1 Corinthians 11:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

"For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you" (v. 19). By the name heresies, or factions, he does not here mean errors concerning dogmas, but disputes like these very divisions.

Let us therefore make use even of heretics, not in order to approve their errors, but so that we ourselves may be more watchful and cautious in defending catholic teaching against their snares. This remains true even if we cannot call them themselves to salvation.

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).

Chrysostom says: "So that he might not seem to be speaking only in favor of the poor, the Apostle does not begin immediately with the meals.

Instead, so that his rebuke would not be received by them as a minor matter, he uses a more striking expression, one that inspires greater fear. What does he say? 'I hear... divisions.'

He does not say: I hear that you do not establish common suppers. I hear that each of you eats separately, and not together with the poor.

Rather, he uses an expression that could shake their soul more strongly, namely 'divisions,' a tearing into pieces as one tears a garment into scraps.

These divisions were the cause of this disorder also. Thus he again recalls what had been spoken of at the beginning of the Epistle, and what had been reported to him by Chloe's household.

'And in part I believe it.' So that they might not say, What if some slanderers lied? he does not say, I believe, lest they become shameless.

Nor does he say, I do not believe, lest the rebuke seem unnecessary. Rather he says, 'in part I believe,' that is, I believe somewhat. By this he makes them attentive and calls them to correction."

Thus either the first clause must be recognized as left without a second, or the second should be assigned this meaning: they divided into groups, when all should have made one table, one common board.

Under the second clause should be placed the fact that they left the poor aside.

"When you come together in church." They came together in church not directly for the love-feast, but for the celebration of the Eucharist and communion in the Holy Mysteries.

After this sacred action they established the love-feast, using the remains of what had been brought for the bloodless sacrifice, and what was brought directly for the supper.

The disorder being reproved could not fail to indicate a lack of reverence toward the mystery of the Body and Blood. Therefore immediately afterward the Apostle speaks of the greatness of this mystery and of the attention due to it.

How did this happen? They became accustomed and familiar with it. They began to regard everything in church as any other worldly matter and to conduct it without crossing their own disposition.

Then this came to the fore: this is mine, and you prepare for yourself.

Does the word church mean only the assembly? Perhaps it means only this. Yet there is nothing marvelous if there was also a special place for assemblies, either a new building or one of the faithful's existing places yielded for use.

To have a special place for common prayer and for the satisfaction of religious needs is a requirement of faith. No special decrees are needed for choosing and arranging it. This happens of itself.