Пятое отделение. Обличение и исправление некоторых непорядков при церковных собраниях (1Кор.11, 2–34)

This concerns two subjects: 1) non-protection by wives of heads in the church (1 Cor. 11:2-16); and 2) discord at love suppers (1 Cor. 11:17–34). 1. Against women not covering their heads in the church (1 Cor. 11:2-16) This is what it was all about. “Women with open and naked heads prayed and prophesied—then the wives also prophesied—and the men grew their hair long, like those who practiced philosophy, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering to the pagan law in both” (St. Chrysostom). Finding this indecent for Christians, the Apostle writes against it; however, as can be seen, his speech is directed mainly against women who did not cover their heads. He insists that they should cover them as a sign of their subordinate position relative to their husband, clarifying this position both a) according to the order of economy (1 Cor. 11: 2-6), and b) according to the order of creation ( 1 Cor. 11: 7-12), appending in support of his thought and c) the requirement of common sense ( 1 Cor. 11: 13-16). a) A woman’s head must be covered according to the order of the economy (1 Cor. 11:2-6) 1 Corinthians 11:2. I praise you, brethren, for you remember all my things, and as I have given you, you keep the traditions. With these words he paves the way for the reproach that follows. While with them, he established comprehensive rules for them, according to which family, civil, and church life was formed there. All mine, he says, remember, and keep my traditions. Remember what I commanded, and keep the rules that I have established. Meanwhile, he has already exposed many of their shortcomings, and after this he will expose them. What does this praise mean? – It can be assumed that the faults exposed were revealed in the absence of the Apostle and were revealed in objects regarding which detailed orders were not made, therefore he says, as it were: what I have instituted with you, you observe everything well, but irregularities have been discovered in you in other respects; I am writing to you about them and making new orders for you to improve, in the full hope that you will keep all this and keep it impeccably. Or this can be understood in this way: for the most part, the Corinthian Church was correct in everything and acted as he commanded, while deviations occurred only in some cases and were revealed in some individuals. In this case, praise to the majority is the best incentive for the minority to be jealous of their own performance. Saint Chrysostom understands this matter in this way. “Having praised the good and reproaching the faulty, the Apostle encourages the former, but puts the latter to shame. Reproach, although in itself can touch, has even greater power when combined with praise for the good. Therefore, he begins not with reproaches, but with praise, and with great praise, and says: “I praise you, for you remember everything I have.” This is what Paul usually does: he gives great praise for small virtues, not doing this out of flattery, let it not be; for could someone who did not seek money, fame or anything like that use flattery? - but in everything keeping in mind their salvation. - “And as I have betrayed to you, keep the traditions.” Consequently, he had previously taught them many things unwritten, as he expresses this in many other places; but before he only left them legends, and now he adds the reason. In this way he further strengthens the obedient and destroys the pride of the disobedient. He does not say: I praise you for obeying, while others did not obey, but, without expressing it directly, he hints at this in the further presentation of his instructions.” 1 Corinthians 11:3. I want to lead you, as Christ is the head of every man; the head of the wife is the husband; The head of Christ is God. He says, as it were: I praise you in general, but this and that is not quite right for you. And, intending to begin with the unveiling of women's heads in the church, he puts forward a solid beginning for reasoning about this in the ladder of subordination, which is built in Christ Jesus, according to the economy of salvation. “I want to lead you.” As if they didn't know what was being said here? - Of course they knew, and the Apostle’s word only means: bring to mind, realize, or imagine the following truth. Is it possible to assume that they did not know it in the form or in the relation in which it is presented here, for it is presented here as it is presented nowhere else. In this case, the Apostle communicates to them a new truth for knowledge. “Christ is the head of every man.” Christ is the head of all, the Head of the entire Church, just as in the body the head is not only the head of the chest, arms or legs, but the whole body. Consequently, the head of the wife is Christ. But just as in the body some members are directly related to the head, and others through the mediation of other members, so in the Church the holy Apostles and their successors, the primates of the Churches and the priesthood in general are more directly related to Christ, as the head; Other members of the church, despite the fact that they are in union with Christ as the head, in many cases have a need for their mediation. In a similar way, there is something why the husband seems to be more directly related to Christ as the head, and the wife, despite the fact that she has Christ as the head along with her husband, relates to Him in some way through her husband. In what sense exactly does this mean? Not at all in the way in which she is saved in the Lord; in this regard, everything she has is from the Lord, just like her husband. Faith is from the Lord, grace is from the Lord, all help is also from the Lord. And all this is communicated to the wife not at all from the husband, since he is the husband. This all follows its own God-established order. What kind? – The Apostle does not explain this, and it is very difficult to make a correct guess about this on your own. One thought seems to be that in Christ Jesus the usual subordination of the wife to the husband is not violated, and that although the wife is also in union with the Lord, she does not break away from her subordination to the husband; and she is in the Lord, but under her husband. Just as children and parents, masters and servants, subordinates and bosses remain in the Lord the same as they were in everyday life, so are husband and wife. Here the husband is taken as the head and representative of the family. “The head of a wife is her husband.” Did not the women in Corinth assume equality with their husbands in all respects, knowing that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, and that wives also have free access to Him, just like husbands? With this word the Apostle places them in his rank. And you were baptized equally, and you received the gift of the Spirit in confirmation equally, and you partook of the body and blood of Christ equally, and the inheritance of the kingdom was promised to you equally; But at the same time, do not forget that the head of the wife is the husband. “Desiring to husbands to subjugate their wives and teaching that from ancient times God commanded them to be under the authority of their husbands, the Apostle used this image of expression” (Theodoret). “The Head of Christ is God.” The head of Christ is God, as the God-man, according to the economy of salvation. And the Son of God incarnate is God, no less than God the Father and God the Holy Spirit; but, having taken upon Himself, in the council of the Divine, to fulfill the economy of salvation, He, like God, is the executor of what was laid down in the council of the Divinity. Why does he say that he came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent. In this regard, the head of Christ is God. Theodoret believes: “Not offering divine dogmas and not expounding theology, the Apostle gave such an order to his speech.” What did he want? – Just to bring to mind the subordination of a wife to her husband from a Christian point of view. Based on these words, one cannot in any way believe that just as a wife is to her husband, a husband is to Christ, so Christ is subordinate to God. If the husband is immeasurably far removed from Christ, and his subordination to Christ is to the same extent, then, measuring the wife’s subordination to her husband with this same measure, where will we find the measure for it? Saint Chrysostom says: “If in this entire speech we take the word “head” in the same sense, then the wife will be lower than the husband as much as the husband is lower than God the Word. And who can allow this? In setting out this ladder of subordination of the wife to her husband, the husband to Christ, and Christ to God, the Apostle does not determine the exact measure of subordination, but only suggests the idea, having primarily in mind the subordinate position of the wife relative to the husband. Although we will not understand this text exactly, the main thought of the Apostle is visible, and this is enough for us. 1 Corinthians 11:4–5. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head: for one thing is also shaved. It is not clear what connection these words have with the previous ones. They seem to constitute a special position, independent of those. We can certainly assume that a connecting thought has been omitted between them, and it is precisely this: if a wife, in the order of grace, remains in a subordinate position relative to her husband, then she must show this with all her appearance, just as the husband must show his power and advantage over his wife by his appearance. Among these signs of the wife’s subordination to her husband and the husband’s power over his wife is that the first always covers her head, and the second does not cover it in certain cases. It follows directly from this that if the first opens her head, and if the second covers it, then they are stepping out of their rank, and thereby disgracing themselves. Saint Chrysostom introduces this intermediary thought into the interpretation of this passage: “Many signs have been given to the husband and wife, one of power, and the other of subordination, among other things, that the wife should be covered, and the husband should have his head bare. If these are the signs, then both of them sin if they violate the decency and commandment of God, if they transgress their own limits, the husband stooping to the point of humiliating his wife, and the wife exalting herself in appearance before her husband. For if it is not permissible for them to change their clothes, that is, for a wife to put on a man’s dress, and a husband to put on a woman’s clothing, “let it not be,” he says, “let a man’s utensils be on a woman, nor let a husband put on a woman’s robe” (Deut. 22:5); it is also impermissible to change regarding the covers. The fact that one is covered, and the other is not covered, occurs from nature itself. By the name of nature I mean God, for He is the creator of nature. Therefore, if you transgress these limits, see how much harm will occur. Don't tell me this crime is unimportant; it is great in itself, because it is disobedience, and even if it were unimportant in itself, it is great because it concerns the sign of great objects. And that this sign is great is evident from the fact that it brings about improvement in the human race, representing in the proper form the superior and the subordinate; whoever acts against this brings everything into confusion, deprives himself of the gifts of God, humiliates the honor bestowed upon him from above, not only the husband, but also the wife. For it is a great honor for her to maintain her place, but, on the contrary, it is shameful to go beyond the limits. Therefore the Apostle speaks thus of both of them.” However, since in this entire speech about the covering of the head, attention is drawn primarily to the wife, it can be reliably believed that the disgrace of the husband by the covering of the head is spoken here only to round out the word and to clarify the matter by contrast. And regarding the wife, other interpreters conjecture that the one who covers her head lets everyone know that she has a husband and lives honestly with him, and the one who reveals it lets them know that she does not have a husband and that she is not firm in the rules. This is how he disgraces himself in front of all honest people. They also say that in the area for which the epistle was written, pagan wives went to their temples openly for unclean purposes. Banishing this custom from the Christian temple, the Apostle writes in this way, not remembering the shameful goals of the pagans, but deriving the prohibition from other sources, so that by this reminder he would not defile chaste souls, but by this conclusion of the command from a higher source to sanctify it and the very matter to which it concerned, with general Christian contemplations, so that Christ the Lord with His laws would be seen in everything. Saint Chrysostom says about the very derivation of the command from Christian principles, or about its confirmation by reasons, that this could not have happened, for for believers one command was enough; The Apostle gives this reason for the weak. “The Apostle gives this reason, he says, in order to make the weak more attentive. For he who believes properly and is firm in the faith does not need either proof or reason for what is commanded to him, but is content with tradition alone; but the weak one, having learned the reason, observes what was said with greater zeal and obeys with greater devotion.” What does it mean: “a woman who prays and prophesies”? – At first, in the meetings of believers, the Spirit of God manifested His special influence on others, and inspired prayer in one, and a word of edification in another. Both prayer and the word of edification could and can be born from one’s own reflection and deepening into Christian truths. But they knew how to distinguish between what was from the Spirit and what was their own. The one who felt this excitement stood up and said before the meeting what the Spirit of God inspired him to say: a prayer or a word of edification. The wives were not deprived of the gift of being in such a state, and they also stood up and said prayers or words of edification. But the Apostles found that it was indecent for women to say prayers and read instructions in church, which is why they forbade it, as St. Paul also forbade it below (in 1 Cor. 14). Here he speaks only about the impropriety of doing this with an open head, so as not to suddenly burden them with his legal provisions. The word of edification is called prophecy here because this inspiration resembled a prophetic state. However, both the prayer and the word often included direct prophecies, that is, predictions about the future. Saint Chrysostom says: “At that time there were men who prophesied, and wives who had this gift, for example, the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. About them, the prophet in ancient times said: “Your sons will prophesy... and your daughters will see visions” (Joel 2:28). The Apostle commands the husband not to always be open, but only during prayer; He commands his wife to always be covered, as can be seen from the appendix: “one thing is the same, to be more shorn.” If being shorn is always shameful, then it is obvious that being uncovered is always shameful.” 1 Corinthians 11:6. If the wife does not cover herself, let her have her hair cut; If it is disgraceful for a wife to cut her hair or shave, let her be covered. “First he demands that the wife not expose her head during prayer, and then explains that she must always be covered; and, moreover, covered with all care and prudence, for he did not simply say: let it be covered (καλυπτεσθαι), but: “let it be covered” (κατακαλυπτεσθαι), that is, it must be carefully closed on all sides. He also shows the indecency of the opposite course of action, and strongly reproaches him when he says: “if he does not cover himself, let him cut his hair”; if, he says, you overthrow the veil established by the law of God, then overthrow the one given by nature. But, someone will say, how can a wife be dishonored if she achieves the honor of her husband? - Through this, we say, she not only does not rise, but also loses her own honor. For not observing one’s own limits and laws established by God, but transgressing them, is not exaltation, but humiliation. Just as someone who desires someone else’s and steals what does not belong to him does not gain, but is humiliated and loses what he had, as, for example, it was in paradise; Likewise, in this case, the wife does not gain the nobility of her husband, then she also loses the decency of the wife. Thus, pointing out what is undoubtedly recognized as shameful in the words: “Is it shameful for a woman to cut her hair or shave”, the Apostle finally says on his own: “let him be covered,” he did not say: let him grow hair, but: let him be covered, suggesting that both are the same. The veil and the grown hair, he says, are one and the same; just as a shaved and naked head are one and the same, “it’s the same thing,” he says, “and also be cut off.” - But, someone will ask, how is it the same thing when she has a natural covering, and the shaven one does not have this? “She, we say, having a naked head, by her own will rejected the natural veil; if she is not devoid of hair, then this is the work of nature, not her; therefore, just as the shaven one has a naked head, so does she. For this reason, God commanded nature to cover her head with hair, so that the wife, having learned from nature, would cover herself” (St. Chrysostom). b) A woman’s head should be covered according to the order of creation (1 Cor. 11:7-12) 1 Corinthians 11:7–8. A husband must not eat to cover the head, the image and glory of God; The wife is the glory of her husband. There is no husband from his wife, but a wife from her husband. “This is already the second reason” (Saint Chrysostom). The Apostle begins to explain the subordination of the wife to her husband according to the order of creation. – First, the husband was created, and created in the image and likeness of God: he is a reflection of the glory of God. The wife is then taken from her husband, as if already created in his image, and therefore is the image of the image, or is a reflection of the husband’s glory. That’s why he adds to prove this: “For husband is not from wife, but wife is from husband.” Theodoret, limiting the image of God to the one dominion over creatures given to man, in relation to the course of speech says: “Man is the image of God by right of superiority. Since he is entrusted with authority over everything on earth, he is called the image of God. And the wife, being under the authority of her husband, “is glory to her husband,” and is, as it were, an image of an image. For although she is in authority over others, she is commanded to be in subjection to her husband.” From here this is what St. Chrysostom deduces: “The husband should not be covered, not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he has power over his wife (according to the order of creation). When someone with power approaches the king, he must have on himself a sign of his power. Therefore, just as no one in power would dare to appear before one clothed with a diadem without a belt and clothing appropriate to his rank, so you, without the signs of your power, that is, without a naked head, do not pray to God, so as not to dishonor both yourself and the one who honored you. The same should be said about the wife: it is dishonorable for her not to have signs of her subordination.” 1 Corinthians 11:9. For the husband was not created for the sake of the wife, but the wife for the sake of the husband. The husband was first created, therefore he exhibits some independent meaning. The wife was created according to the husband’s need to be in society with the like, and was created to be a helper to her husband. This expresses her dependent and subordinate position. “So the husband has primacy in the order of creation. And this is enough to prove that the husband has the power and the right to dispose, because he was not brought into being for the needs of his wife, but she for the needs of her husband” (Theodoret). “This is the second advantage, or better yet, the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we are the head of the wife; the second is that we are the glory of God, and our glory is the wife; the third is that we are not from the wife, but the wife is from us; the fourth is that we are not for her, but she is for us” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:10. For this reason, a wife should have power at the head, for the sake of an angel. “What for? – For all the reasons shown, and also for “Angel’s sake.” If you, he says, do not pay attention to your husband, then be ashamed of the Angels” (St. Chrysostom). “Have power on the head,” that is, a sign of the husband’s power over her - a head veil. “The Apostle called the veil “power,” as if to say: let him show subordination by covering himself, and especially for the sake of the Angels who are assigned to people, because they are entrusted with the care of them. So in Acts they said about Peter (who knocked on the door): not he himself, but “his angel is” (Acts 12:15). And the Lord says: “Be careful that you do not despise one of these little ones.” , believers in Me; “I say to you, for their angels have seen the face of My heavenly Father” (Matthew 18:10).” “Angel for the sake of” others refer to people, that is, to the primates of the Church, or to the most honest Christians present in the Church. But there is no need to deviate from the usual meaning of the word: “Angel”. What kind of thought: “Angel for the sake of”? Ashamed of them, or afraid of offending them. Just the thought of the invisible presence of Angels should calm you down and keep you in your rank. Personally, for the Angels themselves, whether the head is covered or not is equally indifferent; but with what intention and in what spirit it is done can either comfort them or offend them; and this is even more so if evil is not limited to one person openly holding the head, but spreads all around. The enemy sometimes, through one person, will harm hundreds. “So, covering is a sign of submission and submission; it encourages one to look down, to humble oneself, and to observe virtue, for the virtue and honor of a subordinate consists in being obedient. The husband is not ordered to do this, for he is the image of the Lord Himself; and the wife is justly prescribed” (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:11–12. Neither is a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, O Lord. As the wife is from the husband, the husband is the wife; everything is from God. The proof is over. But since in him the power of the husband seems too exalted, and this could give husbands a reason not only to be arrogant, but also to show dominance and lust for power excessively, then, preventing this, the Apostle says that the husband is also somewhat dependent on his wife, therefore he must show his advantage over her with moderation: not everything is on the side of the husband, there is something on the side of the wife. The Apostle expresses this with the words: “neither man without a wife,” and “husband by wife.” But what exactly this indicates is difficult to determine. The first sentence: “neither husband without wife, nor wife without husband in the Lord” - in a word: “about the Lord”, shows that here we are talking about husband and wife as they are in Christ Jesus. In “Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” The path to the Lord is equally open to both, and both are equally accepted. From this it follows: therefore, do not be astray, and do not appear divided before the Lord; but as the Lord has united you, so unitedly approach Him. Neither a husband appears before the Lord as if he did not have a wife, nor a wife as if she did not have a husband. But neither a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, ever be in the Lord. Putting this thought in accordance with the first reason for the wife’s subordination to her husband, according to the order of the economy, we can say that just as the equality of husband and wife in the Lord does not destroy the latter’s subordination to the former, so the law of her subordination to him does not destroy their equality in the Lord. And it is this last point that St. Paul seems to have meant to present here. The second sentence: “as the wife is from the husband, and the husband is the wife,” conveys the thought of husband and wife as they are in the order of creation. First, the wife was taken from (εξ) the husband: and then the husband began to be born of the wife (δια), through the wife. This says: the wife has an appeal to her husband, from whom she was taken; Look, too, at the nature of the wife who gave birth to you, and treat her with respect. “Everything is from God.” “All” – all of your relationships, or “all” – both of you – are from God. God created you too, and arranged everything regarding you this way, and keep these laws of God, whether they are by nature or by grace. Saint Chrysostom says: “Do not look, he says, only at the initial advantages and creation, but pay attention to the subsequent ones, and you will see that each of them depends on the other, or, better, not on each other, but all on God.” c) Covering a woman’s head is a requirement of common sense (1 Cor. 11:13–16) 1 Corinthians 11:13. You yourself judge whether it is right for a wife to pray more openly to God? The Apostle finally turns to natural feeling or meaning. Again he leaves them to judge for themselves what was said, just as he did in the conversation about the sacrifice to idols. And he suggests something terrible: “Here, he says, the insult concerns God; however, he does not say this directly, but expresses himself more condescendingly and secretly: “Is it stupid for a wife to pray more openly to God?” “(Saint Chrysostom). The speech is addressed to one wife, which shows that everything previous was said primarily to admonish her, although there the word also concerned the husband. 1 Corinthians 11:14–15. Or perhaps it is not your very nature that teaches you that if a man grows his hair in squalor, it is dishonor to him; But even if a wife grows hair, glory is to her; In the beginning, the Vlasov plant was given to her instead of clothing. “If a woman considers it an honor to have hair, but considers taking it away as a dishonor, then let her consider how she dishonors the One who gave the hair, approaching (to Him in prayer) not with appropriate modesty and honor” (Theodoret). “Just as in many other places he always uses well-known evidence, so here he turns to well-known custom and greatly shames the listeners who receive instructions from him, in what they could know from ordinary custom, for this is not unknown to the barbarians” (St. Chrysostom). But we are talking about covering the head with veils, and the given custom speaks of growing hair. What connection? – The Apostle first indicated this connection when he said that being without a covering for a wife is the same as being shorn. And now he says the same thing from the opposite side: for a wife to be without a covering is the same as being shorn, and with a covering is the same as for her to grow hair. Just as growing your hair is a glory to your wife, so covering your head is a glory. “But you will say: if hair is given to the wife instead of clothing, then why add another to one garment? - In order to show submission not only by nature, but also by will. Nature has decreed in advance that you should be covered, and you should add something of your own, so that it does not seem that you are violating the laws of nature, for to resist not only us, but also nature, is a sign of great shamelessness” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:16. If anyone imagines being controversial, we are not imams of such a custom, lower than the Church of God. “Since I wrote to philosophizing hunters, who had the custom of defending their thoughts through syllogisms and refuting those of others, he tells them: now is not the time to argue. Whoever shamelessly rebels against what has been said, we and the churches of God do not have such a custom. Which one? - Argue; but we willingly submit to the orders of the teachers, without objecting to them in the least” (Ecumenius). “We, he says, do not have such a custom as to argue, compete and contradict. Without stopping there, he adds: “below the church of God,” suggesting that by not obeying, they are at enmity and opposed to the entire universe. Consequently, resistance is a sign of perseverance, not prudence” (St. Chrysostom). Or this is the Apostle’s flow of speech. He says, as it were: I proved, convinced, explained that wives in church should have their heads covered; For the attentive and judicious, what has been said is enough. But if anyone raises a dispute and invents objections, I will say to him: there is no point in arguing; The matter is settled, we and all the Churches of God do not have such a custom, that is, the custom for women to appear in church with their heads uncovered. Drop your objections and submit to the common voice. Saint Chrysostom concludes his word about this: “If then the Corinthians contradicted this law, but now the whole universe has accepted and preserves it. Such is the power of the Crucified One!” This second opinion is given by Ecumenius, Theophylact and Theodoret. The latter writes: “These words are sufficient to shame even those who are extremely contentious,” for the Apostle showed that this is the opinion not of him alone, but of all the Churches of God. 2. Against discord at love suppers (1 Cor. 11:17–34) “First of all, we need to explain the reason for the proposed denunciation, then our speech will be more understandable. What is this reason? Just as in the beginning the believers, numbering three thousand, ate food at a common table and had everything in common (this is in Jerusalem, immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit), so it was when the Apostle wrote this, although not with such accuracy, but only as if some remnant of the former communion was preserved and observed in subsequent times. The believers, some of whom were rich and others poor, although they did not give all their property to the common benefit, nevertheless, on established days, according to custom, they established common tables and, at the end of the meeting and communion of the Mysteries, they all gathered for a common meal, and the rich brought food, and the poor and those who had nothing were invited by them; and thus they all ate food together. The custom is wonderful and beneficial! “For he served to support love, consolation of poverty, good use of wealth, instilling great wisdom, preserving humility” (St. Chrysostom). It was introduced in Corinth, as elsewhere, and at first everything went in order here, but then some disturbances occurred, which distorted the very essence of these suppers. Having learned about this, Saint Paul now addresses them with an accusatory and corrective word. The flow of his speech is as follows: a) first he points out what is wrong and denounces them (1 Cor. 11:17–22); b) then, in order to encourage reverence in relation to the Supper of Love, he speaks about the sacrament of the Body and Blood, namely, aa) how it was established (1 Cor. 11:23–26) and bb) how to approach it worthily (1 Cor. 11:27–32) and c) finally makes decisions regarding the order at the Supper of Love (1 Cor. 11:33–34). a) Indication and denunciation of disorder at love suppers (1 Cor. 11, 17–22) 1 Corinthians 11:17. I do not praise this in bequeathing, for you are planning not for the best, but for the worst. “And this bequeathing,” παραγγελλων, - proclaiming, offering. These words refer to the previous one. At the same time, the following guidance comes to mind: beginning his speech about covering the heads of wives in the church (1 Cor. 11:2), the Apostle said: “I praise you that you remember everything that is mine, and keep the tradition that I gave you.” Then there is all the talk about women covering their heads in church, and no hint is made that this should not be done among the Corinthians, but it is only written in general that this should be done and how absurdly contrary it is. At the end of the argument it is only added: if anyone still argues after all that has been said, then let him know that this is the custom everywhere. - This tone of speech is so general, without a hint of malfunction, gives the idea that the Corinthian women covered their heads and carried out the order regarding this holy Apostle; there were only a few smart people who objected to this. The Apostle writes: I praise you for doing as I commanded; and against the objectors he put forward the reasons why women should behave in church this way and not otherwise, ascribing in conclusion: don’t argue anymore, for all Churches do this. So, it will be: I praise what you do as I betrayed, and against the objectors I say this and that... While proclaiming this, I do not praise this, that “you are preparing not for the best, but for the worst.” Maybe this way it will be better to understand the matter. “Gathering together,” that is, coming together for a love supper. “Not for the best, but for the worst,” gives the idea that before they had good things, but now they have become bad. Everyone should be moving forward and ascending to the better, but they moved backward and descended to the worse. “I reproach you justly, for virtue should have increased over time, but you are losing it and diminishing this wealth” (Theodoret). “When you should have prospered and grown in love, you have reduced the already dominant custom, and reduced it in such a way that it became necessary for me to admonish you to return to the previous order” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:18. First of all, as you come to church, I hear the discord that exists in you, and I believe some of them. What was the mess? - The fact is that when it was necessary for everyone to partake of the supper of love together, they were divided into groups, or families, or pleasures, and the poor were left to themselves, while the purpose of establishing this supper was so that the poor, on these days of common communion of the Holy Mysteries, would have consolation from those who are sufficient. He says this directly in verse 21; and here the same thing is meant by the general expression: “strife.” “Strife” σχισματα, divisions - which shows that they did not quarrel, but were simply divided due to reluctance to share their wealth with the poor. Saint Chrysostom says: “So that it does not seem that he speaks only in favor of the poor, the Apostle does not immediately begin speaking about meals, but, so that his reproof is not taken by them as unimportant, he uses an expression that is more striking and instills greater fear. - What is he saying? - “I hear... strife.” He does not say: I hear that you do not institute common suppers; I hear that you eat food each separately, and not together with the poor; but he uses an expression that could shake their soul more strongly, namely: “strife” (falling into pieces, like clothes being torn into shreds), which were the cause of this disorder, and thus again reminds us of what was said at the beginning of the message and what was announced to him by Chloe’s household. “And some of these I believe.” So that they don’t say: what if some slanderers lied? “He does not say: “I believe,” so that they do not become shameless, and he does not say: “I do not believe,” so that the reproof does not seem unnecessary, but: “a certain part,” he says, “I believe,” that is, I believe somewhat, and thereby makes them attentive and calls for correction.” Thus, the first must either be recognized as being left without the second, or it must be attributed to its share what was divided into batches, whereas everyone should have prepared one meal, one common table; and under the second, put what was left for the poor. “To those who come to church for you.” They came to church not directly for the supper of love, but to celebrate the Eucharist and receive the Holy Mysteries. After this sacred rite, they instituted the supper of love, from the remnants of the bloodless sacrifice and from what was brought directly for the supper. The exposed disorder could not but indicate a lack of reverence for the sacrament of the Body and Blood; why, after this, the Apostle speaks about the importance of this sacrament and the attention due to it. Why did this happen? “We got used to it, took a closer look, and began to look at everything in church as if it were any other everyday matter and conduct it not contrary to our character.” And it came forward: this is mine, but you prepare it for yourself. Does the word "church" only mean a meeting? - Maybe, and this only means; but it is nothing marvelous that there was also a special place for meetings, whether the building was new or ready-made by one of the believers. Having a special place for general prayer and meeting religious needs is a need of faith. No special decrees are needed to elect him and install him. This happens on its own. 1 Corinthians 11:19. It is fitting for heresies to be in you, so that temptations may appear in you. “By the name of heresies, he here does not mean errors regarding dogmas, but real (and similar) discords. However, if he had also spoken about errors regarding dogmas, then even in this case he would not have given rise to temptation (in the word: “appropriate”). For Christ also said: “need is a temptation to come” (Matthew 18:7), and yet he did not violate free will and did not place us in some kind of necessity and inevitability, but predicted the future, which was to happen from the evil human will, not as a result of His prediction, but from the arbitrariness of depraved people. Temptations did not occur because He predicted them, but because He predicted that they were going to happen. For if temptations occurred out of necessity, and not according to the will of those who produce them, then he would in vain say: “Woe to that man to whom temptation comes” (Matthew 18:7). – That the Apostle really called “heresies” here the disturbances during meals and the divisions that occurred therein, he clearly expressed this in subsequent words. For having said: “I hear the strife that exists among you,” he did not stop there, but, wanting to explain what kind of strife he means, he says further: “Everyone precedes his supper” (1 Cor. 21). It is obvious that he is talking about these riots; and whoever calls them strife (tearing apart society), do not be surprised at this; he wanted, as I said, to have a stronger effect on them with such an expression. If he understood dogmatic heresies, he would not speak to them so meekly” (St. Chrysostom). “What do the words mean: “Let trials be manifested in you”? - So that they shine more. He wants to say that this not only does not harm unyielding and firm