Беседа 27

About gatherings to eat food and the Lord's Supper. – Obligation to share meals with the poor. 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. 1. First of all, it is necessary to explain the reason for the proposed reproof; 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, so it was when the Apostle wrote this, although not with such precision, but only as if some remnant of the former communication 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 for 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 feast, at which the rich brought food, and the poor and those who had nothing were invited by them, and thus ate the food all together. But later this custom was destroyed. The reason was that the believers were divided among themselves, some counted themselves among these, and others among others, and said: I am so-and-so, and I am so-and-so, as the apostle said and admonished at the beginning of the letter: “For from the household of Chloe it became known to me about you, my brethren, that there are disputes among you. I mean what you say: “I am Pavlov”; “I am Apollosov”; “I am Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:11–12). This does not mean that they called themselves Pavlovs: he would not allow this; but, wishing more strongly and from the roots to destroy this way of action, he brought his name to show that if someone even accepted his name, breaking away from the common body (the Church), in this case he would act recklessly and extremely wickedly: if it is wicked (to be called) by his name, then even more so by the name of other lower teachers. So, when this custom (of communication of estates), beautiful and most beneficial, was violated, since it served to maintain love, consolation of poverty, good use of wealth, instilling great wisdom, preserving humility, when (the apostle) learned that such blessings were perishing, he rightly uses an accusatory word and says: “but in offering this, I do not praise.” In the previous denunciation, which did not apply to many who were in good standing, he began his speech differently: “I praise you,” he says, “because you remember everything that is mine” (1 Cor. 11:2): but here, on the contrary: “but in offering this, I do not praise.” That is why he did not place this (object) in a row after the reproof of those who ate what was sacrificed to idols; since this (crime) was very serious, he inserted a speech about hair in the middle, so that, moving from one strong reproof to another equally strong, he would not seem too harsh - and then again he moves on to something more serious and says: “but in offering this, I do not praise.” What is this? I'll tell you about this now. What does it mean: “I offer, I don’t praise”? I don’t approve, he says, of you because you put me in the need to make you a suggestion; I don’t praise that it became necessary to teach you this, that you need such admonition from me. Do you see how at the very beginning he showed the folly of their behavior? If the sinner should not even need admonition not to sin, then it is obvious how unpardonable the sin is. Why doesn't he praise? “What,” he says, “you are planning not for the best, but for the worst,” that is, you do not succeed in virtue. When you should have prospered and grown in love, you reduced the already dominant custom, and reduced it so much that it became necessary for me to admonish you to return to the previous order. Then, so that it does not seem that he speaks only in favor of the poor, (the apostle) does not immediately begin to talk about meals: and so that his reproof will not be taken by them as unimportant, he uses an expression that is more striking and instills greater fear. What is he saying? “For, first of all, I hear that when you gather together for church, there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:18). He does not say: I hear that you do not establish common suppers, I hear that you eat food each separately, and not together with the poor; but uses an expression that could shake their souls more strongly, namely, divisions, 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. “Which I partly believe.” 2. So that they don’t say: what if some slanderers lied? - he does not say: I believe, so that they do not become even more shameless, nor does he say: I do not believe, so that the reproof does not seem in vain, but - in part, he says, I believe, i.e. I believe a little, and thereby makes them attentive and calls for correction. “For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). And by the name of difference of opinion, he here does not mean errors regarding dogmas, but these very divisions. However, if he had also spoken about errors regarding dogmas, then even in this case he would not have given rise to temptation. After all, Christ also said: “temptations must come” (Matthew 18:7), and yet he did not violate free will and did not place life in some kind of necessity and inevitability, but predicted the future, which would happen from the evil human will, not as a result of His prediction, but from the arbitrariness of depraved people. Temptations did not happen because He predicted them, but because He predicted that they were going to happen. 