Глава 11

About a woman's veil (1–16). About disturbances during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist (17–34) 1 Corinthians 11:1–16. Most interpreters believe that already in the first half of the 11th chapter of Ap. refers to public worship, which was disrupted by the appearance of women without a veil on their heads. This assumption is based on the fact that verses 4, 5 and 13 mention prophecy, which supposedly took place only during public worship (cf. 1 Cor. 14:3–29). But nothing prevents us from assuming that the gift of prophecy was also manifested in home worship, in a close family circle, where women could act as performers of prayer. Some circumstances even prevent us from accepting the assumption that Ap. here refers to prayer and prophecy in public worship. So, to justify his ruling regarding women, Ap. does not refer at all to the special nature of public worship, and then in verse 17 he speaks about the circumstances that took place during public worship as something new (cf. Art. 18 - “firstly”). Finally, if we were talking about public worship, then Ap. I would also mention girls, and not just women. So, traces. Ap. refers to a woman's home life. What caught his attention here? Apparently, Corinthian Christian women sought complete equal rights with their husbands. The Corinthian women understood the Apostle’s teaching that in Christ Jesus there is no difference between the male and female sexes (Gal. 3:28) not only in the sense of the equality of their rights to salvation and grace with the rights of men, but in the sense of equality and in the rights of everyday life. They revealed this understanding of equality in the fact that during home prayers, where they sometimes prophesied, they took off their veil, which in Corinth obviously served as a symbol of the wife’s subordination to her husband. Against this desire of the Corinthian Christian women, Ap. and speaks now, as he previously spoke, against the desire of Christian slaves for liberation (1 Cor. 7:21 et seq.). He exhorts the Corinthians to remain within the same limits that were specified by him at their very creation. He requires women to wear a veil when praying and prophesying as a sign of their submission to their husband. Then, to further demonstrate the absurdity of the claims of the Corinthian women, Ap. points them to the common Greek custom and to the custom observed in other Christian churches. 1 Corinthians 11:1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. This verse forms the conclusion to ch. X-th. Ap. teaches Christians to imitate him, just as he imitates Christ. He can be an example for others insofar as he himself imitates the example of Christ, who was a model of complete self-denial (cf. Rom. 15:1-3). Of course, Ap. does not require slavish imitation from Christians: the circumstances of his life and the life of the Corinthians were different - all the more so, of course, this must be said about modern circumstances. But Christians should always and everywhere have the same spirit of self-denial that was imbued with St. Paul. 1 Corinthians 11:2. I praise you, brothers, that you remember everything I have and keep the traditions as I handed them to you. “I praise you” - more correctly: “but I praise you for this.” The particle “but” indicates a transition to a new topic. - “Traditions”, - that is, instructions concerning church life, and not teaching. About the latest Ap. says in 1 Corinthians 15:3. - Ap. wants to say here that in general the behavior of the Corinthians deserves praise - they are trying to maintain the order established by the Apostle. 1 Corinthians 11:3. I also want you to know that the head of every husband is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. But there is something in the behavior of the Corinthians that is not worthy of praise. The Corinthians were proud of the vastness of their Christian knowledge and some of them, the most liberal, probably did not consider it necessary to be guided in their lives by the instructions of St. Pavel. In view of this Ap. and says that they need to learn properly one more important circumstance, to which they obviously did not pay attention: everywhere and in the relations of man to man, man to God, and even in the relations between God and Christ, there is a certain subordination, which did not even occur to the freedom-loving Corinthians. - “The head of every man is Christ.” The expression “head” has a double meaning: on the one hand, it contains the idea of ​​vital communication (nerves go from the head throughout the body), on the other hand, it indicates that in this communication there is some inequality between the two sides. Such is the communication between husband and wife in marriage: although it is close and vital communication, nevertheless, one side - the husband - is stronger and dominant here, and the other - the wife - is dependent and more passive than active. The same is the relationship between a man (here “husband” means “man”) and Christ. There is also an active side, the dominant one - this is Christ, and a weak side, capable of perceiving rather than acting - this is the man. Finally, this relationship ascends even higher, reaching the life of the Divine: the Father and the Son are also two parties who are in the closest communication with each other, but still the Son does nothing of Himself, “unless he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19). “The husband is the head of the wife.” Ap. denotes here the natural and social legal relationship of a husband to his wife. The husband is the head of the family, and the wife occupies (or occupied) a subordinate position. Christianity did not destroy such an order, but sanctified it. Thus, in relation to spiritual salvation, a woman, just like a man, has Christ as her head (the saying: “I am the vine, and you are the branches” - John 15:5 - applies to both sexes), nevertheless, in natural and social terms, a woman must occupy a subordinate position in relation to her husband. “And the head of Christ is God.” Ancient church interpreters and some of the new ones see here the relationship of God to the incarnate Son of God. The correctness of this view is also supported by the fact that Ap. used the term “Christ” here, and not the Son of God. Godet finds it possible to see here an indication of a certain subordination that exists between the Son of God before the incarnation and God the Father. This opinion has long been recognized as heretical (subordinationism), and the reason that Godet gives in its favor is not important. He says precisely that if we see here the relation only to the incarnate Son of God, then with this understanding we must eliminate the thought of the unity of life and being between Christ and God. But the Lord Jesus Christ clearly and definitely testifies that the unity between Him and the Father remained perfect even after His incarnation. “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30; cf. John 10:38, 15). 1 Corinthians 11:4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 1 Corinthians 11:5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved. 1 Corinthians 11:6. For if the wife does not want to cover herself, then let her cut her hair; and if a wife is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself. Between verses 3 and 4, the following thought must be inserted: “if a wife is truly subordinate to her husband, then she must show this subordination in her outer appearance, and above all in covering her head.” - “Every husband.” Ap. speaks of a husband not because in Corinth men appeared at the liturgical meeting with their heads covered, but because through this mention the abnormality of a woman appearing with her head uncovered becomes even more pronounced. - “Praying or prophesying” - its explanation in ch. XIV. - “His head,” that is, both himself and Christ, his Head, about whose glory he must care. By covering his head, a man would thereby make it clear that he is dependent on some other Head other than his own, the heavenly one, and thereby would steal the honor that is due to Christ. - “And every wife...”. Since, on the contrary, a woman has a visible head above her “and on earth” - her husband - it would be a disgrace for the latter if a woman put on a robe that was a symbol of an independent position. - “Praying or prophesying” - obviously at home, and not during public worship, because Ap. forbade women to speak in public worship (1 Cor. 14:34). - “Her head” - that is, her husband, from whom she takes away the rights that belong to him, praying with an open head. - “For what is the same...” Verse 15 says that long hair is an honor for a wife. Next, shaving or cutting your hair is a shame. Whoever cuts her hair deprives herself of the honor that lies in the nature of the custom of growing hair. A woman, thus, places herself on the level of those women who do not want to comply with the orders established in nature. - “Let him get his hair cut,” that is, she doesn’t care! She is not embarrassed by any decency... (among the Jews, a woman’s shorn head served as a sign of shame, cf. Is. 3:16–17. Among the Greeks, this custom did not have such a meaning). 1 Corinthians 11:7. So a husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband. 1 Corinthians 11:8. For man is not from wife, but woman is from man; 1 Corinthians 11:9. and man was not created for wife, but woman for man. Hitherto Ap. proved the need for the wife to submit to her husband with considerations borrowed from the sphere, one might say, abstract, philosophical and theological. Now he deduces this necessity from the story of the creation of the wife. - “The Image and Glory of God”. The first expression (εικών) indicates that the husband, by virtue of his dominion over his wife, reflects on himself the power of the invisible Creator of the world over all things (cf. Gen. 1:26–28; Ps. 8). The second (δόξα) is that the husband, since he remains faithful to his purpose as a reflection of the glory of God, in turn glorifies God Himself, laying at His feet the crown that God placed on him. In the same sense, the representatives of the Churches are called “the glory of Christ” in the 2nd last. to Corinth. (2 Cor. 8:23): They promote the glorification of Christ in the various churches. Such a husband - the image of God and the glory of God - should not hide this - his dignity - under a veil. Through this, he would eclipse the reflection of divine greatness that was given to him by the Creator. But by virtue of the same law, the wife must act differently. "The wife is the glory of the husband." This expression finds its explanation in the following two expressions: the wife is taken “from” the husband and created “for” the husband. With all the best qualities of her being, by free inclination, the wife strives to help her husband in all his endeavors and thereby assists him in acquiring fame. - Why, however, Ap. did not call his wife the “image” of her husband, but only his “glory”? Because the concept of “image” is associated with the idea of ​​a powerful dignity, and the wife did not have such a powerful dignity in the house: the image and participant in the management of the house was not the wife of the father of the family, but his eldest son. – “A wife for her husband” - see Gen. 2:18. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Therefore, a wife should have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels. Since the wife was created “from” the husband and “for” the husband, she should have on her head a sign of the power to which she is subordinate. - “For Angels”. This addition, apparently, does not mean the reason why a wife should be covered with a veil in church: the reason and purpose of this covering is already quite clearly expressed in front and the 10th verse therefore begins with the expression “therefore.” Heinrici says that “Angels” are mentioned here because during the creation of the world and people they were instruments in the hands of God and because they feel offended, seeing how the normal relationships established at creation itself between husband and wife are violated. This idea can be accepted, with the caveat, however, that the Angels were only witnesses to the creation of the world (Job 38:7). And that they are invisibly present in the liturgical meetings of believers - this can be concluded from other places in the Epistles of St. Paul (eg Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Cor. 4:9). This opinion was already expressed by ancient church interpreters (Zlat., Augustine), but nevertheless, along with it, there was another, given by Tertullian - that here one must understand “evil” angels who will be aroused by lust for women who have opened their heads. But evil angels are never simply called “angels.” Some still understood here pagan spies, leaders of the church, etc., but all these opinions cannot be recognized as being at all reasonable. There is also an opinion that this addition is a later insertion, but this opinion also cannot be accepted, because the words “for Angels” are found in all the most ancient codes. 1 Corinthians 11:11. However, neither is a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:12. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God. The dependent position of a woman in Christianity is softened by virtue of the spiritual communication in Christ (“in the Lord”) that exists between husband and wife: one spouse is always thought of as closely connected with the other in all circumstances of life - both in prayer and in mutual assistance in the matter of spiritual improvement. - “Husband through wife.” The fact that every man is born from a woman equalizes to a certain extent the position of both sexes. With this mention of Ap. Ap. humbles the husband’s pride and for the same purpose. adds further: “all the same - from God.” It was not the people themselves who arranged their relationships one way or another, but everything happened this way and not otherwise because God wanted it. 1 Corinthians 11:13. Judge for yourself: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Now Ap. draws attention to a well-known feature in the physical organization of men and women. First he appeals to the reasonableness of the readers. They themselves must realize that a wife cannot appear before God (“pray to God”) with her head uncovered. After all, “everything is from God”; God has decreed—it is His will—that a woman should be subordinate to her husband. How does she dare to appear as a prayer book before God in such a form that indicates that she does not want to adhere to the Divine institution? 1 Corinthians 11:14. Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows his hair, then it is a dishonor for him, 1 Corinthians 11:15. but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since hair was given to her instead of a veil? If this is not enough, then let the Corinthians pay attention to what nature itself teaches them (φύσις), which, so to speak, encourages women to wear long hair and men to wear short hair. The woman's long hair, extending almost to her feet, indicates that she should be hidden from the gaze of men. On the contrary, by instructing men to wear short hair, nature thereby says that a man should appear with an open head, like the king of creation. Hair serves as a crown for him, and for a woman it serves as a veil. Thus, in the very physical structure of a woman, the all-good and all-wise will of God the Creator is revealed. 1 Corinthians 11:16. And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the Church of God. Ap. I knew that the Greeks always like to argue - even about things that do not require discussion. Therefore, he declares to these disputants, who, perhaps, were not convinced by any reasonable evidence, that in general the customs of the Christian Church do not allow women to appear with their heads uncovered: such a custom does not exist anywhere! And in fact, the images available in the ancient Roman catacombs make it possible to verify that ancient Christian men cut their hair short, and Christian women put a rather long veil on their heads, falling over their shoulders, which also covered their faces. – They ask: was not the conviction expressed by the Apostle conditioned by local and temporary relations? Wouldn't Ap. would you think differently if you lived in Western Europe these days? We must answer this question in the negative. The reasons that the Apostle gives are not borrowed from the relations and customs of that time, but relate to timeless and unchangeable facts. Indeed, the physical constitution of a woman (v. 13–15) today and subsequently will always remain the same as the woman had in the days of St. Pavel. Then, the story of the creation of man, to which Ap. refers (vv. 8-12), and now, as in the days of the Apostle, is in the eyes of Christians the beginning according to which social order is built. The relationship between God and Christ, Christ and husband, husband and wife (v. 3) has not changed in essence. Therefore, one must either recognize the Apostle’s arguments as unfounded, or recognize them as having significance for all times. And since there is no reason to deny the latter, then, therefore, we must believe that Ap. and would say to Christian women today what he says to Christian women in the chapter under consideration. However, it should also be noted that Ap. does not enter here into the sphere of so-called women's emancipation in general. He speaks only about married women and their rights in church life. He does not at all prejudge such issues as the question of the right of girls to receive an education, the right to have employment in the state and public service, etc., although in any case, the arguments that Ap gives are of undoubted importance here. against the desire of Christian wives to become equal to their husbands in the religious sphere or, in fact, in their rights as a member of church society. “We must never,” says Meyer, “forget the following: women’s emancipation, even Christian, strives for the complete equality of women with men; it is based on a misunderstanding of the Gospel; she is a physical caricature." 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. The apostle was informed of an even more important disorder that was taking place in the life of the Corinthian Christian community. Namely, in the liturgical meetings of Christians, the partisanship that the Apostle spoke about in the first four chapters of his epistle (17-19) was reflected, and then in these same meetings, during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, when the supper of love that preceded this sacrament was still being celebrated, everyone hurried to eat the food he brought, so that it would not go to others who did not have it. Ap. indicates the abnormality of this course of action. The significance of the sacrament of St. Eucharist! Here a bloodless sacrifice is made in memory of the great sacrifice that Christ made for people, and the one who unworthily begins to partake of the body and blood of the Lord takes upon himself a great responsibility before the Lord. This is why cases of sudden death of Christians have become more frequent in the Corinthian community: this is God’s punishment for the fact that these Christians were not in the proper mood when they began communion. 1 Corinthians 11:17. But in offering this, I do not praise you because you are planning not for the best, but for the worst. “I don’t praise you.” Ap. found it possible to praise the Corinthian Christians (v. 2), although he saw something abnormal in their behavior. But here he does not find this possible. Why? Isn't there a contradiction in this? No, there is no contradiction here, because here we are not talking about a violation of any apostolic institution, but about a lack of reverence when performing the most important of the liturgical actions. Praise for observing the “traditions of the apostles” is not taken away from the Corinthians. - “You gather not for the best, but for the worst,” that is, your liturgical meetings do not lead to an improvement in mutual relations between you, but only worsen these relations. 1 Corinthians 11:18. For, firstly, I hear that when you gather for church, there are divisions among you, which I partly believe. 1 Corinthians 11:19. For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the wise may be revealed among you. “First of all, I hear.” The second reproach corresponding to this first reproach begins in v. 20th This is clear from the fact that both verses 18 and 20 begin with the same expression: “when you gather together” (συνερχομένων υμῶν). – “To church” – more correctly: “like a church” or: “by the church” (ώκκλησία). This designates the type and method of meeting, and not the place (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23). - “Divisions”. The apostle does not go into explaining what these divisions were, obviously because he explained it in detail in the first four chapters of his epistle. These, of course, were divisions due to teachers of faith. - “Which I partly believe.” Ap. wants to soften the picture of sentiment that the Christians who arrived in Ephesus from Corinth painted for him. Perhaps, he wants to say, the state of things in Corinth is not as bad as it seemed to these zealous Christians. - “For it must...” - Ap. speaks here of the internal reason why such divisions should have arisen. The indicated divisions appeared due to the special action of Divine Providence on the Church. In the Church of Corinth, as in other churches, there were many people who acted as teachers of the faith not by calling, but being carried away by the example of others or wanting to resist generally accepted preachers. And so, in the disputes that arose as a result of the emergence of new teachers, it had to become clear who was the real, called, teacher of the faith, and who did not deserve this name. Ap. foresees even worse things - that after the “divisions” (σχίσματα art. 18), the reason for which lay in the personal sympathies and antipathies of those divided among themselves because of the teachers of the faith, will be followed by “differences of opinion” (αιρέσεις - art. 19), in which a different understanding of the Christian teaching itself will be reflected (cf. Acts 5:17, 15:5, where we talk about the “heresies” of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Acts 24:5, 28:22, where the name “heresy” is also given - in the sense of a special teaching - to Christianity itself). If “divisions” can be compared to small tears in the veil, then “disagreements” will be such tears that the veil will split into several parts. - “So that the skilled ones may be revealed among you.” By “skilled” (δόκιμοι) we must understand such Christians who, in such turmoil of the Church, will reveal so much wisdom and maturity in judgment that everyone recognizes them as real Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27). 1 Corinthians 11:20. Next, you gather together in a way that does not mean eating the Lord's supper; 1 Corinthians 11:21. for everyone hastens to eat his food before others, so that some are hungry, and others get drunk. The second disorder that attracted the attention of the Apostle was the disorder during the celebration of love suppers or agape. - “You are gathering...” - more correct: “if you thus gather in one place (επί τό αυτό - indicates a meeting of Christians in the same room; cf. 1 Cor. 14:23), then this does not mean eating the Lord’s Supper.” In the Apostolic Church, in the evenings, Christians gathered in some suitable room and here they dined together with the dishes that each one brought with him. In this way they wanted to support the memory of the Last Supper, in which the Lord Jesus Christ showed His special love for the Apostles (John 13:1) and at the end of which He established the holy sacrament of the Eucharist. These dinners, at the end of which the sacrament of the Eucharist was performed, were called “love suppers” or, briefly, “loves” - agapes (Jude 1:12). This custom was, of course, very good: such suppers supported mutual love between Christians, because here everyone - both poor and rich - had to feel like equal participants in the dinner, although the poor, perhaps, could not bring anything here for the dinner. However, selfishness, vanity and simply intemperance in food and drink soon left their mark on this wonderful institution. Agapes in Corinth turned into ordinary Greek feasts, at which a lot of wine was usually drunk. But what was even worse was that the rich were in a hurry to share the food they brought with their loved ones and friends, while the poor remained hungry. This attitude towards the poor was a clear contrast to the idea put into these dinners and directly contradicted the idea of ​​the sacrament of the Eucharist, which took place after the supper. That is why it was soon established that the very sacrament of the Eucharist should be celebrated before the Supper of Love, so as not to give the intemperate a reason to begin communion after they had eaten and drunk 13 . 1 Corinthians 11:22. Have you no houses to eat and drink? Or do you neglect the church of God and humiliate the poor? What should I tell you? Should I praise you for this? I won't praise you. Ap. sees in this attitude of the Corinthians towards love suppers three points that should serve as a subject of censure. First, the Corinthians distort the very idea of ​​the supper. The supper is a religious custom and has a religious and moral purpose, and the Corinthians make it a simple dinner that they could arrange at home. This is the first thing. Secondly, by this - precisely by getting drunk and overeating in front of everyone - they show a lack of respect for the entire Church and, thirdly, they humiliate the poor, who must leave the supper hungry. 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I received from the Lord Himself what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus took bread on the night in which he was betrayed. 1 Corinthians 11:24. and, having given thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat, this is My Body, broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me. 1 Corinthians 11:25. He also took the cup after supper, and said: This cup is the new covenant in My Blood; Do this whenever you drink, in remembrance of Me. To awaken in the Corinthians a sense of shame for such behavior at the love suppers of Ap. reminds them of the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Let the Corinthians understand the difference between this Eucharistic sacred celebration and between ordinary celebrations and suppers. The Eucharist is a holy sacrament, a well-known liturgical action, since it is based on a specific prescription of Christ Himself. To give greater authority to his words, Ap. says that he received information about the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist himself, directly from Christ. That this is how the expression should be understood: “I received it from the Lord himself,” this is clear from the fact that Ap. says with emphasis that he exactly accepted (εγώ). If he were talking here about what the Apostles who were at the Last Supper told him, then why would he show off his “I”? After all, from the Apostles, thousands of other believers also learned about the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist, who, therefore, could also say about themselves, like Apostle. Paul: “I received from the Lord...” if we understood the words of the Apostle simply as an indication of the tradition that reached him. It is clear from here that Ap. could only speak like this about a revelation that directly happened to him. They object: “revelation has as its subject some teachings, and not historical events.” But in the book of the Acts of the Apostles there is one revelation of historical content (Acts 9:12). In addition, you need to remember that Ap. Paul was the founder of churches in the pagan world and direct knowledge of such important facts as the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist was fully consistent with his high apostolic dignity. Through this he became dependent only on Christ Himself. "Into the Night". Ap. By this he wants to remind readers that the Eucharist was instituted at the same hours at which the Apostolic Church usually celebrated it. Let Christians experience everything that happened on that terrible and sacred night! – “Took bread” (άρτον). According to the tradition of the Orthodox Church, this bread was not unleavened, but leavened, different from those that were used for the Jewish Passover. - “And giving thanks.” The father of the Jewish family thanked God when blessing the Passover bread for the creation of the world and for the liberation of the Jews from Egypt. Christ, of course, gave thanks to His Heavenly Father for the redemption of mankind and for the foundation of the New Testament. “Take, eat.” These words are not found in the oldest manuscripts of the message. - “This is My body.” “This” (του το) is the bread that was in the Savior’s hand. – On how to understand the expression: “this is my body” - see 1 Cor. 10:16, 17. Godet claims that the verb “is” here has the meaning: “it means that it is,” and therefore sees in bread not the body of Christ, but only a symbol of the body. But if we interpret the words of Christ only in a symbolic sense, then the Eucharist ceases to be a sacrament, before which Christians should revere. Moreover, there is no reason to give the verb “is” the meaning: “means, represents.” - “We break for you.” This expression indicates the incessancy of Christ’s sacrifice: the body of Christ “is broken,” and not “will be broken” (Theophanes). 14 “Do this in remembrance of Me.” These words, found only in Paul and Luke, are very important in that they show the desire of the Lord that the sacrament of the Eucharist be celebrated constantly, at all times. The Lord addresses these words to the Apostles as the founders of churches in which they must introduce the sacred custom of celebrating the Eucharist. But just as in the expression: “what is broken for you”, not only the Apostles are meant, but all believers, so here, along with the appeal to the Apostles, one must also see a command for all believers. During the celebration of the Eucharist, believers should remember with reverence not the Old Testament Passover lamb, by whose blood the Jews were saved from death in Egypt, but about Christ and His sacrifice. - “Also the cup after supper.” Both actions - the blessing of bread and the blessing of wine - were separated by some distance from each other. The bread was divided “while they were eating,” as they say. Matthew and Mark, and the cup was offered “after” the supper or at the end of eating the Passover lamb (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16). – “This cup”, – i.e. - the wine contained in it. - “New Testament”. - Here is an allusion to the covenant concluded between Jehovah and the Jews at Sinai: and there the blood of the victims was shed, with which Moses sprinkled the Jewish people (Ex. 24:8) - “In My blood.” These words are a definition of the word “covenant”. Christ the Savior here says that the new covenant is founded through the shedding of His blood. (The blood of Christ is the same as the death of Christ cf. Rom. 3:25). Just like the Old Testament, the New Testament gives, on the one hand, forgiveness of sins, and on the other, requires man to obey the will of God. But the Old Testament actually only promised God’s help or forgiveness of sins, but the New Testament actually gives this forgiveness. - “Do this” - that is, perform the blessing of the cup, offering it to others. “As soon as you drink.” As can be seen from the next, 26th verse, we are not talking about drinking wine in general, but about drinking from the designated blessed cup. In the 22nd article, the sacrament of the Eucharist is clearly distinguished from an ordinary dinner. The meaning of this expression, in connection with the following words: “in remembrance of Me,” is undoubtedly this: “whenever you, as members of the New Testament, perform a religious feast corresponding to the Old Testament Easter supper, you must offer everyone the blessed cup and drink from it in remembrance of Me.” The expression: “when only” (οσάκις) indicates that the sacrament of the Eucharist, this Easter New Testament supper, could be celebrated by believers not once a year, but several times 15. 1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. From here to the end of Chapter Ap. shows what consequences follow from the above-established idea of ​​the Eucharist. First of all, by celebrating the Eucharist, Christians proclaim the death of the Lord. The expression “to proclaim” (καταγγέλλειν) is very similar to the Hebrew expression “haggadah” (to tell or explain). The latter among the Jews meant the explanation of the father of the family, which he made during the celebration of Passover in response to the question of his eldest son regarding the various rituals that usually took place during the celebration of the Passover supper. Through this, each participant in the supper was quite conscious of everything that happened at it. Similar explanations are suggested by Ap. Paul and during the performance of St. Eucharist. They could be given in their inspired speeches by Christians who had the spirit of prophecy. - “Until He comes.” For Christianity, the Holy Eucharist constitutes a substitute for the visible presence of Christ. It forms, one might say, a connection between His first and second coming: Christ comes now to believers in this great sacrament, but over time He will come openly and clearly for everyone. 1 Corinthians 11:27. Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. From the essence of the Eucharist Ap. brings out the idea of ​​the great responsibility of those Christians who unworthily approach St. sacrament: the person in this case becomes guilty of an insult inflicted on the very body and blood of Christ, which are actually taught in the sacrament of the Eucharist. - “Unworthily”, that is, without any grateful remembrance of the suffering of Christ, without appropriate reverence. – “He will be guilty” (ένοχος), that is, he will be recognized and bound as a criminal 16. 1 Corinthians 11:28. Let man examine himself, and in this way let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. 1 Corinthians 11:29. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks condemnation for himself, without considering the Body of the Lord. In view of such a heavy responsibility, a Christian must find out for himself how he thinks about Christ and whether there is enough gratitude and reverence in his heart for the common Savior of all people. Only with such feelings can one go to a love supper - otherwise it is easy to fall into sin. - “He eats and drinks condemnation to himself.” "Condemnation" (κρῖμα) is any punishment imposed by God. Although this punishment is not in itself “eternal” condemnation, if a person remains stubbornly unrepentant, it can lead to his final condemnation (cf. v. 32). - “Without reasoning about the Body of the Lord,” that is, without distinguishing, without discerning that behind ordinary bread, behind ordinary material food, the true body of Christ is hidden: the person who eats St. Eucharist, it only seems that he is eating bread, but in reality he is eating the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:30. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and many are dying. 1 Corinthians 11:31. For if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 1 Corinthians 11:32. Being judged, we are punished by the Lord, so as not to be condemned with the world. What was said in Art. 29th Ap. confirms by indicating those cases of illness and death among the Corinthian Christian community, which have become more frequent in recent times and which testify to the wrath of God against those who receive communion unworthily. – “Weak” (ασθενής) – more correctly: “sick”. – “Sick” (άρρωστος) – more correctly: “lost strength.” - “If they judged themselves,” that is, if they carefully examined themselves, they would condemn themselves for what is bad in us. - “Being judged, we are punished by the Lord.” Ap. returns the Corinthians to the judgments that befell them. Although these courts are strict, they are, in the hands of the Lord, a means of freeing the Corinthians from even more severe, eternal punishment, because, thanks to these temporary courts or punishments, the Corinthians can come to their senses and correct their behavior (cf. 1 Cor. V: 5). - Ap. distinguishes in this section (31-32 v.) three courts: 1) the court of a person over himself (διακρίνεσθαι - art. 31); 2) the judgment of God is temporary, in this life (κρίνεσθαι - art. 32) and 3) the judgment of eternal destruction or final condemnation (κατακρίνεσθαι - art. 32), - this is the terrible final judgment. – “The World” is humanity lost in sins and corruption (Ecumenius). 1 Corinthians 11:33. Therefore, my brethren, when you gather for supper, wait for one another. 1 Corinthians 11:34. And if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not gather for condemnation. I'll arrange the rest when I come. In conclusion, Ap. gives instructions to Christians not to begin the love supper until everyone has gathered, so that the food can be divided equally among everyone. After all, the purpose of the love supper is not satiation at all, but rather “communication” in food. “Not for condemnation” - see Art. 30th. - “Other”. Here we understand some questions related to the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, for example, the question of how often to celebrate the Eucharist, at what hours of the day, etc. 17 About Agapah, see the study by Mr. Sokolov. Agape or love suppers. M. 1907 However, in the best codes the word “breakable” is not included. The words of Christ spoken at the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist, in Apostle. Paul are transmitted in a slightly modified form from the Gospel text. Closer to the text of Ap. Paul the text of the Gospel of Luke, who was a companion of St. Paul and therefore had to set out the history of the establishment of the Eucharist in accordance with the letter to the Corinthians. Matthew and Mark do not have the expressions: “what is broken for you” and “do this in remembrance of Me,” but instead of the expression: “The New Testament is in My Blood,” there is the expression “My Blood of the New Testament.” But these differences are not important: the essence of the matter remains the same as in Ap. Paul, and so with all the evangelists. The Holy Eucharist is truly a sacrament in which bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Savior and which by its very existence should always remind Christians of the great sacrifice made by Christ the Savior for the sins of people and encourage Christians to the same self-sacrifice for the benefit of their brothers. The Corinthians, obviously, did not clearly understand this great significance of the sacrament of the Eucharist, looking at it as an ordinary general evening meeting, and the Apostle needed to impress upon them that they were entering here by receiving St. gifts, into actual communion with Christ, as before, through participation in pagan meals, they entered into actual communion with demons. Catholics in the expression: “Eat this bread, or drink this cup...”. they find support for their opinion that it is necessary to receive communion under “one” form - bread or wine. But here the particle “or” has not a “separation”, but a “connective” meaning (cf. v. 26, where the particle καί and stands instead of it) The newest interpreters are trying to derive the custom of celebrating love suppers from the custom of the Greek city guilds of organizing general feasts. But these feasts were organized with money taken from the workshop cash register, while agapes were organized with food brought by each believer. – Just as fantastic is Bousset’s attempt to explain the origin of the sacrament of the Eucharist from the Greek religious mysteries. We have a completely reliable history of the origin of this sacrament - this is the 1st Epistle of St. Павла к Коринфянам и Евангелия. There is no need to look for any other explanation of the origin of this sacrament after what we have learned from these completely authoritative sources... You might be interested in: