CONVERSATION 27

"But when I offer these things, I do not praise you, that you are not going to the best, but to the worst" (1 Corinthians 11:17).

1. First of all, it is necessary to explain the reason for the proposed rebuke; then our speech will be more understandable. What is this reason? As in the beginning the believers, to the number of three thousand, ate food at the common table and had everything in common, so it was when the Apostle wrote this, although not with such exactness, but only as if a certain remnant of the former communion was preserved and observed in subsequent times. The faithful, some of whom were rich and others poor, although they did not give all their possessions for the common good, nevertheless on the appointed days, according to custom, they established common tables, and, after the meeting and communion of the mysteries, they all gathered for a common feast, while the rich brought viands, and the poor and having nothing were invited by them, and thus they all ate together. But later this custom was also destroyed. The reason was that the believers were divided among themselves, numbering themselves one with one and another with another, and saying, I am so-and-so, and I am so-and-so, as the Apostle said and admonished at the beginning of the epistle: "For it has become known to me from the household of Chloe, my brethren, that there are disputes among you. I understand what you say, "I am Paul"; "I am Apollos"; "I am Cephanes";" (1 Corinthians 1:11-12). This does not mean that they called themselves Paul's: he would not have allowed it; but, desiring to exterminate this course of action more strongly and by the roots, he gave his name to show that if anyone were to take even his name, having been torn away from the common body (the Church), in such a case he would act recklessly and exceedingly impiously: if it is impious (to be called) by his name, how much more so by the name of other inferior teachers. And so, when this custom (of the communion of possessions), which is beautiful and most beneficial, was violated, since it served to maintain love, to console poverty, to use wealth, to inspire great wisdom, to preserve humility, when (the apostle) learned that such blessings perish, he justly uses the word of accusation and says: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." In the former rebuke, which did not apply to many who were in good order, he began his speech differently: "I praise you," he says, "that you remember all my things" (v. 2): but here it is the opposite: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." That is why he did not place this (object) in a row after the rebuke of those who ate things sacrificed to idols; Since this (crime) was very serious, he inserted in the middle a speech about hair, so that, passing from one strong rebuke to another equally strong, he would not seem too harsh, and then again he passed on to a more severe one and said: "But when I offer this, I do not praise." What is this? I will talk about this in a moment. And what does it mean: "proposing, I do not praise"? I do not approve, he says, of you because you have made it necessary for me to make suggestions to you; I do not praise that it was necessary to teach you this, that you have need of such an admonition from me. Do you see how at the very beginning he showed all the folly of their behavior? If the sinner should not even need admonition not to sin, then it is obvious how unforgivable sin is. Why does he not praise? "What," he says, "you are not going to the best, but to the worst," that is, you do not progress in virtue. Whereas you should have prospered and grown in love, you have shortened the custom that was already prevalent, and you have shortened it so that it has become necessary for me to exhort you to return to your former order. Then, lest it should seem that he speaks only in favor of the poor, (the Apostle) does not immediately begin to speak of meals: but in order that his rebuke may not be taken by them as unimportant, he uses an expression more striking and more fearful. What does he say? "For in the first place, I hear that when ye are gathered together in the church, there are divisions among you" (v. 18). He does not say, "I hear that you do not institute common supper, I hear that you eat each one separately, and not together with the poor; but he uses an expression that could have shaken their souls more strongly, namely, divisions, which were the cause of this disorder also; and thus again reminds us of what was said at the beginning of the epistle, and what was announced to him by the household of Chlois. "Which I partially believe."

2. Lest they say, "What if some slanderers have lied?" He does not say, "I believe that they may not become more shameless," nor does he say, "I do not believe that the reproof does not seem in vain," but "in part," he says, "I believe," that is, I believe somewhat, and thus makes them attentive and calls them to correction. "For there must also be differences of opinion among you, that those who are skilful among you may be revealed" (v. 19). And by the name of disagreement he does not mean errors about dogmas, but these very divisions. However, if he had spoken about errors regarding dogmas, then even in this case he would not have given cause for temptation. For Christ also said: "Temptations must come" (Matt. 18:7), and yet He did not violate the freedom of the will and did not set life in any kind of necessity and inevitability, but predicted the future, which was to come from the evil human will, not as a result of His prediction, but from the arbitrariness of depraved people. Not because He foretold them, but because He foretold that they were to happen. If temptations were of necessity, and not of the will of those who produce them, then He would have said in vain: "Woe to the man through whom the offense comes" (Matt. 18:7). But we discussed this at length when we considered this place, and now we must turn to the real subject. That (the Apostle) really calls the disorders at meals and the disagreements and dissensions that followed them by differences of opinion is clearly expressed by the following words. Namely, when he said, "I hear that there are divisions among you," he did not stop there, but, wishing to explain what divisions he meant, he goes on to say, "Everyone hastens before others to eat his own food" (v. 21), and again, "Do you not have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God?" (v. 22). Obviously, he is talking about these disorders; and what he calls them divisions, do not be surprised; he wanted, as I said, to have a stronger effect on them by such an expression. If he had understood the dogmatic divisions, he would not have spoken to them so meekly. When he speaks of them, listen to the power with which he both protects and rebukes; it protects you when it says: "If an angel preach to you any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9); rebukes when he says: "You who justify yourselves by the law have fallen away from grace" (5:4); and he calls troublemakers either dogs, "beware," he says, "dogs" (Phil. 3:2), or those who are burned in conscience and servants of the devil (1 Timothy 4:2). But here he does not say anything of the kind, but expresses himself meekly and condescendingly. What is the meaning of the words, "that those who are skilful among you may be revealed"? To shine more brightly. He means that this not only does not harm people who are adamant and firm, but even makes them more visible and glorious. The particle "to" (ινα, "to") does not always mean the goal, but often the consequence of the deed. This is how Christ uses it when He says: "I have come into this world for judgment, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (John 2:39); so also Paul himself, when he speaks of the law: "And the law came after, that transgression might abound" (Romans 5:20). The law was not given to increase the crimes of the Jews; But so it was. And Christ did not come to make those who see blind, but for the opposite purpose: but it was so. In the same way it is necessary to understand the words: "that the skilful may be revealed": the differences of opinion were not in order that the skilful might be revealed, but when the differences of opinion appeared, then it happened. (The Apostle) said this for the comfort of the poor, who endure such neglect. Wherefore he did not say, "That they might become skilful," but, "That the skilful might be revealed," expressing that they had been so before, but mingled with others, and being comforted by the rich, they were not very noticeable, and now confusion and dissension have made them known, just as a storm makes a helmsman famous. Nor did He say, "That ye may be skilful," but, "That those who are skilful may be revealed among you"; As in rebuke He did not point out anyone directly, so as not to make them more shameless, so in His praise He did not make them more careless; but it is expressed indefinitely, leaving the conscience of each one to apply to itself what has been said. It seems to me that here he comforts not only the poor, but also those who have not violated that custom; probably, among them there were also those who observed it. That is why he said: "I partially believe." He justly calls skilful those who not only observed the custom together with others, but also without them did not transgress this beautiful institution. By such praise he tries to arouse greater zeal in both of them. Then he shows the very nature of the crime. What did it consist of? "Ye are gathered," he says, "in such a way that it is not to partake of the Lord's supper" (1 Corinthians 11:20). Do you see how he shames them and offers suggestion under the guise of narration? The outward appearance of the assembly, he says, shows one thing, comes as if from love and brotherly love; You gather in one place and all together: and the table does not correspond to the meeting. He did not say, "When you gather together, you do not eat together, you do not share food with one another," but again he expresses himself differently and much more strikingly: "so," he says, "that this does not mean to eat the Lord's Supper," reminding them of that supper at which Christ taught the terrible mysteries. That is why he called their eating the supper, since at that supper they all reclined together. However, the rich and the poor are not so different from each other as the Teacher and the disciples – the difference between the latter is infinite. But what do I say about the Master and the disciples? – imagine what a difference there is between the Teacher and the betrayer, and yet He Himself reclined with them, did not cast out the betrayer, but also shared salt with him and made him a partaker of the Mysteries.