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 through whom temptation comes” (Matthew 18:7). But we discussed this in detail when we considered this place, and now we need to turn to the real subject. What (the apostle) really means as differences of opinion here are the disturbances during meals and the disagreements and discords that followed, he clearly expressed this in subsequent words. Namely, having said: “I hear that there are divisions among you,” he did not stop there, but, wanting to explain what divisions he meant, he said further: “Everyone hastens before others to eat his own food” (1 Cor. 11:21), and also: “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God?” (1 Cor. 11:22). It is obvious that he is talking about these riots; and whoever calls them divisions, do not be surprised; he wanted, as I said, to have a stronger effect on them with such an expression. If he had understood dogmatic divisions, he would not have spoken to them so meekly. When he speaks about them, listen to the power with which he both protects and convicts; protects when he says: “even if... an angel... were to preach to you a gospel other than what... you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8–9); convicts when he says: “you who justify yourselves by the law... have fallen from grace” (Gal.5:4); and he calls troublemakers either dogs: “Beware,” he says, “of dogs” (Phil. 3:2), or he calls them seared in conscience and servants of the devil (1 Tim. 4:2). But here he does not say anything like that, but expresses himself meekly and condescendingly. What do the words mean: “so that those who are skilled may be revealed among you”? To 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 45 does not always mean a goal, but often a consequence of a matter. This is how Christ uses it when he says: “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see would see, and those who see would become blind” (John 9:39); so does Paul himself, when he speaks of the law: “The law came afterward, so that the transgression 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 came not so that those who see would become blind, but for the opposite purpose: but so it was. In a similar way, here we need to understand the words: “so that the skilled ones would be revealed”: there were differences of opinion not so that the skillful ones would be revealed, but when differences of opinion appeared, then this happened. (The Apostle) said this to console the poor, who firmly endure such neglect. Therefore, he did not say: so that they would become skillful, but: “so that they would be revealed... skillful,” expressing that they were like that before, but mixed with others and, receiving comfort from the rich, were not very noticeable, but now confusion and disagreement made them famous, just as a storm makes a helmsman famous. He also did not say: so that you may appear skilled, but: “so that those who are skilled may be revealed among you”; both 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 more careless; but it is expressed vaguely, leaving everyone’s conscience to apply what is said to themselves. It seems to me that here he consoles not only the poor, but also those who did not violate that custom; there were probably some who observed it among them. That’s why he said: “I partly believe.” 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. Then he shows the very type of crime. What did it consist of? “You are going together,” he says, “in such a way that this does not mean eating the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). 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, it comes as if from love and brotherly love; you gather in one place and all together: but 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 he expresses himself differently and much more strikingly: “so,” he says, “this does not mean eating the Lord’s supper,” reminding them of that supper at which Christ taught terrible secrets. That is why he called the eating of their suppers, since at that supper they all reclined together. However, the rich and the poor are not as different from each other as the Teacher and the students - between the latter the difference is infinite. But what am I saying about the Teacher and the students? - 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 participant in the mysteries. 3. Further (the apostle) explains why they do not eat the Lord’s Supper: “for everyone,” he says, “hastens before others to eat his food, so that some are hungry, and others are drunk” (1 Cor. 11:21). Do you see how he proved that they are more disgraceful to 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 Lady'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, he says, and therefore 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. That’s why he adds: “for everyone hastens before others.” He did not say: he separates, but he hastens, covertly denouncing them of immoderation and intemperance, which is explained by what follows: namely, having said this, he continues: “so that some are hungry, and others get drunk”; Both, both deficiency and excess, show immoderation. Here is the second guilt, which also harms them: the first is that they dishonor their supper; and the second is that they are satiated and drunk, and, what is even harder, while the poor are hungry. What should have been offered to everyone in general, they eat alone and thus fall into satiety and drunkenness. That is why he did not say: some are hungry, and others are full, but: he gets drunk. Each of these cases is in itself reprehensible; 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 how great the crime is. Having shown the wickedness of the matter, he then applies reproach and says with great anger: “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate the poor?” (1 Cor. 11:22). 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. Just 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 word itself shows: assembly. “And you humiliate the poor.” He did not say: you leave the poor hungry, but with greater reproach: you humiliate him, showing that he cares not so much about food as about the insult caused to them (the poor). This is the fifth fault - that they not only despise the hungry, but also humiliate them. 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) - the humiliation of the supper, the humiliation of the church, the insult of the poor - he suddenly softens the force of reproof and says: “Shall I praise you? 47 I won’t praise you for this.” 