1 Corinthians 11:20Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Therefore he called their eating a supper, because at that supper all reclined together. Yet rich and poor do not differ from one another as much as Teacher and disciples do. The difference between the latter is immeasurable.

But why do I speak of Teacher and disciples? Consider the difference between the Teacher and the betrayer. Yet He Himself reclined with them, did not cast out even the betrayer, but shared the salt with him and made him a participant in the Mysteries.

To act more forcefully against this basic violation of the character of the love-feast, the Apostle calls these divisions heresies. By this word he does not mean disagreement in dogmas, as is now commonly meant by heresy, but divisions about the tables, as blessed Theophylact says.

Yet if the Apostle’s thought about the inevitability of divisions, or heresies, is taken more broadly, even then it is deeply moving. Through it the spirit of peace was brought among those divided for any reason whatever.

For every division, besides harm, can also bring benefit. In this case, those who remained faithful to the spirit of Christian fellowship were shown to have been 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 receive 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.

This outcome is to become more approved, purified as silver and gold are purified in the furnaces of trial (1 Pet 1:7). In the same way Jesus Christ Himself presents the appearance of offenses as inevitable, while threatening terrible woe to those who cause them (Mt 18:7-8).

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

It resembled the way the Hebrews ate the remains of the sacrifices by the tabernacle and the temple. No unbeliever could take part in that meal.

The time of the love-feast, after communion in the Holy Mysteries, also made it the holy table of the Lord. It was, as it were, a continuation of the Mystical Supper.

So also the Jewish paschal meal continued after the eating of the paschal lamb, which prefigured the Lamb, Christ.

From the idea of the love-feast as the Lord’s meal, this thought follows first. Everything brought for it no longer belonged to those who brought it, but to the Lord. Therefore those appointed by the Lord had to administer it.

The Corinthians, however, did not cease to regard what they had brought as their own. They sought to consume everything by themselves. As a result, some were filled and drunk, while others, the poor, received nothing.

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

Clearly, all this could not be left without strong rebukes. Yet the Apostle evidently spares the guilty, who had probably fallen in this way through carelessness and misunderstanding. Therefore he is content to set before them all their improprieties.

"He has already moved them deeply, proving the seriousness of their fault, and, like an excellent physician, applies a remedy suited to the wounds. On the other hand, he chiefly strove to make them gentle toward the poor, and therefore he himself speaks with them gently" (Chrysostom).

The Apostle says: when you come together in one place to eat the Lord's supper, you behave in such a way that it does not at all resemble eating the Lord's supper.

There all were together, and no one was excluded, not even Judas the betrayer. But among you the poor are excluded, though in patience they are like the Apostles.

"You all partake of the Master's mystery," he says: those who live in poverty and those who boast in wealth, servants and masters, rulers and subjects.

Therefore the common meals ought truly to have been common. They ought to have resembled the Master's supper, which is offered equally to all. But now you do not act so" (Theodoret).

"Do you see how he shames them and offers admonition under the form of narration? The outward appearance of the assembly, he says, shows one thing, for it appears to proceed from love and brotherly affection.

You gather in one place and all together, but the meal does not correspond to the gathering. He did not say, When you gather, you do not eat together and do not share food with one another.

Rather, he again speaks differently and far more strikingly: 'It is not,' he says, 'to eat the Lord's supper.' He reminds them of that supper at which Christ delivered the dread Mysteries.

Therefore he called their eating a supper, because at that supper all reclined together. Although rich and poor do not differ from one another as much as Teacher and disciples do, the difference between the latter is immeasurable.

But why do I speak of Teacher and disciples? Consider the difference between the Teacher and the betrayer. Yet He Himself reclined with them, did not cast out even the betrayer, but shared the salt with him and made him a communicant of the Mysteries" (Chrysostom).