1 Corinthians 11:21Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

If it belongs to your Master, as indeed it does, then you must not appropriate it to yourself. Since it belongs to the Lord and Master, you must offer it to all alike. It is the Lord's, yet you hinder it from being the Lord's by not allowing it to be common, but eating by yourself.

Therefore he adds: "for each one hastens before others." He did not say, "separates," but "hastens," covertly reproving them for excess and lack of self-control. This is also explained by what follows. After saying this, he continues: "so that one is hungry and another is drunk." Both want and excess show immoderation.

Here is a second fault, which also harms them. The first is that they dishonor their own supper. The second is that they become sated and drunk, and what is still worse, while the poor are hungry.

What ought to have been offered to all alike they consume alone. In this way they fall into satiety and drunkenness. Therefore he did not say, "one is hungry and another is filled," but "another is drunk."

Each of these deeds is itself worthy of condemnation. To get drunk, even without neglecting the poor, is criminal. To neglect the poor, even without getting drunk, is criminal. If both are joined together, consider how great the offense is.

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).

"Do you see how they put themselves to shame above all? They appropriate to themselves what belongs to the Lord. Therefore they first of all abase themselves, depriving their table of what constitutes its greatest dignity.

Why and how? The Lord's supper, that is, the supper of the Lord, must be common. What belongs to the lord does not belong to this or that servant, but is common to all.

It is the Lord's, he says, and therefore common. If it belongs to your Lord, as indeed it does, then you must not appropriate it to yourself.

Rather, as belonging to the Lord and Master, you must offer it to all in common. It is the Lord's, but you hinder it from being the Lord's by not allowing it to be common, and by eating by yourself.

Therefore he adds, 'For each one takes his own supper ahead of others in eating.' He did not say, separates, but, takes ahead, covertly reproving them for immoderation and lack of self-control.

This is also explained by what follows. Having said this, he continues: 'and one is hungry, and another is drunk.' Both things, want and excess, show immoderation.

Here is the second charge, which also harms them themselves. The first is that they dishonor their supper. The second is that they gorge themselves and become drunk, and what is still graver, while the poor are hungry.

What should have been offered to all in common, they consume alone. Thus they fall into surfeit and drunkenness.

Each of these acts is condemnable in itself. To become drunk without neglecting the poor is sinful. To neglect the poor without becoming drunk is sinful. If both are joined together, consider what a great transgression results" (Chrysostom).