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, softens his speech and gives them relief. Why is this so? He has already touched them greatly, proving the importance of their guilt, and, like an excellent doctor, strikes a blow corresponding to the wounds: those requiring a deep cut are not cut only on the surface - you heard how he cut off an incest from them - and to those requiring easier healing he does not apply iron; That’s why he speaks to them meekly here too. On the other hand, he mainly tried to make them meek towards the poor; That’s why he himself talks to them meekly. Further, wanting to shame them differently and even more strongly, he turns his speech to a more important subject: “for I,” he says, “received from the Lord Himself what I also conveyed to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was betrayed took bread and, having given thanks, broke it and said: take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you; Do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:23–24). Why does he mention these secrets here? Because he really needed it for the real subject. Your Lord, he says, has honored everyone with the same meal, and, moreover, the most terrible one and much 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, so that his words would not be too heavy, but uses a more meek speech and says: “that the Lord Jesus took bread on the night in which he was betrayed.” Why does he remind us of this time, this supper and betrayal? Not simply and not without reason, but to touch more deeply and with time itself. Anyone, even if he was a stone, imagining how that night (the Lord) grieved with his disciples, how he was betrayed, bound, led, condemned, how he endured and everything else, will become softer than wax, will renounce the earth and all the vanity here. For this reason (the apostle) reminds us of all this; shames us with time, and suppers, and betrayal and says: Your Master gave Himself for you, and you don’t want to give your brother’s bread for yourself? 4. But why does (Paul) say that he received this from the Lord, while he himself was not then, but was among the persecutors? So that you understand that that supper did not contain anything greater in comparison with subsequent ones. And now the same (Lord) does and teaches everything, as he did then, and not only for this reason does he remind us of this night, but in order to touch us in another way. Just as we generally remember 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 just before that evening when he gave up the ghost, so Paul, wanting to thus strengthen his speech, says: remember that this was the last sacrament that He taught you, that He commanded it on the night in which he was preparing to be killed for us, and having offered you this supper, he did not offer any other after it. Then he sets out the very circumstances of the event and says: “he took bread and, having given thanks, broke it and said: take, eat, this is My Body, broken for you.” If you approach 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 insult the church. You begin to give thanks for the benefits that you have received: give back on your part and do not separate from your neighbor. Christ gave equally to everyone, saying: take, eat. He gave His body to everyone equally, and you don’t want to distribute the common bread equally to everyone? And (the bread) was broken by Him equally for all and became the Body equally for all. “Likewise the cup after supper, and said: This cup is the new covenant in My blood; Do this whenever you drink, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:25). What are you saying? Do you make remembrance of Christ, and despise the poor, and do not tremble? When you commemorate a deceased son or brother, your conscience would torment you if you did not fulfill the custom and invite the poor; and while commemorating your Lord, you don’t even want to share a meal? But what do the words mean: “this cup is the new covenant”? There was also the cup of the Old Testament - libations and the blood of dumb animals; they filled the cup and vial with blood and poured out a libation after the sacrifice. Having offered His blood instead of the blood of the dumb, (the Lord) recalled the ancient sacrifice, so that, hearing this, someone would not be embarrassed. Having spoken about the supper, then (the apostle) connects the present with the past, so that the believers would now be in the same frame of mind as if they were present at that very supper, reclining together (with the apostles) and accepting this sacrifice from Christ himself, and says: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). 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 - and truly, when you imagine what your Master has suffered for you, you will become more wise - so Paul says here: “for whenever you eat, you proclaim the death of the Lord.” Such is this supper! Further, he suggests that she will remain until the end of the age, with the words: “until He comes. Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:26-27). Why? Because he sheds blood and carries out the slaughter, and does not make a sacrifice. Just as those who pierced (the Lord) did not pierce in order to drink, but in order to shed (His blood), so does the one who partakes unworthily and does not receive any benefit. 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 things that are presented (the mysteries)? And doesn’t he who despises the hungry approach unworthily, and besides despising him, he also puts him to shame? If not giving (alms) to the poor deprives a person of the kingdom of heaven, even if he was a virgin, as well as not giving generously - after all, even those (virgins) had oil, but not in abundance - then imagine how great the evil will be if so many crimes are committed. 5. What kind of crimes would you say? What are you asking - what crimes? Having partaken of such a meal, you should have become more humble than everyone else and become like the angels, but you have become the most hard-hearted of all; You have tasted the blood of the Lady and do not recognize your brother: are you worthy of forgiveness after this? 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 before and what you are now? Don’t you remember that you were much poorer in money than you in good deeds, being filled with countless sins? God has forgiven 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 over you to the tormentors (Matthew 18:34). Let us all heed these words (of the apostle), because here we too begin the sacred meal together with the poor, and when we leave here we do not want to even look at them, but, indulging ourselves in drunkenness, we ignore their hungry ones, of which the Corinthians were also guilty then. When do you say this is done? Always, especially on holidays, when most of all you should not do this. It is then, after communion, that drunkenness and disdain for the poor immediately begin: then, after receiving the blood of the Lord, when you should have observed fasting and abstinence, you indulge in drunkenness and disorder. When you happen to eat something pleasant at dinner, you are careful not to spoil the previous one with another bad food; and, having received the Spirit, you indulge in satanic 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? The Lord taught and explained truly great and wondrous mysteries to them when Judas went to call His future crucifiers. Haven’t you also heard that the three thousand believers who were granted communion were constantly in prayer and teaching, and not in drunkenness and disorder? 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: one must be abstinent at both times, but especially after receiving the Bridegroom; first in order to become worthy of acceptance, and then in order not to be unworthy of the gifts received. Really, you say, should one fast after communion? I'm not saying this, I'm not forcing it; It’s good, of course, to do so, but I’m not forcing you, but I’m only admonishing you not to indulge in immeasurable satiety. If in general one should never be satiated, as Paul instills in the words: “But she who feeds abroad is dead” (1 Tim. 5:6), then here death is all the more threatened (for those who are full after communion). If satiety is death for a wife, much more so for a husband; if it is harmful at other times, then even more so after communion of the mysteries. And you, having received the bread of life, do the works of death, and do not tremble? Or don’t you know how many evils come from satiety? Inappropriate laughter, obscene speech, harmful jokes, useless idle talk and much more, which is indecent to even talk about. You do all this after you have partaken of the table of Christ, on the very day on which you were worthy to touch His flesh with your tongue. Therefore, to prevent this from happening, let everyone keep his right hand, tongue and mouth, which served as a vestibule for the entry of Christ, in purity, and, having offered his sensual meal, turn his thoughts to that spiritual meal, to the Lord’s Supper, to the vigil of the disciples on that sacred night: or better to say, if we look carefully, then now is the same night. Let us watch together with the Master and revere together with His disciples. You should pray unceasingly, and not get drunk, especially on holidays. The holiday is not for us to commit outrages and multiply our sins, but to cleanse those that we have. I know that I am saying this in vain, but I will not stop saying it. If you do not obey everything, then you will not disobey everything; and if you don’t all obey, then I will have a greater reward, and you will have a greater condemnation. And so that this doesn’t happen to you, I won’t stop talking; by frequent repetition, perhaps I will touch you. So I exhort: so that communion does not serve to condemn us, let us nourish Christ, give him something to drink, and clothe him: this is worthy of such a meal. Have you heard sacred songs, seen a spiritual marriage, enjoyed the royal meal, been filled with the Holy Spirit, joined the ranks of the seraphim, and become an accomplice of the powers on high? Do not disturb such joy, do not lose treasures, do not indulge in drunkenness - this source of sorrow, the consolation of the devil, the culprit of countless evils, which causes sleep like death, and dizziness, and illness, and oblivion, and mortal exhaustion. You, of course, would not dare to meet even a friend while drunk: how dare you, tell me, indulge in such drunkenness, having Christ in you? But do you like pleasure? That's why stop indulging in drunkenness. And I wish you pleasure, but true pleasure that never fades. What kind of pleasure is this true and always blooming? Call Christ to dinner, share with Him your or, better yet, His (goods): this is what endless and ever-blooming pleasure consists of! But sensual pleasures are not like that; As soon as they appear, they immediately disappear, and the one who enjoys them is not in any better, but even in a worse state than the one who does not enjoy them. This one is, as it were, in a pier, and the other is, as it were, carried away by the stream and besieged by diseases, unable to overcome such a storm. Therefore, to prevent this from happening, let us observe moderation; Then let us keep both our body healthy and our soul calm, we will be freed from present and future evils, from which we have been delivered, and may we all be worthy of the kingdom of heaven, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” In synod.trans. “and thus” – I.I. In Russian translation The punctuation marks are placed differently: “should I praise you for this? I won’t praise you” – I.I. You might be interested in: