The Disorders at the Love-Feasts Exposed (1 Corinthians 11:17–22)

“First of all, we must explain the reason for the censure that is about to be offered, so that our discourse will be more easily understood. What then is the nature of this reason? Just as in the beginning the believers, numbering three thousand, ate food at a common table and held all things in common (this was in Jerusalem, immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit), so it was also at the time when the Apostle wrote this, though not with such exactness, but rather as if some remnant of the former community had been preserved and observed in the subsequent time. The believers, of whom some were rich and others poor, though they did not surrender all their possessions to common use, nevertheless on appointed days by custom established common tables, and after the completion of the assembly and communion in the Mysteries, they all gathered for a common meal, with the rich bringing provisions and the poor and those who had nothing being invited by them; and thus they ate food all together. A custom both beautiful and beneficial! For it served to maintain love, to console poverty, to use wealth well, to instill great wisdom, to preserve humility” (Saint Chrysostom). It was introduced also in Corinth, as everywhere, and at first all proceeded in order here, but then certain disorders arose which perverted the very essence of these feasts. Learning of this, Saint Paul now directs to them a word of rebuke and correction.

The course of his discourse is as follows: a) first he points out what the disorders are and rebukes them (1 Cor. 11:17–22); b) then, to dispose them toward reverence with regard to the feasts of love, he speaks of the sacrament of the Body and Blood, namely—aa) as it was instituted (1 Cor. 11:23–26) and bb) how to approach it worthily (1 Cor. 11:27–32), and c) finally he makes ordinances regarding the order at the feasts of love (1 Cor. 11:33–34).

r) Pointing Out and Rebuking Disorders at the Feasts of Love (1 Cor. 11:17–22)

1 Cor. 11:17. Now in this that I declare to you I praise you not, for your assemblies are not for the better, but for the worse.

“Now in this that I declare to you,” παραγγελλων, proclaiming, presenting. These words relate to the preceding. Upon this it comes to mind to observe the following: beginning his discourse on the covering of their heads by women in the church (1 Cor. 11:2), the Apostle said: “I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” Then follows the discourse about the covering of their heads by women in the church, and no hint is made that the Corinthians were not observing this, but it is written only in general that this should be and how absurd the contrary is. Only at the end of the discussion is it added: if anyone wishes to dispute after all that has been said, let him know that such is the custom everywhere. This tone of discourse is so general, without hint of negligence, that it gives the thought that the Corinthian women did cover their heads and were fulfilling the Apostle’s command; there were only some clever persons who argued against it. The Apostle writes: I praise you that you do as I commanded; and against the objectors he sets forth reasons why women should conduct themselves thus and not otherwise in the church, adding at the conclusion: contend no further, for all the churches do likewise.

So it will be: I praise that you do as I delivered, and against the objectors I say this and that… Proclaiming this, I do not praise this—that “your assemblies are not for the better, but for the worse.” Perhaps it is better understood this way.

“You come together,” that is, you gather at the feasts of love. “Not for the better, but for the worse” conveys the thought that formerly it was well with you, but now it has become bad. It should have been that all would be advancing forward and ascending to what is better, but they have moved backward and descended to what is worse. “I reprove you justly, for it should have been that with the passage of time virtue would increase, but you are losing it and diminishing this wealth” (Theodoret). “When you should have been advancing and growing in love, you have already shortened the prevailing custom, and shortened it so that there is need for my exhortation to you to return to the former order” (Saint Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:18. For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

What was the nature of the disorder? In this: when all should have been eating the feast of love together, they divided into groups, or by families, or by cliques, leaving the poor to themselves, whereas the very purpose of instituting this feast was that even the poor on these days of common communion in the Holy Mysteries would have consolation from those of sufficient means. He states this plainly in verse 21; here he indicates the same thing by the general expression: “divisions.” “Divisions” σχισματα, separations—which shows that they were not quarreling, but simply dividing themselves because they were unwilling to share their abundance with those who had nothing. Saint Chrysostom says: “That he might not appear to speak only in behalf of the poor, the Apostle does not at once begin to speak of the tables, but, that his rebuke might not be taken by them as of little consequence, he employs an expression more striking and inspiring greater fear. What then does he say? ‘I hear…divisions.’ He does not say: I hear that you do not establish common feasts; I hear that each eats his food separately and not together with the poor; but he employs an expression which could shake their souls more mightily, namely: ‘divisions’ (separations into parts, as one tears a garment into shreds), which were the cause both of this disorder, and thus again reminds them of that which had been spoken at the beginning of the epistle and which had been announced to him by those of the household of Chloe. ‘And I partly believe it.’ That they might not say: what if some slanderers have lied?—He does not say: ‘I believe,’ that they might not become shameless; he does not say: ‘I do not believe,’ that the rebuke might not seem superfluous; but: ‘I partly,’ he says, ‘believe it,’ that is, I believe it somewhat, and thus makes them attentive and calls them to correction.”

Thus the first must either be understood as left without the second, or we must attribute to it that they divided into groups, when they should have all made one feast, one common table; and under the second we place that they abandoned the poor.

“When you come together in the church.” They came together in the church not directly for the feast of love, but to celebrate the Eucharist and to commune in the Holy Mysteries. After this sacred action they instituted the feast of love, made from the remnants of what was brought for the bloodless sacrifice and from what was brought directly for the feast. The censured disorder could not fail to indicate a lack of reverence toward the sacrament of the Body and Blood; therefore immediately after this the Apostle speaks of the importance of this sacrament and of the attention due to it. Why did this come to pass? They became accustomed, they grew used to it, and began to regard everything in the church, as at any other ordinary worldly matter, and conduct it according to their own inclination. And there came forward: this is mine, and you yourself prepare for yourself.

Does the word “church” mean only an assembly? — Perhaps it means only that; but there is nothing strange in that there was also a particular place for assemblies, whether a new building or one yielded by one of the believers. To have a particular place for common prayer and satisfaction of religious needs is a requirement of faith. No special ordinances are needed for its selection and establishment. This happens of itself.

1 Cor. 11:19. For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

“By the name of heresies he understands here not errors concerning doctrines, but actual (and similar) divisions. However, if he were speaking even of errors concerning doctrines, even in such a case he would not give occasion for offense (in the word: ‘there must be’). For Christ also said: ‘Offenses will certainly come’ (Matt. 18:7), and yet he did not destroy freedom of will and did not place us in any necessity and inevitability, but foreknew the future that was to come from evil human will, not as a consequence of his foreknowledge, but from the will of wicked people. Offenses did not come about because he foreknew them, but rather he foreknew that they were to come about. For if offenses happened by necessity and not by the will of those who cause them, then he would have spoken in vain: ‘Woe to that man by whom the offense comes’ (Matt. 18:7). — That the Apostle indeed called the disorders at the tables and the divisions occurring with them ‘heresies’ he clearly expressed in the following words. For having said: ‘I hear there are divisions among you’, he did not stop there, but, wishing to explain what divisions he means, he says further: ‘Each one eats his own supper’ (1 Cor. 11:21). It is evident that he is speaking of these disorders; and do not be surprised that he calls them divisions (tearings apart of society); he wished, as I have said, to affect them more powerfully with such an expression. If he meant doctrinal heresies, he would not speak to them so gently” (Saint Chrysostom).

“What do the words mean: ‘that those who are genuine among you may be recognized’? — That they may shine forth more. He wishes to say that for steadfast and firm people this not only does not harm but even makes them more prominent and glorious. The particle ‘that’ does not always mean purpose but often consequence. Thus Christ uses it when he says: ‘I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind’ (Jn. 9:39); and Paul himself, when speaking of the law: ‘The law came in, so that the trespass might increase’ (Rom. 5:20). The law was not given in order that the transgressions of the Jews should increase; but so it was. And Christ did not come in order that those who see should become blind, but with the opposite purpose; yet so it was. In the same way here we must understand the words: ‘that those who are genuine among you may be recognized’; heresies (divisions and disorders at the feasts) did not come about in order that the genuine might be revealed, but when they appeared, then this happened. The Apostle said this for the consolation of the poor, who were magnanimously bearing disrespect. Therefore he did not say: ‘that the genuine might be’, but: ‘that those who are genuine may be recognized’, expressing that they were such even before, but were mixed in with others and, receiving consolation from the wealthy, were not very conspicuous, but now the confusion and disagreement have made them known, just as a storm makes the helmsman known. Also he did not say: ‘that you may be recognized as genuine’ (you who are such), but: ‘that those who are genuine among you may be recognized’; as in the censure he did not point directly at anyone, that he might not make them more shameless, so also in the praise, that he might not make them careless, but he expresses himself indefinitely, leaving it to each one’s conscience to apply what has been said to himself. It seems to me that here he comforts not only the poor, but also those who did not violate this custom, for probably there were those among them who did observe it. Therefore he said: ‘to some extent I believe it.’ Rightly he calls those genuine who not only together with others observed the custom, but even without them did not transgress this beautiful institution. With such commendations he strives to awaken greater zeal in both.” (Saint Chrysostom).

In saying: ‘For there must be,’ he gives a reason. For what? — For what follows: ‘I hear there are divisions…’ For this reason one might think that he also comforts himself with these words, as it were: ‘I hear divisions among you.’ It is sorrowful; but what can be done? There must be this as well. Some depart from the order; others, appearing firm in it, are even more confirmed in it for the future.

1 Cor. 11:20. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.

“The Lord’s supper”—the Lord’s feast. The Lord’s supper properly is the communion in the holy sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ; but because of its connection with it, the love feasts’ name transferred also to this supper; similarly, the supper at which the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted, we call the entire Last Supper, whereas there only a small part was properly the Last Supper, when the Lord instituted the sacrament of the Body and Blood and first gave communion to the holy Apostles,—the rest was all a common meal, for although it was the Old Testament Passover, at this time it ceased to be that and became a simple table. And the love feast, which took place after the communion in the Holy Mysteries, corresponded to it.

The Apostle says: when you come together in one place to eat the Lord’s supper, you conduct yourselves in such a way that it is altogether unlike eating the Lord’s supper. There all were together, no one was excluded, even Judas the traitor; but with you the poor are excluded, they who in patience are like the Apostles. “In the Lord’s sacrament, he says, you all commune: both those living in poverty and those boasting in wealth, both servants and masters, both rulers and ruled. Therefore it should have been that your common tables were truly common and resembled the Lord’s supper, which is offered equally to all. But now you do not proceed this way” (Theodoret). “Do you see how he shames them and under the appearance of narration presents an exhortation? — The outward appearance of the assembly, he says, shows one thing, for it happens as if from love and brotherly love; you gather in one place, and all together,—but the table does not correspond to the assembly. He did not say: when you gather you do not eat together, you do not share food with each other, but he speaks otherwise and far more strikingly: ‘It is not’, he says, ‘the Lord’s supper that you eat’, reminding them also of that supper at which Christ gave the awesome Mysteries. Therefore he also called their eating a supper, as at that supper all reclined together. Although the rich and poor are not so different from each other as the Teacher and disciples—between the latter the difference is boundless—but why am I speaking of the Teacher and disciples? Imagine what a difference there is—between the Teacher and the traitor; and yet he himself reclined with them, did not cast out the traitor, but with him shared salt and made him a partaker of the Mysteries” (Saint Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:21. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper. One goes hungry and another gets drunk.

This is why your supper does not resemble the Lord’s supper! — Each of the guilty, of course, hastens to eat as quickly as possible what he has brought, unwilling to share with others. And this particularity is reprehensible, and especially in that you treat what has been brought to the church as a gift to the Lord as if it still remains yours and you dispose of it as your imperfect heart wishes. But it should not have been this way. You brought to the church what God sent, and you should have given it to the stewards of the supper, that they might distribute everything equally to all, and that no one should receive anything more than another. From your disorders it has come about that one is satisfied and even drunk, while another is hungry. “Do you see how they shame themselves all the more? — What belongs to the Lord they appropriate to themselves, and therefore they first demean themselves, depriving their table of that which constitutes its greatest dignity. Why and how? — ‘The Lord’s supper,’ that is, the Lord’s feast, should be common; what belongs to the master does not belong to this or that slave, but is common to all; it is the Lord’s, he says, therefore it is common. But if it belongs to your Lord, as indeed it does, then you ought not appropriate it to yourself, but, as what belongs to the Lord and Master, offer it to all in general. — It is ‘the Lord’s,’ and you hinder it from being the Lord’s, by not allowing it to be common, but eating it apart for yourselves. Therefore he adds: ‘For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper.’ He did not say: sets apart, but: ‘goes ahead with,’ subtly rebuking them for excess and intemperance, which is explained by what follows; for having said this, he continues: ‘One goes hungry and another gets drunk’; both lack and excess show intemperance. And here is the second fault, which also harms them; the first is that they dishonor their supper; the second is that they gorge themselves and become drunk, and still more importantly, while the poor go hungry. What should have been offered to all in general, they consume alone, and thus fall into gluttony and drunkenness. Each of these acts in itself is worthy of condemnation: to get drunk while not scorning the poor is sinful; and to scorn the poor while not getting drunk is sinful. But if both are joined together, imagine what a great transgression occurs” (Saint Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:22. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? In this I do not praise you.

“If you love to indulge, do this in your homes. But here—this is an insult and manifest mockery of the Church. Is it not the most inappropriate thing, within the temple of God, in the presence of the Master, who has set before us a common table, for you to indulge while those in need hunger and are in shame because of poverty?” (Theodoret). “Do you see how from the poor he transfers the insult to the Church, that he might strengthen his discourse? — And here is the fourth fault, consisting in that they insult not only the poor but the Church itself. The Lord’s supper, he says, and the very place itself you appropriate to yourselves, using the church as if it were your own home. The Church was not established in order that those gathered in it be divided, but that the divided be united, as the very word shows: ‘assembly.’ — ‘And humiliate those who have nothing.’ He did not say: leave the destitute hungry, but with greater reproach: ‘humiliate,’ expressing that he is not so much concerned about food as about the insult caused to the poor. And here is the fifth fault, that they not only despise the hungry but humiliate them. — With these words on the one hand he praises the poor, expressing that they are not so troubled by hunger as by dishonor, and on the other hand he inclines the hearer to mercy. — Having shown so much that is criminal in their behavior: the degradation of the supper, the degradation of the Church, the insult to the poor,—he suddenly mitigates the force of the accusation and says: ‘Should I praise you? In this I do not praise you.’ — This is especially worthy of wonder, that, having shown so many crimes, when he should have expressed his anger more strongly, he acts entirely otherwise—he softens his discourse and grants them relief. Why does he do so? — He has already moved them deeply, by proving the importance of their fault, and, like an excellent physician, uses treatment suited to the wounds. Those requiring deep incision (abscesses) he does not cut only on the surface—you have heard how he cut off the fornicator from them—while to those requiring gentler treatment he does not apply the knife; therefore he also speaks to them gently here. On the other hand, he was especially concerned to make them gentle toward the poor, and therefore he himself converses with them gently” (Saint Chrysostom).