people, but also makes them more noticeable and glorious. The particle “so that” does not always mean the goal, but often the consequence of the matter. This is how 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 see will be blind” (John 9:39); so does Paul himself, when he speaks of the law: “But the law came, that sin might abound” (Rom. 5:20). The Law was not given to increase the crimes of the Jews; but that's how it was. And Christ did not come so that those who see would become blind, but for the opposite purpose; but that's how it was. In a similar way, here we need to understand the words: “yet there may be manifestations of skill”; the heresies (divisions and disturbances at the suppers) were not so that the skilled ones would be revealed, but when they appeared, then it happened. The apostle said this to console the poor, who generously endured contempt. Therefore, he did not say: “Yes, there are trials,” but: “Yes, there are trials,” expressing that they were like that before, but mixed with others and, receiving consolation from the rich, were not very noticeable, but now confusion and disagreement made them known, just as a storm makes a helmsman known. Also, he did not say: “Let you be made manifest” (you are such and such), but: “Let the arts appear in you”; just as in reproach he did not point directly at anyone, so as not to make them more shameless, and in praise, so as not to make them careless, but he expressed himself vaguely, leaving everyone’s conscience to apply what was said to himself. It seems to me that here he consoles not only the poor, but also those who did not violate that custom, for, probably, among them there were those who observed it. That is why he said: “I believe in part.” He rightly calls those skillful who not only followed the custom together with others, but even without them did not violate this wonderful institution. With such praise he tries to arouse greater zeal in both.” (Saint Chrysostom). When he says, “It’s fitting,” he gives a reason. For what? - To what lies ahead: “I hear strife...”. Why can one think that he consoles himself with these words, as it were: “I hear strife in you.” Mournful; but what to do? It’s fitting for this to happen too. Some deviate from the rules, others, being firm in them, become even more established in them for the future. 1 Corinthians 11:20. For those who come together together, you will not eat the Lord's Supper. "The Lord's Supper" is the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is actually the communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, Body and Blood; but due to the connection with it, the supper of love, the name passed to this supper; just like the supper at which the sacrament of the Eucharist was established, we call the entire Last Supper, while there only a small part was the Last Supper itself, when the Lord established the sacrament of the Body and Blood and communed the holy Apostles for the first time - the rest was all a simple meal, for although it was the Old Testament Passover, at that time it ceased and became a simple meal. This corresponded to the love supper that took place after the communion of the Holy Mysteries. The Apostle says: when you come together to one place to eat the Lord’s Supper, you behave in such a way that it is not at all like you were eating the Lord’s Supper. Everyone was there together, no one was seized, even Judas the traitor; and among you there are poor people who are like the Apostles in patience. “You all partake of the Master’s sacrament,” he says: “those living in poverty, those boasting of wealth, servants and masters, rulers and subordinates.” Therefore, it was necessary that common meals should really be common, and be likened to the Master’s Supper, which is equally offered to everyone. Now this is not how you act” (Theodoret). “Do you see how he shames them and, under the guise of storytelling, offers suggestion? – The outward appearance of the meeting, he says, shows one thing, for it comes as if out of love and brotherly love; you gather in one place, and everyone is together, and the meal does not correspond to the meeting. He did not say: when you gather, you do not eat together, do not share food with each other, but again it is expressed differently and much more strikingly: “there is,” he says, “the Lord’s supper to eat,” reminding them of that supper at which Christ taught the terrible Mysteries. Therefore, he called their eating supper, since at that supper they all reclined together. Although the rich and the poor are not as different from each other as the Teacher and disciples, - the difference between the latter is limitless, - but what am I saying about the Teacher and the disciples? Imagine what a difference there is between the Teacher and the traitor; and yet He Himself reclined with them, did not expel the traitor, but also shared the salt with him and made him a communicant of the Mysteries” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:21. Each one prepares his supper for consumption, and he hungers, and he gets drunk. That's why your supper is not like the Lord's supper! - Each of the guilty, of course, is in a hurry to quickly eat what he brought, not wanting to share with others. And this feature is reprehensible, and especially the fact that you continue to consider what was brought to church as a gift to the Lord as yours and dispose of it as your faulty heart desires. But it shouldn't have been that way. They brought to the church what God had sent, and had to give it to the hosts of the supper, so that they would distribute everything equally to everyone, and so that no one would receive anything extra over others. The result of your disorder is that one is full and even drunk, and the other is hungry. “Do you see how they shame themselves more than themselves? “They appropriate what belongs to the Lord to themselves, and therefore, first of all, they humiliate themselves, depriving their meal of what constitutes its greatest dignity. Why and how? - “The Lord’s Supper,” that is, the Lord’s Supper must 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, it says, therefore, it is common. If it belongs to your Lord, as it really does, then you should not appropriate it to yourself, but as belonging to the Lord and Master, offer it to everyone in general. - She is “the Lord’s”, and you prevent her from being the Lord’s, not allowing her to be common, but eating on her own. Therefore, he adds: “everyone precedes his supper to be consumed.” He did not say: separates, but: “prefaces”, covertly denouncing them of immoderation and intemperance, which is explained by what follows, for having said this, he continues: “and they hunger, and they get drunk”; both, lack and excess, show immoderation. Here is the second guilt, which also harms themselves; the first is that they dishonor their supper; and the second is that they become satiated and drunk, and, even more importantly, when the poor are hungry. What should have been offered to everyone in general, they consume alone, and thus fall into satiety and drunkenness. Each of these deeds in itself is worthy of condemnation: to get drunk without neglecting the poor is criminal; and to neglect the poor without reveling is criminal. If both are combined together, then imagine what a great crime will happen” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 11:22. You don’t have food at home, so you can eat and drink? Or are you neglectful of the Church of God and disgrace those who have no property? What do I tell you, will you praise me about this? I won't praise you. “If you like to live in luxury, then do it in houses. And here it is an insult and a clear desecration of the Church. Isn’t it the most inappropriate thing, inside the church of God, in the presence of the Master, who offered us a common meal, for you to live luxuriously, while those in need hunger and are ashamed because of poverty?” (Theodorite). “Do you see how he transfers insults from the poor to the Church in order to strengthen his speech? – Here is the fourth fault, which is that they insult not only the poor, but also the Church. Like the Lord’s Supper, he says, so you appropriate the place itself, using the church as if it were your home. The Church was not built so that those who gather in it would be divided, but that those who were divided would be united, as the very word “assembly” shows. - “And you shame the poor.” He did not say: you leave the poor hungry, but with greater reproach: “you bring shame,” expressing that he is not so concerned about food as about the insult caused to the poor. This is the fifth fault: they not only despise the hungry, but also put them to shame. - With these words, on the one hand, he praises the poor, expressing that they are not so much worried about the stomach as about dishonor, and on the other hand, he disposes the listener to mercy. - Having shown so much criminality in their behavior: humiliation of the supper, humiliation of the Church, insult to the poor, he suddenly softens the force of the accusation and says: “Will you praise this? I won’t praise you." “It is especially and worthy of surprise that, having shown so many crimes, when he should have expressed his anger more strongly, he acts completely differently - he softens his speech and makes it easier for them. Why is this so? “He has already touched them greatly, proving the importance of their guilt, and, like an excellent doctor, he uses medicine appropriate to the wounds.” He does not cut through those requiring a deep cut (abscesses) only on the surface - you heard how he cut off an incest from them - and for those requiring easier healing he does not apply iron; therefore here he speaks to them meekly. On the other hand, he primarily tried to make them meek towards the poor, therefore he himself talks meekly with them” (St. Chrysostom). b) About the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11, 23–32) The Apostle speaks about this because the supper of love was established in connection with this sacrament, therefore indecent behavior at this supper exposed lack of reverence for this sacrament. By raising in their minds how high this sacrament is and with what strict preparation one must approach it, he thereby hopes to put an end to the current disorder. Yes, if the guilty had not first lost their reverence for the sacrament, they could not have allowed any malfunctions at the supper. Saint Chrysostom speaks about it this way: “Why does he mention these mysteries here? - Because it was very necessary for the real subject. Your Lord, he says, has honored everyone with the same meal, and, moreover, the most terrible and far surpassing the dignity of all; and you consider others unworthy of your meal, unimportant and insignificant, and, while they do not receive from you any of the spiritual benefits, you take away from them their bodily benefits, although they are not yours. However, he does not say this (directly), so that his words are not too heavy, but uses a more meek speech (preventing ourselves from guessing where his word is heading).” The Apostle speaks here - aa) about the establishment of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and bb) about a worthy approach to it (1 Cor. 11: 27-32). aa) Establishment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11, 23–26) 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I received from the Lord, and delivered it unto you, even as the Lord Jesus was delivered unto you in the night... “I received from the Lord,” “that is, I was taught by the Lord” (Ecumenius). Saint Paul was taught everything directly by the Lord Himself. Not only did the Lord personally teach him the secrets of faith, but also the image of performing all the sacraments of grace. “I will betray it to you.” As he received from the Lord, so he delivered it to you. Saint Chrysostom says at this: “The Apostle says this so that you understand that that supper did not contain anything greater in comparison with the subsequent ones. For now the same Lord does and teaches everything, as he did then.” “In the night, in darkness, betrayed by your former self.” “Why does he remind us of this time, this supper and betrayal? – Not simply and not without reason, but in order to touch more deeply and with time itself. For everyone, even if he were a stone, imagining how the Lord grieved with his disciples that night, how he was betrayed, bound, led and condemned, how he endured everything else, will become softer than wax, will renounce the earth and all the vanity here. This is why the Apostle reminds us of all this; shames us with time, and supper, and betrayal and says: Your Lord gave Himself for you, and you don’t want to give your brother bread for yourself? “And not only for this reason does he remind us of this night, but in order to touch us in another way.” As in general, we remember more the last words that we hear from the dying, and to their heirs, when they dare to violate their wills, we say in reproach: remember that these are the last words of your father, which he bequeathed before his very death; So Paul, wanting to strengthen his speech in this way, says: remember that this was the last sacrament that He taught you, that He bequeathed it on the night on which He was preparing to die for us, and, having offered us this supper, after it He did not offer any other.” 1 Corinthians 11:24. Take the bread and break it, giving thanks, and say: Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me. Taking the bread into Your most pure hands, “giving thanks, break it.” The Lord’s word of thanksgiving was not the Old Testament about the deliverance from Egypt and other good deeds of God, but about the foundations of the new covenant, like His high priestly prayer at the end of the same supper, about the completion of the work that was given to Him; Thanksgiving was combined with a blessing, as the Evangelists Matthew and Mark say, directed at the bread and wine that was presented, a secret blessing. By thanksgiving and blessing, bread is Body and wine is Blood; why, having broken bread, the Lord said: take, eat, “this is My Body.” He took the bread, and after thanksgiving and blessing, he gave the disciples no longer bread, but the Body: for he was transformed into a blessing. This is My Body, “broken for you,” will not be broken for you, but is broken, thereby signifying the continuity of breaking and the incessancy of the sacrifice of the Body. – It is a sacrifice for the entire human race; but its salvific power and intercessory power dawns only on those who by faith have joined Christ the Lord and partake of it; why “for you is broken. Do this in remembrance of Me." Saint Chrysostom has already said: what was done then at the supper is also done now at the Lord's suppers. Then there was nothing superior to the present Last Suppers, and in the present Last Suppers there is nothing lacking compared to that one. For the performer of the Mysteries is the same Lord, who even then established this sacrament. From that moment this mysterious remembrance of the Lord continues in the Church among all believers everywhere, and not mentally, but as a repetition of the deed in its very essence. 1 Corinthians 11:25. In the same way he took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in My Blood; Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me. “Likewise the cup,” that is, the reception, does not repeat the thanksgiving and blessing of the celestial celebrant, but gives it as ready blood, saying: “This cup is the new covenant.” The Apostle does not cite the words: “drink from it,” for this was self-evident, but only recalls the words meaning the mysterious power of the blood: “this cup is the new covenant in My Blood.” Moses, having read the law aloud to all the Israelites, sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice, and said: “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you” (Ex. 24:8). The meaning of the Old Testament sprinkling was: if you do not fulfill the law, you will pay for non-fulfillment with your blood. The meaning of the cup of the new covenant is, even if I had to shed all my blood, I will not depart from You and Your commandments, Lord. Just as the Lord shed His blood for us, so we must be ready to shed ours for Him. This is the essence of the new covenant. In response to our decision to sacrifice our lives for the Lord and faith in Him and His commandments, the life-giving Blood of the Lord descends inside as a cleansing and sanctifying force. Those who drink it do not take on the fear of death, but are filled with grace-filled inspiration, ready for all holy deeds and all hardships and sorrows. “Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me.” - “Do this,” that is, perform the sacrament of Blood and drink My Blood - in remembrance of Me, in remembrance of the blood shed by the Lord for us, and at the same time of the covenant, by us in the communion of His acceptable Blood. - “As often as you drink,” every time you drink. The power of the sacrament is always the same: and your obligation to this should be the same, and the feeling with which you should approach the cup, both for the first time, should always be the same. The Apostle remembered these words in order to prevent our harmful habituation to everything and the subsequent indifference, and in order to dispose each time before the cup to renew the dispositions that we had at this time for the first time. This is how, he says, the sacrament of the Body and Blood was established, after accepting which you move on to the supper of love, and there you behave in a way that is not appropriate for someone who remembers and understands what power and what significance this sacrament has. What corrective suggestions the Corinthians could have borrowed from here, St. Chrysostom puts it this way: “If you approach (the Mysteries of the Body and Blood) for thanksgiving (this sacrament is otherwise called the Eucharist - thanksgiving), then do not do anything unworthy of thanksgiving, do not shame your brother, do not despise the hungry, do not get drunk, do not offend the Church. You begin to give thanks for the benefits you have received; repay on your part, and do not separate from your neighbor. Christ served the supper equally to everyone, saying: “Take, eat.” He taught the Body to everyone equally, but you don’t want to distribute the common bread equally to everyone? The bread was broken by Him equally for all, and became the Body equally for all. “Do this in remembrance of Me.” What are you doing? Do you make remembrance of Christ, and despise the poor, and do not tremble? When you commemorate a dead son or brother, your conscience would torment you if you did not fulfill the custom and invite the poor, but when commemorating your Lord, you do not even want to share the meal.” 1 Corinthians 11:26. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, the Dondezh will come. This is a conclusion from the image of the establishment of the sacrament, which determines its meaning for the entire time until the second coming of the Lord. - “You proclaim the death of the Lord.” “Just as Christ, having said about the bread and the cup: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” revealed to us the reason for the establishment of the sacrament, and among other things, inspired us that this reason is sufficient to arouse reverence in us; for when you imagine what the Lord suffered for you, you will become more wise, and so Paul says here: “You proclaim the death of the Lord.” Such is this supper! The Apostle also inspires with this, so that believers even now in the same frame of mind approach the Mysteries, as if they were present at that very supper, reclining with the Apostles and accepting this sacrifice from Christ Himself” (St. Chrysostom). Every time you eat this bread, that is, about which the Lord said: this is My Body, - “and you drink this cup,” - that, that is, about which the Lord said that it is the new covenant in His Blood, - “you proclaim the death of the Lord.” With this solemn action you proclaim to everyone about the death of the Lord, namely, that there was on earth the Lord, God incarnate, who died on the cross for our sins. It is not faith, not the word that proclaims this, but the communion of the Body and Blood, without a word, publicly speaks about this to everyone. How criminal is non-communion! How unpardonably infrequent communion! At first, not a single meeting of Christians took place without communion among those gathered. Where are the communicants now?! And many liturgies are celebrated, especially in cities. This is very similar to how someone runs into a church, lights a candle and runs out to do his business: let the candle pray! A bloodless sacrifice is made, but Christians don’t even care about that. Let her proclaim the death of the Lord! The Apostle writes that it is not she who proclaims the death of the Lord for everyone, but her communion. The fact that there are no communicants rather means that Christians want to drown out the news of the death of the Lord. bb) About the worthy approach to the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 27–32) 1 Corinthians 11:27. Likewise, if anyone eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. “The same” – ωςε – so. Where does the conclusion come from? - From the essence of the sacrament. This bread is the Body of the Lord, and this cup contains the Blood of the Lord, the true blood, and not a substitute for the true. Therefore, whoever partakes of them unworthily is “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” What does this duty mean? - That he kills the Lord and sheds His blood. Saint Chrysostom says: “Why is he guilty of this? - Because he sheds blood and carries out a slaughter, and does not offer a sacrifice. Just as those who pierced the Lord then pierced not in order to drink, but in order to shed His blood, so does the one who partakes unworthily. Do you see how terrible his speech is and how much he touched them, showing that if they thus intend to drink (the Blood of the Lord), they will unworthily partake of the Mysteries that are presented? And truly, does not the one who despises the hungry approach the one who despises the hungry, and besides despising him, also shames him? For if not giving alms to the poor deprives a person of the kingdom of heaven, even if he was a virgin, as well as ungenerous giving, for the virgins also had oil, but not in abundance, then imagine how great the evil is if so many crimes are committed? What kind of crimes would you say? What crimes are you talking about? Having partaken of such a meal, you should have become more humble than everyone else and become like the Angels, but you have become more hard-hearted than everyone else; you have tasted the Blood of the Lord and do not recognize your brother; are you worthy of forgiveness? Even if you did not know him before, then after this meal you would have to recognize him; and you dishonor the meal itself, considering the one worthy to be a partaker of it unworthy of your dishes. Have you not heard what he suffered when he demanded a hundred denarii from his brother, how he lost the gift given to him by his master? Do you not know what you were and what you are now? Don’t you know that you were much poorer in money than you in good deeds, being filled with countless sins? However, God forgave you all your sins and honored you with such a meal; but even after that you did not become more philanthropic, therefore there is nothing left but to hand you over to the tormentors (Matthew 18:34). Let us all heed the words of the Apostle, who here begin the sacred meal together with the poor, and having left here, we do not want to even look at them, but, indulging ourselves in extensive food, we leave the hungry without attention, of which the Corinthians were then guilty. Having eaten something pleasant at dinner, you are careful not to spoil the previous one with another bad dish, but having received the Spirit, you indulge in pleasures. Remember what the Apostles did when they partook of the Holy Supper; Didn’t they turn to prayers and chants, to sacred vigils, to long teaching and filled with great wisdom? But if you fast before communion in order to somehow prove yourself worthy of communion, then after communion, when you should strengthen your abstinence, you will ruin everything. But it is not the same thing to fast before or after; must be abstinent at both times, but especially after receiving the Bridegroom; first - in order to become worthy of acceptance, and after, in order not to turn out to be unworthy of the gifts received.” Thus, Saint Chrysostom found out that not only those who do not prepare for it properly receive communion unworthily, but also those who, after receiving communion, behave unworthy of this communion. The example of the Corinthians leads to just such a lesson. 1 Corinthians 11:28. Let a man tempt himself, and let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup. To tempt oneself means to test and carefully examine whether one is worthy of holy communion. But as it is said here: “and let him eat from the bread and let him drink from the cup,” then this simultaneously indicates that if you find something that interferes with communion, remove it and correct it. Temptation here means worthy preparation. What is it? - In clearing the conscience. Bring repentance for your sins, and make a firm intention not to sin ahead, but to do every virtue instead of sins, and you are worthily ready for communion. Saint Chrysostom says: “The main good is to approach the Mysteries with a clear conscience. Not content with what was said before, he adds the following: “let man tempt himself,” as he says in the second epistle: “tempt yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5), and not as we now do, conforming more to the times than to the disposition of the soul. We are trying not to approach prepared, cleansed of all evil and with complete reverence, but only to begin when everyone else is starting. This is not what Paul commands; he knows only the time to begin the Mysteries and Communion, when his conscience is clear. If we do not approach a sensual meal, suffering from a fever and a rush of bad juices, so as not to suffer death, then even more so we should not touch this meal with vicious desires, which are worse than a fever. By the name of vicious desires I mean both physical and mental - covetousness, anger, resentment, and in general all vicious inclinations. The one who approaches must cleanse himself of all such things, and then touch this pure sacrifice. Therefore, the Apostle says: “Let everyone tempt himself,” and so let him begin; commands to test not one another, but oneself, holding a trial without publicity and conviction without witnesses.” 1 Corinthians 11:29. He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment without considering the Body of the Lord. “What are you saying? The source of so many blessings, the table that exudes life, turns into condemnation? “Not by his own nature,” he says, but by the fault of the one approaching. Just as the coming of the Lord, which brought us great and unexplored benefits, served to greater condemnation of those who did not accept Him, so these Mysteries bring greater punishment on those who partake unworthily. Why do you judge yourself? Without considering the Body of the Lord,” that is, without reflecting, without imagining, as it should, the greatness of the Mysteries offered and without thinking about the importance of the gift. If you fully understood Who is before you and to whom He offers Himself, then you would not need any admonition, and this alone would be enough to arouse complete reverence in you, unless you have fallen too deeply” (St. Chrysostom). “Judgment is coming,” suggests the actual verdict of God’s judgment at the very moment of tasting it, “and not only that, but also the judgment of punishment. The verdict of the court before this is indicated: “I am guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord”; and here, of course, the award of punishment. “If you accept a gift illegally, you will not only not receive salvation from it, but you will also suffer punishment for the desecration” (Theodoret). What is the punishment? – Just as there is one guilt, but its degrees are different, so are the punishments; and some are accomplished in this life, and sometimes immediately, while others are left until the next life. Everything is judged by God’s truth and mercy towards us, even in the punishment itself. That punishments were sent to those who received communion unworthily even in this life, the Corinthians themselves had experiences of this, as the Apostle subsequently says. 1 Corinthians 11:30. For this reason, there are many in you who are weak and sickly, and sleep (put to sleep) contentedly. “So, of course, it actually happened, for the Apostle would not have dared to write about something that did not happen, knowing that it was an obvious lie” (Theodoret). “Infirm” means weakness in general, “infirm” means certain diseases, “sleeping, falling asleep” means dying. “Here he cites as an example not others, as he did in the conversation about the sacrifice to idols, where he spoke about ancient events and the disasters of the Jews in the desert, but the Corinthians themselves, which makes his words more touching. Having said: “Judgment is your own,” and meaning that this should not be taken for mere words, he also points to deeds, calls them as witnesses, which is stronger than the threat, expressing that the threat has already turned into action. Not content with this, he then reminds them of Gehenna, and firmly proves his words, frightening them from all sides and resolving the question that is often proposed. Many people ask each other in bewilderment, what causes premature deaths, what causes long-term illnesses? “The cause of many, he says, of such unexpected disasters lies in sins. Those who sin, and yet are healthy and happy in a worldly way, are protected for future torment. There they will be subjected to the most severe punishment” (St. Chrysostom). So, there is no point in reassuring yourself, or indulging yourself in insolence, by what happens, and having received communion unworthily, not be subject to obvious punishment. No sin can be hidden from the truth of God, and it is impossible for any sin to remain without retribution. Someday he will get it. 1 Corinthians 11:31. Even if they reasoned with themselves, they would not have been condemned. “To reason with oneself” here is the same as above: “let everyone tempt himself.” This means: if we had properly tested ourselves before communion and properly prepared for it, then “we would not have been condemned,” that is, we would not have eaten or drunk ourselves in judgment, and the sentence would not have been pronounced on us: “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” Condemnation, that is, judgment and judgment of punishment, occurs for unworthy communion, and unworthy communion is allowed because we do not judge ourselves, do not test ourselves, and do not cleanse ourselves of sins by repentance, concealing some things, half telling others. “The Apostle did not say: if they punished themselves, or tormented themselves, but: if only they wanted to acknowledge their sins themselves and condemn themselves and their iniquities, then they would get rid of punishment both here and there. For he who condemns himself doubly propitiates God with the consciousness of his sins and the readiness not to commit them for the future. But we don’t want to do as we should, even this easy task” (St. Chrysostom). In the course of speech this refers to communion, but out of context this provision applies to any sin. Every sin comes from lack of judgment, and every sin is pronounced judgment and punishment in the very act of sin. The execution of the sentence is sometimes postponed for a while, but the sentence itself will immediately follow. To judge yourself means to realize who you are, who dares to commit sin, angering God in the face of God Himself, invisibly, but nevertheless truly inherent in you? Having accepted this immutable truth with consciousness, hardly anyone would dare to sin. But in the matter of sin, the enemy overshadows it and completely expels it from consciousness. No matter how absurd the word of a sinner is: God does not see, but it always passes through the thoughts of the sinner who sins. 1 Corinthians 11:32. If we judge, we are punished by the Lord, lest we be condemned with the world. The Apostle’s thought is all about the unworthy communion of the Holy Mysteries. “Judged” means that at the moment of unworthy communion, a sentence is pronounced on us, for, having received communion unworthily, we ate and drank judgment on ourselves. The sentence is followed by punishment, sometimes by weakness, sometimes by illness, sometimes by death. So “we are punished by the Lord.” But the Apostle has already spoken about all this above. What he now adds is: “Let us not be condemned with the world,” that is, these temporary punishments are sent by the Lord in order to save us from condemnation to eternal torment along with the world, or with all sinners and unbelievers. “The Apostle does not threaten us with punishment along with the world,” but spares us, threatening us with punishment here, which is temporary and contains much consolation, for it frees us from sins and gives us sweet hope for the future, which alleviates present suffering. By this he wants to both comfort the weak and make others more zealous. Now, he says, “we are judged, we are punished by the Lord.” He did not say: we are subjected to execution or torment, but we are “punished” παιδευομεθα, we are taught, we are admonished. For real punishment is more admonition than condemnation, more healing than punishment, more healing than torment, more correction than reward. And not only by this, but also by the threat of greater (future) punishment, he makes the present easier: “not in peace,” he says, “let us be condemned.” Do you see how he points to Gehenna and the Last Judgment and proves that this judgment and punishment are inevitable and will certainly occur? For if believers and those under the protection of God do not escape punishment for their sins, as can be seen from these instructions, then much less will the unfaithful and those who sin gravely and incurably” (St. Chrysostom). “The world” he called those mired in unbelief and sins, and says that since God especially favors and cares for believers, he rewards them for their sins here, so as not to be condemned by him along with them” (Ecumenius). c) Decrees on love feasts (1 Cor. 11:33–34) “That the Apostle offered the word about the Mysteries as an example, teaching the Corinthians that they should have common meals in churches, looking at this sacred meal, this is evidenced by what he added” (Theodoret). 1 Corinthians 11:33. In the same way, my brethren, when the food is coming together, wait for each other. Although it only says here to wait for others, that is, not to rush to eat and not to preempt anyone, but at the same time it is suggested that they should not eat alone, but share with everyone. “Again he offers instructions regarding the poor, about which he said all the previous things, and suggests that those who do not comply with this are not worthy of communion. He did not say: when you come together, give to the poor, but more sublimely: “Wait for each other.” For with such words he secretly inspired concern for the poor, and offered exhortation in a form consistent with the matter” (St. Chrysostom). “In the word: “wait,” he showed that what was brought to the congregation is a common property, and it should be eaten with everyone together” (Theophylact). “If you do not do this, then you will show that you unworthily partook of the Body and Blood of the Lord, becoming guilty of killing His Body and shedding His Blood; and for this we must immediately await judgment, followed by illness, suffering and death” (Photius in Ecumenia). 1 Corinthians 11:34. If anyone is hungry, let him eat in the house, so as not to sin. As for the rest, when I come, I will arrange them. Concession to weakness: if your need is so great that, having tasted what is available to you at the common meal, you feel hungry, eat at home; and do not allow sin in the meeting, because it is not safe to sin. When does the Apostle allow eating in the house, before supper or after? - There was no time before, and it was obscene. For the supper was preceded by the communion of the Mysteries. So, after. But there is nothing to say about this: whoever is hungry will take up bread of his own accord. Saint Chrysostom notes that the Apostle said this in order to “shame them. By giving such permission, he prohibits even more strongly than a direct prohibition, for he expels them from the church, sends them home, and thus greatly touches them, presenting them as slaves of the womb and incontinent. He did not say: if anyone despises the poor, but: “if anyone hungers,” reasoning as if with impatient children or with dumb animals serving the womb. Not content with this, he adds a more terrible thought: “let us not sin,” he says, “come together,” so that you do not gather for condemnation, do not incur punishment by insulting the Church, shaming your brother. You gather to show love to each other, to benefit and to benefit one another; if the opposite happens, then it is better for you to eat your fill at home. He says this in order to make them more inclined to communicate; For this purpose, he pointed out the harm that comes from non-communication, and proved that it is an important sin, and inspired fear on all sides, from the Mysteries, the sick, the dying, and other things mentioned above.” “As for the rest, when I come, I will arrange them.” “For not everything could be written about; but, having written about more necessary things, the Apostle kept the rest until his arrival” (Theodoret). “But this again inspires fear. What does he promise to do? - Or something else, or the same thing. Since, probably, they gave some other reasons and it was impossible to arrange everything through a message, he says: for now, let it be observed as I taught; if you have anything else to say, then let it remain until I arrive. He says this, as I said, either about the same matter, or about some other matters that are not very important; and does this in order to thereby make them more attentive. By awaiting his arrival, they could correct their shortcomings, for the arrival of Paul was an important matter. And not only is it promised to come; but, so that they do not doubt and do not indulge in carelessness, he also presents the reason that makes his arrival necessary: ​​“I will come and arrange it,” suggesting that even if he were not disposed to go to them, the need to correct other matters compels him to come there” (St. Chrysostom). Whatever this dispensation concerns, one cannot help but see from this that in church orders everything essential is from the Apostles. And it’s time for those who like to repeat: show me where it’s written? You might be interested in: