unfolds and draws a whole chain of subordination. He wants to convince readers that everything in the world is subject to laws, permeated with hierarchy. And there is no need to cancel what exists and serves the cause of harmony and order. It should be noted that in general Ap. Paul respects the law, legality and never calls Christians to revolts, disobedience, extravagant actions.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head.
It is not entirely clear what A.P. means. Paul. Perhaps he is hinting that a man who was excommunicated, devoted to heremu(Jewish anathema) for grave sins?

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved.
A “shaven” woman is a woman put to shame for some kind of crime. It is strange for Paul to hear that some women in Christian congregations take off their headscarves. Why did they do it? Do you remember how Christians liked to address each other? Brother, sister. We are all close and dear, spiritual relatives. Christ Himself regarded the disciples as His family. The gospel tells a shocking story. One day Jesus was teaching as usual. “And someone said to Him: Behold, Your mother and Your brothers stand outside, desiring to speak with You. And he said in answer to the speaker: who is my mother? and who are my brothers? And, pointing with his hand to his disciples, he said: here are my mother and my brothers; for whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother ”(Matt. 12, 47-50).
We must remember how important family ties were in the East, how much family and relatives meant in order to understand the shocking radicalism of Christ's words. He expands His family to all who become His disciples...
That's why Christians liked to call each other brother and sister, therefore we affectionately call priests father, father, and honorable elderly parishioners we magnify mother. The Christian community is your family! And in the family with their, a woman could not cover her head, she covered it when she went out tostranger, outside.
This is why some Corinthian Christian women took off their headscarf when they entered the congregation.

But Ap. Paul doesn't think this is a good idea. After all, people around will not delve into the theological subtleties of the relationship between members of the Christian community. They will gossip and scoff. Here Christians gather in the evening for prayer. They shut the doors (the uninitiated were not allowed into the assembly), perform divine services there, which they themselves call agapes– supper of love. What are they doing there behind closed doors, at love parties, if even their women, like in a family or like market harlots, do not cover their heads?
We know about the many slanders and slanders that were spread about Christians in the first centuries. It is possible that the Christian women of Corinth, taking off their head coverings, also gave rise to all sorts of obscene gossip about Christians.

For if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself.
The Apostle Paul loved (he had such a rhetorical device) to bring his thoughts to the end, to think through to the end, sometimes caricatured. Writes somehow Ap. Paul on the controversy over circumcision. Oh, he says, how embarrassing you are about this topic, oh how much you are disturbed by some who call for Christians to be circumcised. They talk about it so much, consider it so important, that even then let them immediately all cut off...
So here. If a woman does not want to cover her head, let her shave her head.
It is clear that Ap. Paul said this jokingly, and did not actually give such advice. His task was to convince the women that removing the head covering in worship is as stupid as shaving your head.

So the husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband. For the husband is not from the wife, but the wife is from the husband; and the husband was not made for the wife, but the wife for the husband.
Another rhetorical device of St. Paul - to prove your point with different examples. Through this, his thought received new reinforcement and persuasiveness.
Here, too, in order to once again motivate the need for a woman to cover her head, the Apostle recalls the episode with Moses. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, from God, his face shone so much that he put a veil over it (Ex., 34th chapter). That's it, says Ap. Paul, and in our world. A woman belongs to her husband. She shines with his glory and honor and must protect this radiance under a chaste veil. This radiance should not be revealed to strangers, but only to one's family.

Therefore, the wife must have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels.
It is not entirely clear that Ap. Paul means. Maybe that story from the book of Genesis, that the fallen angels were seduced by the beauty of women and began to take them as their wives? Remember this episode: “When people began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, then the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, and took them as their wife, which one they chose” (Gen. 6, 1-2) ... This , according to the story of the Bible, led to the birth of giant people, the wrath of God and the flood.
Perhaps the Apostle Paul means that by covering her face for strangers, a woman is insured against the trouble that a demon will like her?
There are other assumptions here, but it is still not known what exactly Ap meant. Paul.

However, neither a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet– from God.
Ap. Paul softens. Too much he "pressed" on Christian women, he was too strict. Therefore, he says that everyone should live in respect and love and not dominate anyone.
In the end, the Apostle gives no longer theological, but "natural" arguments in defense of the fact that a woman should cover her head. After all, God gives her long hair. Is it not clear that this is so that she can cover her nakedness:
Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn't nature itself teach you that if a husband grows his hair, then this is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows her hair, it is an honor for her, since the hair is given to her instead of a cover?

This passage ends with a very important addition. Read it carefully:
And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the church of God. But in offering this, I do not praise you that you are going not for the best, but for the worst. For, firstly, I hear that when you are going to church, there are divisions between you, which I partly believe. For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the skilled ones may be revealed among you.
The apostle says that there is no need to argue, to introduce some extravagant innovations: if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the church of God. There is no such custom - to argue and dictate your opinions to the Church! However, at the end of Ap. Paul says that it is quite acceptable to raise and peacefully discuss some issues. Perhaps then a more skillful and persuasive orator will be able to prove his point.

And now that we have parsed this text, let's pose a series of questions and answer them:

Does the wearing of a head covering by a woman have a Christian basis?
No, this is a common Eastern tradition that was adopted in the time of Ap. Paul. So that Christians do not "scandalize" society, do not seem to be troublemakers and violators of public decorum, says Ap. Paul, they should follow this custom.

Ap himself. Does Paul think it's necessary?
Undoubtedly. Ap. Pavel, perhaps, as a man of his time and culture, considered this to be very important. That is why the Apostle defends this tradition so ardently, again and again citing various arguments.
On the other hand, let's not exaggerate for Ap himself. Paul's meaning of this tradition. Of all his Epistles (and there are 14 of them), the Apostle touches on this issue only once and once. Perhaps because the behavior of the Christian women of Corinth caused some scandals in the city or discord in the Church itself. Generally Ap. Paul pays very little attention to rituals and traditions, putting questions of faith and moral life in the first place.

In fact, the arguments of Ap. Paul, do they decisively and fundamentally prove the importance of Christians wearing head coverings?
Hand on heart, we can say that none of the arguments of Ap. Paul has no fundamental theological weight and importance. If someone thinks otherwise, then let him remember that the Church parted very easily, for example, with that statement of St. Paul that a man should not cover his head during prayer. For the laity, it remains in force, but the clergy cover their heads during prayer with skull caps, kamilavkas, miters, hoods, etc. In fact, all the arguments of the Apostle are arguments that appeal to tradition, customs, and not to fundamental things that have relation to faith and salvation.

How, proceeding from this, should a pious Christian act?
It is commendable that in Russia the pious custom is preserved for a woman to pray in church with her head covered. By this, the woman pays respect and reverence to the early Christian church tradition, to the opinion of the Apostle Paul.
However, let's not forget that we are not talking about a female representative in general, but about a married woman. For her, a scarf can be a "status" thing, a sign of her marriage. Or, say, a sign of widowhood or just advanced age. Girls should not be required to cover their heads.
At the same time, a woman should not treat the head covering as something fundamental for faith and spiritual life. No "repressions" can be applied to those whose heads are not covered. It is impossible to excommunicate from Communion, not to be allowed into the temple, and so on. Christians should understand that a headscarf on a woman's head is just a tribute to an ancient Eastern custom, nothing more.

Today our grandmothers would make this girl wear a scarf. But at a time when people understood “what and how it really should be”, such excesses did not arise.
If anyone is interested, two words about braids:
The girl's hair was cut. When she became a girl, that is, she moved to another status group, the girl was braided with one braid. This braid was a symbol of her girlhood, the girl took care of the braid, looked after her. There were many sayings on this topic, for example: “The braid is a girl’s beauty”, etc. On the eve of marriage, the braid was untwisted. In some regions of Russia, the braid was cut, in some it was simply combed with special ritual songs and lamentations. The bridesmaids usually untwisted.
Then she was plaited with two braids, which she henceforth had to wear. These braids were laid around the head. A married woman could not wear one braid, it was indecent.
The scythe was cut off to the girl if she fell into fornication and lost her girlhood.
Also, the braid was cut off during monastic tonsure.

Pay attention to the girl who is holding the child. She didn't cover her head either. One braid indicates that we have a girl in front of us, perhaps the baby’s nanny (or maybe a godmother? But the godmother would have dressed better).

And the last question: How should one relate to the fact that not only in the West, but also in many Orthodox Local Churches (Greek, Serbian, etc.) women do not cover their heads in church?
In eastern countries, mainly in the Balkans, there really was a tradition for women not to cover their heads in church. The Greek clergy told me that this tradition comes from the time when Greece and the Balkans were ruled by the Turks. Turkish women very strictly observe all these customs of covering the head. Greek women, in defiance of them, took off their headscarves in the temple, asserting other standards of behavior.
Like it or not, I do not know, but in any case, their traditions are their traditions. No one will forbid a Russian woman, if she wants to comply with the spiritual tradition adopted in her homeland, to wear a headscarf at the entrance to the temple.
In the same way, we should treat other cultures without condemnation.

Lyubov Ryzhkova Covered head.

I suggest that those who wish to reflect on the topic of covering the chapter (head) in terms of ancient and modern times. I say right away that these are just reflections, and not theological research. It is probably not a secret for anyone that over such a long period of time, many concepts have changed and do not have their original meaning, especially when you consider that the culture of the ancient peoples to whom the New Testament epistles were intended is fundamentally different from the modern culture of our peoples.
Let's start with the fact that not a single inhabitant of the east could do without hats due to the hot climate, the lack of high-speed vehicles and banal umbrellas. Therefore, both men and women covered their heads with massive turbans and multi-layered bedspreads, which served not only to shelter from the heat, but also from the cold at night. And from this point of view, if the wife did not have a veil, it could mean that the husband was not able to take care of his wife, and this was a shame for him. The Eastern mentality meant the dependence of a woman on the man of her family, not necessarily her husband (in the absence of one), in material and moral terms. The man had the duty of caring for the woman, and the woman had the duty of submission. And this was not a purely Christian institution, but passed into Christianity from the culture of the peoples, mainly from Israel. 1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Next, consider moral primacy. If a person does not obey anyone, then he is his own head - the head, i.e. lives by his own mind, and (hence) takes care of himself. In this understanding of the issue, a man could be without a headdress in public places, thus showing his independence. And a woman with her headdress showed her dependence, that there was someone to take care of her and protect her in case of offense, or cover her with care. If suddenly she did not have a head covering, then for her environment this was a reason to worry about her and about a shadow of shame for this for her close man. We see the commandment in many religions, and not only in Christianity, to take care of the orphan, the widow, the weak and helpless - as if they did not have a guardian, i.e. uncared for. If the wife is not guarded by her husband and in this sense - without covering the head - then according to ancient customs it was a disgrace to her husband, which cannot be said about our time. In addition, the veil hid her hair, as part of a woman's beauty, belonging only to her husband.
Now, about the veil, as a sign for angels. It is naive to think that angels are meant here - spiritual creatures that are not involved in the material world. The meaning of the word angel is a messenger, messenger, evangelist-evangelist. In the latter sense, this word is used in the New Testament, Revelation, the epistle to the seven churches, where the angel is the leader or leader of the church. In this concept, a woman's head covering indicates that she has a patron, including a prayer book for her before God. Therefore it is not written to lift up hands in prayer to wives, but to husbands. And in the Old Testament, therefore, women were not charged with the obligation to come before the face of God (for worship and prayer), but only for men, as responsible for them. And in the churches, it was clear to the leaders by the absence of a headscarf who needed care in order to fulfill the commandment of God. But even married wives were not forbidden to pray or prophesy (not to mention single ones), only to do it covered. The one who prophesied (shcha) did this in turn, edifying the church so that everyone would learn. Given the above, I think that the church could only require a head covering from an unmarried congregation if she was a ward of the church, as a witness to the leadership of the church (angel). And at home, the husband demanded that his wife cover her head, because. he took care of her. But today, many institutions are turned upside down. A woman (both single and married), working hard, is often forced to take care of herself and her family, while also donating to the church. And the church, in response to this, often shamelessly points to her handkerchief, thinking that without it God will not understand the situation, while still commanding her to be silent and obey her husband.
Now the question of long hair requiring coverage. This question is deeper than it seems at first glance. Without lengthy arguments, I will say my personal opinion - long hair should be covered for both men and women, if they are not Nazirites, i.e. not completely dedicated to God.
Why does a man not cover his head before God. Firstly, it was customary for men to have short hair, and for women to have long hair, which is not the case now. Secondly, according to God's decree, he, and not his wife, must work in the sweat of his face and take care of himself and his neighbors, himself, with his head and mind. In this sense, he is not entitled to coverage, or guardianship. And he who does not have guardianship does not have his mark.
If in human relationships, according to God's establishment, the strong must cover the weak with his guardianship, then God in relationships with people covers all His people, regardless of gender, who have left the power of Satan and come under the power of the Heavenly Father. Mat.23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you! How many times have I wanted to gather your children together, as a bird gathers her chicks under her wings, and you did not want to! Ps.90 He who lives under the ROOM of the Most High under the shadow of the Almighty rests, 2 says to the Lord: "My refuge and my protection, my God, in whom I trust!" 3 He will deliver you from the snare of the hunter, from the deadly plague, 4 He will overshadow you with His feathers, and under His wings you will be safe.
New Testament believers who have come under the COVER of the Father receive the sign of the cover on their heads in the form of the grace of the Holy Spirit, symbolically well depicted on the icons of the saints in the form of a halo. God calls all His children to holiness: Be holy, for I am holy. And it does not matter in our daily life a scarf or trousers, but holiness, without which no one will see God. Ksenia of Petersburg, in the feat of foolishness, approached God in the men's clothes of her deceased husband, and we know the result of her life - holiness. This is the main cover of the head of a Christian - from God.
If all these meanings are transferred to the modern mentality and culture, then there should be no questions about the head covering of a married wife, or an unmarried woman, or a girl, or a man. But as it is said, each one act according to the measure of faith that God has given to each. Everything that is not of faith is sin. What is permissible for mature people is not all permissible for small children. And do not condemn someone else's slave, before his Lord he stands or falls, and God is strong to raise him at any moment; and we not to be condemned for it.

This man never communicated with Jesus Christ during his earthly life and was not in the circle of the disciples of the Savior. His biography contains many dark spots and very strange episodes. Why did it happen that it was the apostle Paul who eventually became one of the most revered authors of the New Testament?

In the past, it happened more than once that an ardent opponent of a doctrine subsequently turned into its zealous apologist. But the story of Saul from the city of Tarsus, who later became the apostle Paul, of course, stands apart. First, because the texts he wrote, which became part of the New Testament, became the foundation for all Christian theological thought. And secondly, because he went the way not just from an opponent to a supporter, but from a persecutor and executioner of Christians to a defender of the faith, who was martyred for his beliefs.

Pharisee from Cilicia.

The future apostle was born into a noble family of Pharisees from Tarsus, the main city of Cilicia. From his very birth, he belonged to the elite, because he had the status of a Roman citizen - an honor that not all inhabitants of the imperial provinces could boast of. He was brought up in prosperity, but at the same time with the observance of strict traditions of Pharisaic piety. He received an excellent religious education, knew the Torah well and knew how to interpret it. It seemed that ahead of him was nothing but a successful career.

According to some reports, Saul was even a member of the local Sanhedrin - the highest religious institution, which simultaneously served as a court. It was there that he had to face for the first time the main ideological enemies of the Pharisees at that time - Christians. As befitted a faithful follower of the Pharisees, he actively joined in the persecution.

“This is what I did in Jerusalem: having received power from the chief priests, I imprisoned many saints, and when they killed them, I gave my voice to it; and in all the synagogues I repeatedly tormented them and forced them to blaspheme Jesus, and, in excessive fury against them, persecuted them even in foreign cities,” such words of the future apostle are given in the Acts of the Holy Apostles. One of the most notable episodes was the participation of Saul in the fate of Saint Stephen, who was stoned to death. He himself did not take part in the massacre, but did not try to stop the killers and fully approved of what was happening.

Saul's life changed dramatically on the way to Damascus, where he was leading a group of Christians for punishment. According to tradition, he suddenly heard a voice saying, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?" After that, for three days he was stricken with blindness, which only the Damascus Christian Ananias could heal. This ended the story of the Pharisee Saul and began the thorny path of the Apostle Paul.

Conflict of pillars of faith.

Immediately after his conversion, Paul began to actively preach Christianity. For 14 years he traveled around the world and talked about Christ in Arabia, Syria, Cilicia... After some time, the Apostle Peter arrived in Antioch (the capital of Syria at that time) - the "stone", on which he founded his church. And a serious conflict broke out between the two devout preachers. An amazing thing - the former Pharisee, who had such grave sins behind him, was not afraid to accuse Peter of hypocrisy!

“... he said to Peter in front of everyone: if you, being a Jew, live in a pagan way, and not in a Jewish way, then why do you force the Gentiles to live in a Jewish way?” - Paul himself tells about this in the Epistle to the Galatians. It was about the fact that Peter, preaching, did not always behave sincerely, trying at the same time to arouse the sympathy of the pagans, and not incur condemnation from fellow believers.

It is worth recalling here that Christians at first did not want to accept Paul, mindful of his Pharisees' past. Actually, only the intercession of the apostles Barnabas and Peter helped him become "his" among those whom he subjected to severe persecution just yesterday. And now, “in gratitude,” he accused the eldest among the twelve apostles of hypocrisy! It is astonishing that Paul dared to do such a thing, and that it did not provoke any criticism from Peter.

Paul's behavior is easy to explain. As you know, there is no more ardent fanatic than a neophyte. The enthusiasm of the newly converted Christian had not yet cooled down, and the obstacles that had to be constantly overcome on the path of this ministry only kindled the flame of faith in his soul more hotly. In addition, Paul clearly felt superior to most of the other apostles. Against the backdrop of sincere but inept speeches of fishermen, publicans and wanderers, the sermons of a professional theologian, who was freely versed in the most complex issues of interpretation of the Torah, certainly sounded more convincing and vivid. It is possible that this gave reason to consider himself better versed in matters of faith than his older, but less educated counterparts. That is why he was not afraid to teach, sincerely believing that he knew “how to”.

As for Peter, he was wise enough not to argue with Paul, but to admit that he was right. After all, he, voluntarily or involuntarily, touched on the most painful topic - hypocrisy. Who better than Peter, who denied his Master three times in one night, knew the full power of this sin! Therefore, Peter humbled himself and did not object to Paul's accusations.

Missionary or traitor?

The question of why the cruel Pharisee Saul suddenly turned into the fiery Christian Paul is also interesting. The answer to this is again given by the text of the Acts of the Apostles. When God tells Ananias to go and heal Saul of his blindness, he is so surprised that he even dares to contradict: “Lord! I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.” But the Lord insists, "He is my chosen vessel to proclaim my name before the nations and the kings and the sons of Israel." And Ananias obeys.

For Saul, brought up on the Old Testament principles of "an eye for an eye", the manifestation of mercy is something strange and unusual. It is not known what impressed him more: the manifest power of God or the behavior of Ananias, who, although doubting, nevertheless came and healed the worst enemy of his brothers in faith.

Before the young Pharisee, who thought that he knew in every detail how the world works, a new reality suddenly opened up, built on other, already Christian values. It was this sudden shift in coordinates that caused him to convert to a new faith.

God chose a man like Paul for a reason. Let's look back at his education and training. Now all these abilities have been used for the good of Christianity. That is why the words penetrated into every heart. And that is why he was heard in all parts of the earth, for which he was called "the apostle of the Gentiles."

He could preach twice as effectively as any Christian, because he knew in advance that the Pharisees might object to him. And therefore he emerged victorious from all disputes, thereby further angering his yesterday's associates.

That is why Paul suffered a tragic fate, like other apostles. He could not be forgiven for moving to another camp. The Jews wanted to kill him back in Damascus, right after he started preaching. But this plan failed.

In the end, the decisive word, as in the case with, was said by Roman justice. Paul was executed in Rome, under the emperor Nero. Moreover, as a Roman citizen, he was beheaded, not crucified. But the words he spoke still live on.

In the Apostolic Reading of the 22nd Week after Pentecost, we read the following words of the Apostle Paul: “Those who want to boast according to the flesh force you to be circumcised, only in order not to be persecuted for the Cross of Christ, for even those who are circumcised do not keep the law, but want you to be circumcised.” to boast in your flesh. But I do not want to boast, except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:12-14).

Note that when Paul refers to Christ, he uses the expression "The Cross of Christ." This substitution is common in the language of the apostle. For example, in another place he writes that it was pleasing to God the Father “through Him (Christ) to reconcile everything to Himself, making peace through Him, through the blood of His Cross, both earthly and heavenly” (Col. 1:20). Paul calls the gospel “the word of the Cross,” which “is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). The apostle speaks of "the temptation of the Cross" (see Gal. 5:11), of "enemies of the Cross of Christ" (see Phil. 3:18).

Probably, it would be more convenient for our consciousness if in these verses instead of the word “Cross” the word “Christ” was used: “to boast in Christ”, reconciliation “through Christ”, “enemies of Christ”, “by the blood of Christ”. Then our mind would feel much more comfortable. And really, does the Cross have blood? Why does Scripture testify of the "Blood of the Cross" and not the "Blood of Christ"?

It must be said that a similar way of expressing thoughts is found in ancient rhetoric, where, in order to glorify a person, they exalted parts of his body, attributes of clothing, or anything else related directly to him. Scripture often uses this technique. For example, the prophet Isaiah writes: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the herald of peace” (Isaiah 52:7). Of course, Isaiah praises the evangelist, not his feet. Or, say, in the Gospel of Luke there are words of a certain woman to Christ: “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nursed You!” (Luke 11:27). It is clear that the woman glorifies the mother of Jesus, and not her womb and nipples. Likewise, the words of Scripture to the Cross must be redirected to Christ.

In addition, it must be borne in mind that the Bible is very fond of personifying inanimate objects. For example: “What is the matter with you, the sea, that you ran away, and Jordan with you, that you turned back? Why are you jumping mountains like rams, and you hills like lambs? (Ps. 113:5-6).

However, the text does not only use a literary device. The fact is that after the death and resurrection of Christ, the Cross became a symbol of the crucified Lord Himself.

In the book "The Sword of the Spirit", in an explanation of Gal. 6:14, says, “Here is an admonition for the blasphemers of the Cross. If someone said that the apostle does not boast of the Cross, but of the Lord who was crucified on him, we will answer: this is the glory of the Cross, that it is called by the apostle instead of Christ himself, or serves as a sign of the Crucified Himself, and who worships Cross, he worships Christ through this.

