1 Corinthians 11:17Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Before everything else, the reason for the present rebuke must be explained. Then our discourse will be more readily understood. What is this reason?

In the beginning, the believers, numbering three thousand, ate food at a common table and held all things in common. So it was also when the Apostle wrote this, though not with the same exactness.

Only a kind of remnant of the former communion was preserved and observed in the later time. The believers, some of whom were rich and others poor, did not give all their property for common use.

Yet on appointed days, according to custom, they set out common tables. After the assembly and the communion of the mysteries were completed, all gathered for a common feast.

The rich brought food, and the poor and those who had nothing were invited by them. In this way all ate together. But later even this custom was destroyed.

The cause was that the believers were divided among themselves. Some counted themselves as belonging to these, and others to those, and said, "I am of this one," and, "I am of that one."

The Apostle spoke and admonished them about this at the beginning of the epistle: "For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you.

"I mean that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas'" (1 Cor 1:11-12).

This does not mean that they actually called themselves Paul's. He would not have allowed this. But wishing to uproot such conduct more forcefully, he introduced his own name.

He did this to show that, even if someone took his name, having torn himself from the common Body of the Church, he would act senselessly and with extreme impiety.

If it was impious to be called by his name, then it was much more impious to be called by the names of other, lesser teachers.

Thus this custom of communal possessions was violated. It was beautiful and most beneficial, for it served to maintain love, to comfort poverty, to put wealth to good use, to inspire great philosophy, and to preserve humility.

When the Apostle learned that such good things were perishing, he rightly uses a word of rebuke and says, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you."

In the previous rebuke, which did not touch the many who were acting rightly, he began his discourse differently: "I praise you," he says, "that you remember me in all things" (1 Cor 11:2).

Here, by contrast, he says, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you." For this reason he did not place this matter immediately after the rebuke of those who ate idol sacrifices.

Since that transgression was very grave, he inserted the discourse about hair in the middle, so that he might not seem too severe by passing from one strong rebuke to another equally strong one.

After this, he again passes to the graver matter and says, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you." What is this instruction? I shall say presently.

What does "in giving this instruction, I do not praise you" mean? I do not approve you, he says, for having put me under necessity of admonishing you.

I do not praise the fact that there proved to be a need to teach you this, and that you need such exhortation from me.

Do you see how at the very beginning he showed all the senselessness of their conduct? If the sinner ought not even to need exhortation in order not to sin, then clearly the sin is inexcusable.

Why, then, does he not praise them? "Because," he says, "you come together not for the better, but for the worse," that is, you do not advance in virtue.

When you ought to advance and increase in love, you have curtailed the custom that was already in force. You curtailed it so much that there proved to be need for my exhortation, that you might return to the former order.

Then, lest it seem that he is speaking only on behalf of the poor, the Apostle does not at once begin to speak about the tables.

So that his rebuke would not be received by them as a small matter, he uses a more striking expression, one that inspires greater fear. What, then, does he say?

But since the present matter stood otherwise, he says, "In giving this instruction, I do not praise you." That is, I do not praise you because I again charge and exhort you concerning what I am about to say.

By your own understanding you ought neither to sin at all, nor to force an admonition from me.

"Because you come together not for the better, but for the worse." You ought to have advanced toward the better and made the gatherings more generous. Instead, you diminished even the custom that had already prevailed.

Although you come together in one church, you do not do so in order to eat together. This is very bad, namely, that you have changed for the worse.

To act more strongly against this fundamental violation of the character of the supper of love, the Apostle calls these divisions heresies. By this word he means not disagreement in dogmas, as heresy is now usually understood, but divisions concerning the tables (blessed Theophylact).

Yet if one understands the Apostle's thought about the inevitability of divisions, or heresies, more broadly, then even in that case it is deeply moving.

By it, a spirit of peace was introduced among those who were divided for whatever reasons. For every division, besides harm, can also bring benefit.

In the present case, those who remained faithful to the spirit of Christian communion proved to be tested in their firm devotion to the rules of faith.

Amid these divisions into parties, and even into small family or social circles, they could be given a lesson in patience and an occasion for their good influence.

Heresy in the proper sense can produce an even greater effect. But this does not mean that the Apostle considered the appearance of heresies necessary.

He speaks only of the inevitability of divisions and points to a favorable outcome from them: to become more tested and purified, as silver and gold are purified in the furnaces of temptation (1 Pet 1:7).

Jesus Christ Himself likewise presents the coming of scandals as inevitable, yet at the same time He threatens terrible woe to those who cause scandals (Mt 18:7-8).

Next, the Apostle rebukes the Corinthians' lack of awareness of the essential character of the supper. It was not an ordinary domestic meal, but the Lord's table, celebrated in the temple of God.

It resembled the way the Hebrews ate the remnants of the sacrifices at the tabernacle and the temple, where none of the unbelieving could take part at that table.

The time of the supper of love, after Communion of the Holy Mysteries, also made this supper a holy table of the Lord. It was as though it were a continuation of the Mystical Supper.

In this it resembled the Jewish paschal meal, which continued even after the eating of the paschal lamb, which prefigured the Lamb, Christ.

From the concept of the supper of love as the Lord's table, the first thought follows that everything brought for it no longer belonged to those who brought it, but to the Lord.

Therefore those appointed by the Lord had to dispose of it. But the Corinthians did not cease to regard what they brought as their own.

They strove to consume everything only themselves. Because of this, some would be overfilled and drunk, while others, the poor, received nothing.

Besides general disorder and sinfulness, there also appeared here negligence toward the temple and contempt for the poor.

Clearly, all this could not be left without strong rebukes. Yet the Apostle visibly spares the guilty, who had probably fallen in this way through carelessness and misunderstanding.

Therefore he is content with setting all their improprieties before them. "He had already touched them deeply, having proved the gravity of their fault, and like an excellent physician he applies a remedy corresponding to the wounds.

"On the other hand, he chiefly strove to make them gentle toward the poor. Therefore he himself speaks with them gently" (Chrysostom).

This tone of speech is so general and without a hint of disorder that it suggests that the Corinthian women covered their heads. They were fulfilling the ordinance of the holy Apostle concerning this. Only some clever disputers objected to it.

The Apostle writes: I praise you, because you do as I commanded. Against the objectors he sets forth the reasons why women must comport themselves in church this way and not otherwise.

He adds in conclusion: no more arguing, for all the Churches do this. Thus the sense will be: I praise you for doing as I delivered to you, and against the objectors I say this and that.

"But in declaring this," I do not praise the following: "that you come together not for the better, but for the worse."

Perhaps this is the better way to understand the matter. "You come together" means you gather for the love-feast. "Not for the better, but for the worse" suggests that things had formerly gone well among them, but now had become bad.

They should have moved forward and ascended toward the better. Instead, they moved backward and descended toward the worse.

"I reproach you justly, for with the passage of time you ought to have increased in virtue. But you lose it and diminish this wealth" (Theodoret).

"Although you ought to have advanced and grown in love, you have diminished the custom already prevailing. You have diminished it so much that my admonition is needed to return you to the former order" (Chrysostom).