After he finished speaking about practical moral teachings, we find him returning once again to the teachings of faith, saying:

“Or do you not know, brothers? For I speak to those who know the law” (Romans 7:1).

          So after saying that we died to sin, he here shows that not only sin will not have dominion over them, but also the law. For if the law does not have dominion over them, much more will sin not have dominion over them. Then he makes his speech cheerful, explaining it by an example from reality. From this example it is clear that he is really speaking of one thing, which has two implications: first, that the woman is no longer subject to the law of the man after his death, and there is nothing to prevent her from becoming the wife of another. second, that not only the man has died in this case, but also the woman, but with respect to the law of the man (i.e., her obligation to him as a wife) and consequently she enjoys a double freedom, for when the man dies, she is freed from authority (i.e., from the authority of the man), and when she herself appears to have died (from her obligation to the law of the man), she becomes much more free. If one event (i.e., the death of the man) frees her from authority (i.e., from the authority of the man), much more so when the two events are combined (i.e., the death of the husband and the death of the wife from her obligation to the law of the man). And since he wanted to advance in his speech to prove all this, he begins by praising the recipients of his message, saying: “Or do you not know, brothers? For I speak to those who know the law.” Meaning that I am speaking about something that is well-known and very clear to people who know all these things with great precision.

“The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives” (Romans 7:1).

          He did not say he has dominion over the man or over the woman, but rather “over man,” which is one word that applies to both of them together. “For he who has died has been freed from sin.” [1] . Accordingly, the law is binding on the living, but as for the dead, it is no longer binding on them at all. Do you see how he showed that freedom has two sides? And after he had initially indicated this (i.e., the authority of the law), we find him proving what he says by referring to the woman, saying:

“For a woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband while he is alive. But if her husband dies, she is freed from the law of her husband. Therefore, while her husband lives, if she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she marries another man” (Romans 7:2-3).

          The Apostle Paul constantly refers to this truth (i.e., freedom from the law), and with great precision, because he fully believes in it. Here he places the man in the place of the law, while he places all those who have believed in Christ in the place of the woman.

          However, we find that he did not express his conviction explicitly that the law had died according to what he said, because he could have said, “My brothers, do not let the law rule over you, for it is dead.” But he did not say this because he had previously indicated it, but rather it is inferred from his words that the woman died in relation to the law in order to make the effect of his words less painful, and this is clear from his saying:

“Therefore, my brothers, you also have died to the law” (Romans 7:4).

          If the freedom is the same as that which is given by both (i.e., when the man dies, and when the woman dies from her obligation to the law of the man), there is nothing to prevent the law from being praised as doing no harm. “For the woman that is under a husband is bound by the law as long as he lives.” Where are those now who abuse the law? Let them hear this. For though the law cannot be abolished when it is necessary, since the Jew must be subject to it, and those who violate it are considered adulterers, yet there will be no excuse if the Jews abandon that law when it is dead, for no one will then offend them. “But if the husband dies, she is freed from the law of the man.” See how he here in the example shows that the law is dead? But he does not speak of the death of the law altogether. “Therefore, while the husband lives, if she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress.”

          Notice how he insists on condemning those who break the law while it still exists. But when it is abolished, the wife may be given to another without fear of condemnation, since she does not break the law in that case. For “while the husband lives, if she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress.” “So then, my brethren, you also,” he would have expected to say, “Since the law is dead, you will not be condemned for adultery when you are joined together in any other way,” but he does not say this, but “You are dead to the law.” If you are dead to the law, you are not under the law. So since the woman is freed by the death of the husband, much more when the woman dies (from being bound by the law of the husband as a wife) she is freed from it. Do you see how great is the wisdom of the apostle Paul in showing that the law intended this, that the woman has the right to be joined to another man after the death of her husband? For as the apostle Paul says, there is nothing to prevent her from marrying another man, since the first is dead. How does the law permit a wife to be given a certificate of divorce while the husband is still alive? I say that this has more to do with the sin into which the woman may fall. Therefore he does not refer to this matter, and even if he had permitted it, it would not have been for the apostle Paul exempt from the accusation. And we must note a principle in St. Paul, that he is not obliged to speak of urgent cases or private matters in his discourse, so he does not touch upon matters that are not binding on everyone or are less necessary, because he is concerned only with the essence of things.

          So the amazing thing is that the law itself leads us to be free from sin when we are freed from it. It wants us to be led to Christ. For the law is dead indeed, and we are dead (to the law) and its authority is utterly void. But the apostle Paul did not stop there, he added the reason. For he referred not only to death, but also to the cross which accomplished all this, and thus made us distinct. For we were not easily saved, but our salvation was accomplished by the death of the Lord. For as the apostle Paul says:

“Fulfilling the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4).

          But he does not only preach this, but he also preaches and emphasizes the excellence of the second Adam. And so he added:

“That you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead” (Romans 7:4).

          So that they may not say later, What will happen if we do not become another? I say that the law does not make a widow an adulteress when she marries a second time, nor does it compel her to marry. So that they may not say this, he made it clear to them that we must belong to another because of what we have come to enjoy, and this he indicated in other places more clearly, saying, “You are not your own.” [2] and you were bought at a price [3] "Do not become slaves to people." [4] And also, “And he died for all, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them.” [5] This is precisely what he referred to here when he said, “the fulfillment of the law through the body of Christ.”

          Then he preaches a great hope, saying: Let us bear fruit for God“For before (that is, when you were walking in the flesh) you were bearing fruit for death, but now you are bearing fruit for God.

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions of the law were at work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death” (Romans 7:5).

          Do you see that the first man gained anything? The apostle Paul did not say when we were under the authority of the law, always avoiding giving heretics an opportunity, but he said, “when we were in the flesh,” that is, in evil works and carnal life. He did not say that the behavior according to the flesh was before the law, but with the law, but he explained how they came to desire it even after they had become free from the authority of the flesh. But after explaining this, he did not say that the law was the cause of the commission of sins, nor did he exempt it from blame. For it was in the position of accusation, by revealing sins. For this law, which often commands man to submit to the commandments of God, reveals the extent of man’s weakness, which is represented in his refusal to submit to those commandments and his commission of sins. Therefore he did not say the sinful passions that came about through the law, but “which are through the law,” and he did not add which came about, but was satisfied with the phrase “which are through the law,” that is, those that are revealed by the law, and are known through the law.

          Then after that, in order not to accuse the body, he did not say those passions that work through the members of our body, but rather “the passions of sin… work in the members of the body,” showing how the beginning of evil comes from the thoughts that incite people to commit sins. It is as if the soul is like a musician while the body is like a harp, so the notes come out as the musician wants them to. Accordingly, a bad note is not attributed to the harp (the body), but rather we must attribute it to the soul.

3 - “But now we have been freed from the law” (Romans 7:6).

          Do you see how here also he is concerned with talking about the body in addition to talking about the law? For he did not say that the law was set free, nor did he say that the body was set free, but he said, “We were set free.” And how were we set free? We were set free after the old man in whom we were held died and was buried. For this is what he declared, saying: When what we were holding on to died“As if he had said that the chain by which we were held had fallen and was finished, so that we would no longer be held by the sin that held us in the past. But you must not be complacent or indifferent. You have been set free so that you may once again become a slave, but not in the same way, but.” In the spirit of Jeddah, not in the emancipation of the letter“.

          So what does the Apostle Paul mean by what he says here? This is what we must clarify so that we do not get upset when we reach this part.

          When the Apostle Paul says that Adam sinned, and his body became corrupt, and yielded to lusts and suffered many shortcomings, he thus became more sorrowful and rebellious. But he describes our condition after Christ came, saying that He came and made our body more light by our baptism, giving this body the wings of the Spirit. [6] . And for this very reason we shall not pass through the same trials as the ancients, because the way was not easy at that time. Therefore Christ, glory be to Him, does not require us who have been baptized in His name to be haters only of murder - as was the case in the past - but to hate wrath also. Nor are we to be free only of adultery, but also of an evil look. Nor are we to refrain only from making promises by oath, but to refrain from swearing altogether, and He even commands us to love our enemies. And in all other matters He has made the ways of our salvation possible and easy, and if we do not submit, He warns us of hell. And He has made it clear to us that what is required - for those who strive - is not merely the desire to boast of chastity and detachment, for example, but rather that we should in any case practically complete these virtues. For there is an urgent necessity to apply them, and he who does not do them is punished with the most severe punishment. And that is why He said: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” [7] And whoever will not see the kingdom will certainly be in hell. That is why the Apostle Paul said: “For sin will not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” [8] Here also he says: “So that we may worship in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.” For there is no letter that condemns, that is, the old law, but there is the spirit that helps. If a person, in the period of the old law, could keep virginity, this in itself was considered a very great thing, but now in Christ this thing is spread throughout the earth. And so also with regard to death, which some men were able to despise, while now in Christ there are countless numbers of martyrs in villages and cities, and not only men, but also women who give no account of death.

          4 - Then he explains after that that a paradox has appeared, clarifying in this explanation what he wants to say. This is something he did not do before. He started from this paradox which seems to be inferred from his previous statement. This explanation shows that he does not want to direct any harsh condemnation of the law. So after he said:

“So that we may worship in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter,” he added. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not” (Romans 7:6-7).

          Before this he said: “For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were through the law were at work in our members.” And that “sin will not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace.” [9] And also, “For where there is no law, there is no transgression.” [10] “But the law came in so that sin might increase.” [11] And also, “the law produces wrath.” [12] It is clear that all this is a condemnation of the law, and as if he wanted to remove this doubt, he points out the paradox, saying: “What shall we say then? Is the law a sin? Certainly not.”

          His aim was to get close to the listener, and to make him not stumble. For after he had presented this speech to him and known what was on his mind, he shared with him the desire to explain what was not understood, so that he would not doubt the words of his interlocutor. And for this reason he added to his speech this paradox, referring to the law. For he did not say, What can we say? But he said, What shall we say? As if it were a matter of the conviction of a large group of them, since they had deduced this objection from them as a result of what was said, and this is what the reality of things shows. For he says that the letter of the law kills, and no one objected, and that the spirit gives life, and this is clear, and no one can disagree or oppose it. So if these things are acceptable, what can we say about the law? Is the law a sin? God forbid. So he has removed doubt and confusion. Do you see how he removes this objection, and presents the explanation, taking the place of the teacher? And what is the explanation then? It is that sin did not exist, for he says, “But I knew not sin except through the law.” Notice the power of wisdom. We understand from his objection, “Shall we remain in sin?” that sin is not the law, and then he goes on to convince the Jew to accept something less. But what is less? “I knew not sin except through the law.”

“For I would not have known lust unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Romans 7:7).

          Do you see how he not only condemns sin, but also points out that the law creates it? But he does not present this as the reason behind what happens (i.e. the sin of lust), but rather that the reason for its emergence is due to the unfortunate Jews. Here St. Chrysostom wanted to shut the mouths of the Manichaeans [13] Those who condemned the law. Because after referring to the saying of St. Paul: “I would not have known lust unless the law had said, ‘Do not covet,’” he added:

“But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of lust” (Romans 7:8).

          Do you see how He acquits the law of condemnation? For after showing the motive, He says that it was sin, not the law, that magnified the lust, which is evidence of weakness, not malice. For when we lust and are prevented from fulfilling the lust, it becomes more intense. But this is not the work of the law. For the law forbids (the commission of sin) in order to keep man away from it, while sin, which is your indifference and malicious desire, has used a good thing in a bad way.

          But this is not a condemnation of the doctor, but of the patient who used the medicine badly. The law was not given to inflame lust, but to extinguish it. But the opposite happened. Therefore, the condemnation is not directed at the law, but at us, because if there is a doctor in front of a patient, meaning a patient with a high temperature who wants to drink ice water, and he does not give him to drink, then he is increasing this desire, which leads to his harm, and the doctor will not be condemned for this, because he alone has the right to prevent him, but if the patient drinks, then the responsibility falls on him. So what does it mean that sin takes its motive from the law? Because many wicked people have increased their wickedness based on good commandments. And Satan had previously harmed Judas in this way, because he made him fall into miserliness and steal from the poor. The harm that came to him was not due to his entrusting the treasury with money, but what harmed him was his wicked desire. The same thing is what drove Adam out of Paradise because Eve made him eat from the tree. Even in this case, the tree was not the cause, though it was the means by which Adam fell. If he (the apostle Paul) used the word wisely in speaking of the law, you should not doubt. For he wanted to put an end to this matter quickly, and without leaving even those who took his words differently, any motive for sin. He concentrated his attention on correcting what was happening at the present time.

          So let us not examine this statement which is said here in such a way carelessly, but let us know the motive which made him say all this, and let us also think of the fanaticism of the Jews and their intense desire to argue, and this is what the apostle Paul wants to eliminate, and it is clear that he was very harsh in speaking about the law, not in order to condemn it, but in order to invalidate the argument of the Jews. For if there was a condemnation of the law, since sin took an opportunity by the commandment, this will happen in the New Testament. For indeed there are very many commandments in the New Testament concerning matters of greater importance. And there also one can see the same thing repeated, not only with regard to lust, but with regard to any sin in general. Christ said, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin.” [14] Accordingly, sin became apparent from here, and also the severe punishment resulting from it. And when the Apostle Paul also spoke about grace, he said, “How much worse punishment do you think he deserves who has trampled underfoot the Son of God?” [15] . And therefore the cause of the most evil punishment is from contempt for the spirit of grace, despite the very abundant gifts of grace. And for this reason also the Greeks are condemned, as the apostle Paul says, because although they were honored with the gift of reason (which God gave them) and well perceived the beauty of the universe, and through it they should have been led to the knowledge of its Creator, yet they did not use divine wisdom as it should have.

          Do you see that everywhere he emphasizes that the motives for punishing the wicked come more from the misuse of good things? But surely we will not condemn the benevolence of God for this reason, but will appreciate it more, while we will condemn the desire of those who use good things to practice the opposite of what they are intended for. So this is what we ought to do in the case of the law. Surely this is a simple and easy thing, while what is incomprehensible is his saying, “For I would not have known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”? For if man had not known lust before he received the law, whence came the flood? And whence came the burning of Sodom? What then does the apostle Paul mean by this expression? He means the increase of lust. And therefore he does not say, “It aroused in me lust,” but “all lust,” meaning here excessive lust. And what is the profit of the law if it causes lust to increase in us? There is no profit in this, but on the contrary it causes great loss. But the blame is not directed to the law, but to those who received it. For sin aroused excessive lust, but this was not the concern of the law, but rather its concern was the opposite. So what is clearly shown is that sin has great power in arousing lust. However, this is not a blame directed at the law, but rather at those who deny it.

          “For without the law sin is dead” means that it is not so well known. For it is certain that those who lived before the law was given sinned, much more so after the law was given that they knew the extent of sin. And therefore they were subject to greater condemnation. Thus there is a difference between condemning oneself, and having this condemnation accompanied by the law which clearly declares everything.

5 - “But I was once alive without the law” (Romans 7:9).

          Tell me when did this happen? It happened before Moses. Notice how he tries to show by what he did and what he did not do, that the law was oppressive or exerted pressure on men. For the apostle Paul says, “For when I was living without the law, I was not so condemned,” but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. This is evidently an accusation against the law. But if one looks carefully at it, it will be seen that it is also a praise of the law. For the law did not give an entity to sin without it being present, but it showed it as if it were hidden, which is a praise of the law, since it is certain that sins were imperceptible before the law, but when the law came, although they (those to whom the law was given) gained nothing else, yet at least they knew the same thing very well, that they had sinned, and this is no small thing from the point of view of the sense of the necessity of getting rid of sin. However, even if they did not get rid of sin, this does not constitute a condemnation of the law, which seeks this very goal, so the whole condemnation is directed at the desire of those who were completely corrupted and lost all hope. And it was certainly not logical that they should be harmed by those things from which they had benefited. And for this reason he also said:

“I found that the commandment that pertains to life is the same to me as to death” (Romans 7:10).

          He did not say that the will “caused death,” nor “generated death,” but rather “found,” thereby explaining what was strange and new in this unreasonable thought, and turning everything against them.

          For if you want to know the purpose of the commandment, the apostle Paul explains that it led to life, and that is why it was given, but when it results in death, the condemnation is directed against those who received the commandment, and not against the commandment itself which leads to life. The apostle Paul declares this same thing more clearly in the following verses, saying:

“For sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and killed me” (Romans 7:11).         

          Have you seen how he is occupied in every place with the subject of sin, absolving the law of all condemnation? And so he added, saying:

“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

          But if you will, let us also refer to the explanations of those who falsify these things. For our words will thus become clearer. Some say that the apostle Paul is not speaking here of the law of Moses, but of the natural law, while others say that he is speaking of the commandment given in Paradise. But his purpose was to prove the statement of this law (that is, the written law), and he never spoke of the other laws. This is very natural, because this law (the law of Moses) is what the Jews feared and were terrified of, and because of the law they quarreled with grace. On the other hand, neither the apostle Paul nor anyone else ever showed that the commandment given in Paradise is called a law.

          In order that this may be made clearer than what has been said, let us examine the words of the apostle Paul carefully, recalling a little of the previous statement. When he spoke to them about good conduct, he added, “Do you not know, brethren, that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? … You are dead to the law.” Therefore, if this had been said about the natural law, you would certainly exist without a natural law. If this were true, you would be less foolish than the irrational animals. But this is not true at all. There is no dispute that the commandment was given in paradise so that we might not burden ourselves with excessive effort and engage in conflict over those things which had become acceptable. How, then, does he say, “I knew no sin except through the law”? He does not mean by this a complete ignorance of sin, but a lack of accurate knowledge of it. For if this had been said about the natural law, how could the following statement be justified? For he said, “I was once living without the law.” For it is clear that neither Adam nor any other man lived without the natural law. God created Adam and placed in him the natural law at the same time, making him a faithful companion to all nature.

          Moreover, it does not appear at all that the apostle Paul called the natural law a commandment, but he called the law of Moses a commandment, which is just and holy and a spiritual law. And the natural law was not given to us by the Holy Spirit, because the Hebrews and the Greeks and all the other nations have this law (i.e. the natural law). Accordingly, it is clear that the apostle Paul means by the word law - previously and later and everywhere - the law of Moses. Therefore he called it holy, saying: "The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good." Therefore, if the Jews became unclean and unjust and covetous after they received the law, this does not invalidate the work of the law, just as their unbelief does not invalidate faith in God. Thus it is clear - from all this - that the apostle Paul is speaking of the Mosaic law.

6 - “Has that which is good become death for me? God forbid! But sin, that sin might appear, produced death in me through that which is good” (Romans 7:13).

          He begins with this question in order to show that sin is very wrong, and to show how much indifference, and the rush to the worst, and the very act of sin, and the evil desire on the part of man. For this is the cause of all evil. And he speaks much about sin and its magnitude, in order to show the excellence of Christ’s grace, and to make known to all how much evil the human race has been freed from, and against which the medicines of physicians have not worked, but have become worse with these medicines, and he emphasizes this also through those who have commanded the human race to abstain (from committing sin), and yet sin has increased. And therefore he adds, saying: “That sin may become very wrong by the commandment.” You see how his battle against sin is everywhere, and that by those things whereby he abolishes sin, he shows the work of the law more clearly, for it is no easy matter to show that sin is very wrong, as he shows and displays before the public the deadly poison of sin. And for this reason he declares, saying: “That sin may become very wrong by the commandment.” That is, to show that sin is a very great evil, and leads to certain destruction. Through all this, he also shows that the privilege of grace as opposed to the law is a real privilege and not merely a matter subject to dispute.

          Therefore, do not think that those who accepted it became worse, but you should pay attention to an important matter, that the law did not want to lead to an increase in sin, and not only that, but it tried to take away that which was already there. But if it could not succeed in this, you should praise it for this position, and on the other hand you should worship more for the multifarious power of Christ, which overthrew the sin that is difficult to defeat, and destroyed it after it had uprooted it. However, when you hear about sin, do not imagine that it is a power that has an entity, but rather it is the evil act that always appears and then disappears, and before it became a reality, it did not exist, and when it becomes a reality it begins to disappear again. For this is why the law was given. But the law was never given to abolish the actions resulting from the weakness of human nature (due to the fall), but to abolish the evil actions that proceed from an evil desire. This is known to the Gentile lawgivers and to the whole human race. The evils that occur do not cease unless we do not care about them. The legislators did not promise to take away the sins related to human nature, because this is not possible, since those related to nature remain constant, which I have spoken to you about in other sermons many times.

          7. And for this very reason, after we have left these conflicts, let us once more attend to moral discourse, or rather to say that this part of the conflicts concerns them (the Jews). For if we cast off evil and become virtuous, we shall clearly know that evil has no being or nature. And those who try to know whence evils come, we shall try to silence them, not only by words, but by facts, for we share the same human nature with them, but we have been freed from their malice. So we must not imagine that virtue is a difficult thing, but that it is possible to achieve it, for if we try, it will become simple and easy. But if you prefer to speak of the pleasure of sin, you must also speak of its end. For sin leads to death, just as virtue leads to life. Or, it is better to say, if you like, examine each before each reaches its end. You will see how sin brings much pain, while virtue brings pleasure. Is there anything more happy than good hope? For nothing wounds us and oppresses us so much as the prospect of evil, and nothing sustains us so much, and makes us so exalted, as a good conscience.

          We can learn this from the things that happen to us. Look at the beggars who wander in the narrow streets, fearing no harm; and the prisoners who are awaiting trial, although they have shelter, live in misery, because the expectation of bad things does not give them any joy. And why do I mention the prisoners? Those who live outside the prison walls in great wealth and do not feel that they are sinners, are lower than the workers who work with their hands and spend the whole day in toil and hardship, these workers are far better than them. Therefore we are sorry for the wrestlers, for although we see them drinking in the taverns and playing and eating greedily, we say that they are the most miserable of all, because the disaster of death that awaits them is far greater than these temporary pleasures. But if they think that life is only for pleasure, they should always remember what I have said to you: that he who lives in sin must suffer its bitterness and sorrow. Thus, what is most hated seems to those who strive after it to be something beloved. But we do not bless them for this, but precisely for this reason we are sorry for them, because they do not know how serious the state they have reached in practicing sin.

          But what can we say of the adulterers who, for a little pleasure, suffer so many troubles, so many expenses, so many fears, and so much life, and so much more like that of Cain, or rather, so much worse than that of Cain, because they fear present things, and are terrified of future things, and are suspicious of friends and enemies, of those who know something about them, and of those who know nothing? They cannot get rid of this anxiety even when they sleep, because their evil conscience brings back to them dreams full of fears, and so they are terrified. But the chaste man is not like that, but lives his whole life in complete comfort and freedom. If you compare, then, the many waves of fear of these with the fleeting pleasures they obtain, and the tranquility or peace of eternal life which everyone who walks in chastity obtains, then you will perceive that this chastity is more happy than lust. He who wants to seize (what is not his), and attacks the property of others, tell me, does he not suffer many troubles when he runs here and there, flatters slaves and freemen, frightens and threatens and behaves foolishly, does not sleep, is always terrified, anxious, and doubts everything? But he who despises money, is not like that, but enjoys many pleasures, so long as he lives without fear and in perfect security.

          If one examines the other kinds of sins, one will see that they cause their perpetrators much anxiety and great difficulties. It is worthy of note that difficulties come first as a person walks the path of virtue, and then joyful things, and thus the pains subside. But in the practice of evil, the matter is the opposite, for pains and punishments come to a person after joys, and here this joy disappears. Just as he who awaits crowns feels nothing of the burdens of this present world, so he who rejoices in sin awaits punishments, and cannot enjoy true joy, since fear nullifies everything. Better to say, if one examines the matter carefully, one will realize the extent of the pain that the wicked suffer at the moment when they dare to commit sin, and even before the punishment prepared for them. If you like, examine the lives of those who seize what is not theirs, and those who try to gain money by crooked ways. Let us leave aside fears, dangers, terrors, worries, and all these things, and suppose that there is a person who has become rich without toiling, and who strives to preserve the things of this present life, even though this is considered an impossible thing, but let this be supposed, what happiness can this person enjoy? Is it because he has gained much? But this precisely leaves him no room for happiness. And as he desires more things, his pains increase more.

          For happiness is given when desire ceases. When we are thirsty, we drink whatever we want to quench our thirst, but the more our thirst for the things of this world increases, even if we empty all the wells in our belly, the greater our suffering becomes, and if we drink very many rivers, the more terrible the punishment becomes. So with the things of this world, if you accept them, while continuing to desire them, you make the punishment much greater, in proportion as your greed for them increases. And you should not think that among the many desires in this life, there is a specific desire reserved for you (wealth) and that you should constantly strive to achieve it, but you should not desire wealth. For if you desire it, your suffering will not cease, and you will suffer. And you will ask yourself, is this path endless? Yes, the farther you go on this path, the farther you are from the end. So is not this desire for wealth something confusing and obsessive, and the worst kind of obsession?

          So the first thing is to keep away from sin, or better to say, we should never begin to pursue lust, but if we are deceived and begin to practice lust, let us keep away from the beginning, which the writer of the Book of Proverbs expresses, in dealing with the adulterous woman, saying: “Remove your way from her, and do not come near the door of her house.” [16] I say the same thing about miserliness. Because if you fall even a little into this sea of madness, it is difficult for you to be saved. Just as in the case of those who suffer from vertigo or dizziness, even if you try a thousand times you will not be saved easily, so you will suffer from this dizziness, and much worse. And when you fall into the depths of this vice (miserliness), you will destroy yourself and everything around you.

          8. Therefore I hope that we will be careful at the beginning, and avoid small sins, because from them come great sins. For he who is accustomed - when he falls into every sin - to say, "I will only commit this sin," will gradually lose everything. This way of thinking is what brings sin, it is what opened the door to the thief (that is, Satan) and it is what broke down the walls of the city. So also with regard to the body, serious diseases increase, when simple diseases are neglected. If Esau had not surrendered the birthright, he would not have become unworthy of the blessing, and if he had not made himself unworthy of the blessing, he would not have reached the stage of wanting to kill his brother. And if Cain had not had this urgent desire to be first in everything, and if he had given up this position to God, he would not have been in second place, and also when he came in second place, if he had listened to the advice, he would not have committed the murder, and also after he committed the murder, if he had offered repentance when God called him, and had not answered foolishly, he would not have suffered the tragedies and hardships that followed the murder.

          If those who lived before the law had reached the depths of sin through indifference and the gradual commission of sin, we must think of what we who are called to greater trials will suffer. If we do not observe ourselves with the utmost care, and if we do not hasten to extinguish the spark of sin, before the fires are kindled, we will expose ourselves to severe punishment. Do you understand what I mean? You always break your promise, and therefore you must not stop there, but you must be free from any promise, and you will not need to make any effort later. For it is better not to make a promise than to promise and not keep it later. Are you a slanderer, abusive, and quarrelsome? Set yourself a rule, never to get angry or shout, and sin will be uprooted and will bear no fruit. Are you lustful and extravagant? Set yourself also a limit, so that you will not look (with lust) at a woman, nor go to shameful parties, nor examine the details of strange beauties in the market. Because it is easier not to look at a beautiful woman from the beginning while lust is burning inside you than to overcome the disturbances that come from behind this look. Because it is easier to struggle from the beginning, or better to say that we do not even need to struggle, if we do not open the doors to the enemy, if we do not accept the seeds of evil.

Therefore, Christ, glory be to Him, condemned him who looks at a woman to lust after her, in order to save us from many troubles, and commanded us to drive the enemy out of the house before he becomes strong, for then it is not possible to drive him out easily. If what a man has is not of value, what is it for that he quarrels with his opponents, when he can win what he wants without any quarrel, and seize the prize before the fight? For although it is not a great difficulty for one not to look at a beautiful woman, yet it is a great difficulty for one to control oneself when looking at a woman. Or rather, it is that there can be no difficulty in not looking, but great effort and fatigue comes in looking and then trying to control oneself. So when the difficulty is less, or rather when there is no difficulty at all and no fatigue, the gain will be greater. Why should we struggle to fall to the bottom of the ocean of countless sins? For he who does not look at a woman not only finds it easy to defeat lust, but he also becomes purer, just as he who looks will not be able to get rid of this lust - as we said - except with great effort and many attempts. For he who has not seen a beautiful face is safe from lust that comes through looking, but he who desires to see has thereby polluted himself. For after he has conquered thought, he then begins the stage of purity from lust, but this is not an easy matter.

          And for this very reason Christ, glory be to Him, in order to spare us the suffering of all this, forbade not only murder, but also anger, not only adultery, but also an evil look. And not only from the aspect of breaking an oath, but oaths in general. And I can say that this is not the standard of virtue either, but that after He has legislated all this, He advances towards something more. After He has distanced man from the path of murder and commanded him to be pure from anger, He commands him to be prepared to suffer, and to prepare himself in advance to bear pains, not only those that come to those who wish to inflict upon him, but more than that. And he must also conquer the power of his lust by the chastity that he possesses. For He did not say, ‘Whoever strikes you on the right cheek, you must bear it with chivalry and calm,’ but He said, ‘Turn to him the other also.’ [17] Therefore it is a great victory to bear much more than he who desires to harm us wants, and to go beyond the limits of his evil desire, with our riches in long-suffering. For thus we shall put an end to his wrath, and you will receive a great reward, after we have put an end to anger through this action of ours with the offender.

          Do you see how he everywhere emphasizes that our lack of shame and pain depends on ourselves, and not on those who wrong us? Or rather, it is not only our lack of shame, but whether we want to be well is in our hands. And this, of course, is what is especially admirable, that not only will we not be wronged, if we live chastely, but we can be well by those things by which we are wronged by others. But take heed. Has someone insulted you? It depends on you whether you can turn this insult into praise for yourself. For if you return the insult, you will certainly make the fault greater; but if you bless the one who insulted you, you will see that all present crown you, applaud you, and praise you. Do you see how we are well by accepting the injustice done to us? The same thing can be seen to happen in relation to money, and in all other matters. For if our response or reaction is the opposite of their actions, those for which we suffer, and for which we enjoy good, then we weave for ourselves a double crown. So if someone comes to you and says that so-and-so has insulted you, and has told you bad things about you in front of everyone, you should praise the person who insulted you in front of those who have told you this insult, because in this way you can gain the right if you want to defend yourself.

          For those who hear you will praise you, even though they are very foolish; for he, without you doing him any wrong, has grieved you, while you, though you have suffered, make him condemned by your reactions which are the opposite of his. And by this good conduct you will be able to prove that the words addressed to you are considered hateful and repulsive. For he who does not bear insulting words with pleasure, gives evidence that he still means them, while he who despises them has cleared himself before those present of all doubt or suspicion. Notice then how much good you gain from this conduct of yours. First, you save yourself from confusion and anxiety, even though you are burdened with sins; you wipe these sins away by your good responses, like the tax collector who willingly endured the Pharisee’s accusation. In addition, you make yourself chaste by these exercises and practices, and you will receive from everyone very much praise, and you will deny every accusation that has been said about you. But if you want to take revenge on the one who offended you, your fate will be the same, or even worse. For God punishes him for the things he said, and before this punishment, you should know that your chastity becomes a deadly stab for him. You should despise what is said about you, because usually there is nothing that annoys those who offend us more than being despised, with these insults.

          So just as we will get all the good from chastity, so everything will be the opposite if we act otherwise and are small-hearted. For we will really offend ourselves (if we act contrary to chastity of soul) and will appear before everyone to be responsible for what is said, and fill ourselves with confusion, and please our enemy, and anger God, and add to our previous sins, other sins.

          So let us think about all this, and let us avoid falling into the abyss of smallness of soul, and let us take refuge in the harbor of long-suffering, so that we may find rest for our souls, as Christ, glory be to Him, said, and obtain the blessings of the coming age through the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

[1] Romans 7:6.

[2] 1 Corinthians 6:19.

[3] 1 Corinthians 6:20.

[4] 1 Corinthians 7:23.

[5] 2 Corinthians 5:15.

[6] This expression (wings of the spirit) was used by St. Macarius in Sermon (2) when he said: “Let us ask God to grant us wings (i.e. the Holy Spirit). Sermons of St. Macarius, translated by Dr. Nasha Abdel Shahid, Fourth Edition, published by the Orthodox Center for Patristic Studies, pp. 39-40.

[7] Matthew 20:5.

[8] Romans 14:6.

[9] Romans 14:6.

[10] Romans 15:4.

[11] Romans 20:5.

[12] Romans 15:4.

[13] The Manichaeans were followers of the Persian philosopher Mani, who died in 273 AD. They believed in two eternal, uncreated principles of the universe: light and darkness. Light is the god of good, and darkness is the god of evil. Matter, in their view, is darkness. Therefore, it is evil.

[14] John 22:15.

[15] Hebrews 29:10.

[16] Proverbs 8:5.

[17] Matthew 5:39.