Let's try to unravel this idea. Indeed, the Cross has always been the main symbol of Christianity. But what is a symbol in the Christian sense? In the ancient Greek language, "symbol" meant connection, as well as a means of connecting. A symbol in Christianity is such a means. The symbol reveals the invisible reality through the visible naturalness, expresses the concept of the image and connects us through the image with the prototype. Thus, while worshiping before the Cross, the Orthodox worship the crucified Lord Himself.

The Monk Isaac the Syrian wrote that the Glory of God dwells in the Cross of the Lord, which the ancient Jews called the Shekinah. “The unlimited power of God lives in the Cross, just as she lived in an incomprehensible way in that ark, which the people worshiped with great reverence and fear…. For the Shekinah of God lived in him -<та самая>that lives now in the Cross: she left from there and mysteriously settled in the Cross. Moreover, the power of God dwells in all the inscriptions of the Cross, if only it is depicted precisely as a Christian symbol: “Immediately, as soon as this image is depicted on a wall or on a board, or is made from any type of gold or silver or the like, or is carved from wood , immediately he is clothed in divine power, which<некогда>dwelt there, and is filled with it and becomes the place of the divine Shekinah - even more so than<ковчег>, says Saint Isaac.

The Orthodox worship the Cross as Christ and address it as the Lord because the living power of the living God dwells in the Cross. For example, in the evening prayers we say: “Rejoice, Most Honorable and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, drive away demons by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been cursed upon you… Oh, Most Honorable and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord! Help us with the Holy Lady Virgin Mother of God and with all the saints forever. Amen".

Of course, the Cross is not a living person, and the power that dwells in it is not autonomous. But God arranged it in such a way that His inexpressible power acts in the inscription of the cross, He Himself is mysteriously present in it with His energies. Therefore, “prayer addressed to the Cross of Christ ascends to the Crucified on it; the power that comes from the Cross comes from the Lord Himself.”

It is important to understand that we still do not worship the Cross as God. We worship the God who dwells in the Cross. And we praise not the Cross itself, but Christ crucified on it. So did the apostle Paul, who tells us today: "I do not want to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Let us also note that it is wrong to consider the Cross as an instrument for the murder of Christ, as some do. If Christ had only died on the Cross, then the latter would indeed have been only an instrument of execution. But Christ is risen! In this case, everything changes. Then the Cross becomes an instrument for killing the devil, not Christ! And we rightfully revere the Cross as the great and glorious means of saving the human race.

In the Holy Scriptures there is a concept of a shrine. Holy is that which is set apart for God; through which He works in the human world. Shrines were worshiped - for example, the temple and the ark. Also the greatest sacred thing in the Old Testament was the altar. The Book of Exodus says: "... there will be a great holy altar: everything that touches the altar will be sanctified" (Ex. 29:37). Christ, confirming the great holiness of the altar, said: “Which is greater: a gift or an altar that sanctifies a gift?” (Matthew 23:19). On the Old Testament altar, sacrifices were offered, which were only a type of the great New Testament Sacrifice. The Redemptive Blood of the Savior - the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world - sanctified the New Testament altar, the Cross of the Lord. If the ancient altar was a “great sacred thing,” how much greater is the Holy and Life-Giving Cross, on which the terrible, incomprehensible Sacrifice was offered “for the life of the world” (John: 51)?

Therefore, we praise the Cross, as the apostle Paul did. We bow before him, we kiss him as a great shrine, for we honor Christ crucified on him. On this altar the atoning blood was shed for our sins. On the Cross, God defeated the devil, and from now on, the Cross is the glorious banner of our victory, which we cannot but revere, because we love the Lord, carefully read the Holy Scriptures and learn to believe and live with the Holy Church. And the Church, through the mouth of the Apostle Paul, tells us today: "I do not want to boast, except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Having scooped up a little living water from the ocean of church theology, we will end our conversation with a wonderful church prayer glorifying the great mystery of the Cross: abolish death. For this sake we bow down to Your burial and resurrection!”