3. Further, (the Apostle) explains why they do not partake of the Lord's Supper: "For everyone," he says, "hastens before others eat his own food, so that some are hungry, and some are drunk" (v. 21). Do you see how he proved that they put themselves to shame more? They appropriate to themselves what belongs to the Lord, and therefore they humiliate themselves first of all, depriving their table of that which is 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, he says, therefore it is common. But if it belongs to your Lord, as it really does, then you must not appropriate it to yourself, but, as belonging to the Lord and Master, offer it to everyone in general. It is the Lord's, and you hinder it from being the Lord's, not allowing it to be common, but eating it by itself. Wherefore he adds: "For every one hastens before others." He did not say, "He separates," but, "He hastens," secretly rebuking them for their immoderation and intemperance, which is also explained by what follows: namely, having said this, he continues: "So that some are hungry, and some are drunk"; both, both deficiency and excess, show immoderation. This 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 worse, while the poor hunger. What should have been offered to everyone in general, they eat alone, and thus fall into satiety and drunkenness. Wherefore he did not say, "Some are hungry, and some are satisfied," but, "Drunk." Each of these deeds is in itself worthy of condemnation; to get drunk without neglecting the poor is criminal; and to despise the poor without getting drunk is a crime; but if both are combined, then imagine how great the crime is. Having shown the wickedness of the deed, he then applies reproach and says with great anger: "Do you not have houses to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate the poor?" (v. 22). Do you see how he transfers the insult from the poor to the church, in order to strengthen his speech? This is the fourth guilt, which is that they insult not only the poor, but also the church. As the Lord's Supper (he says), so you appropriate the very place for yourself, using the church as if it were your home. The Church is not built so that those who gather in it should be divided, but that those who are divided should be united, as the very word "assembly" shows. "And you humiliate the poor." He did not say, "You leave the poor hungry," but with greater reproach: you humiliate them, showing that he cares not so much about food as about the insult done to them (the poor). And the fifth guilt is 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 anxious about the stomach as about dishonor, and on the other hand, he disposes the listener to mercy. Having shown so many criminal things (in their behavior) – the humiliation of the supper, the humiliation of the church, the insult of the poor – he suddenly softens the force of the rebuke and says: "Shall I praise you? [2] For this I will not praise." This is especially surprising that, having shown so many crimes, when he should have expressed his anger more strongly, he acts quite differently, softens his speech and gives them relief. Why is that? He has already touched them greatly, proving the importance of their guilt, and, like an excellent physician, he strikes a blow corresponding to the wounds: he does not cut those who require a deep incision only on the surface – you heard how he cut off the incestuous man from them – and he does not apply iron to those who require easier healing; therefore here also he speaks to them meekly. On the other hand, he mainly tried to make them meek to the poor; therefore he himself converses with them meekly. Further, wishing to shame them in a different way and even more strongly, he turns his speech to a more important subject: "For I," he says, "have received from the Lord Himself that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in 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" (vv. 23-24). Why does he mention these mysteries here? Because he needed it very much for the present subject. Your Lord, he says, has vouchsafed everyone one and the same meal, and moreover the most terrible and far surpassing the dignity of all; but you consider others unworthy of your meal, unimportant and insignificant, and since they do not receive from you any of the spiritual blessings, you also take away from them the bodily ones, although they are not yours either. However, he does not say this, so that his words would not be too heavy, but uses a more gentle 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, of this supper and betrayal? Not simply and not without reason, but to touch more strongly and by time itself. Whosoever, even if he be a stone, imagining how that night (the Lord) grieved with the disciples, how he was betrayed, bound, led, condemned, how he endured and all the rest, will become softer than wax, will renounce the earth and all the vanity of this world. For this reason (the Apostle) reminds us of all this; He shames us with time, and supper, and betrayal, and says: Your Lord gave Himself up for you, and you do not want to give bread to your brother for yourself?

4. But why does (Paul) say that he received this from the Lord, when he himself was not then, but was among the persecutors? So that you may understand that this supper did not contain anything more than the following ones. And now the same (Lord) does and teaches everything as he did then, and not only for this purpose does he remind us of this night, but in order to move us in another way.

Then he sets forth the very circumstances of the event and says: "He took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body, which is 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. Thou art approaching in order to give thanks for the blessings which thou hast received: repay also on thy part, and do not separate thyself from thy neighbor. Christ taught equally to all, saying: take, eat. He gave His body equally to everyone, and do you not want to distribute common bread to everyone equally? And (bread) was broken by Him equally for all, and became the Body equally for all. "And also the cup after the supper, and said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as soon as you drink, in remembrance of me" (v. 25). What do you say? Do you make remembrance of Christ, and despise the poor, and do not tremble? When you make a commemoration for a dead son or brother, your conscience would torment you if you did not fulfill the custom and did not invite the poor; and in making the remembrance of your Lord, do you not even want to share a meal? But what is the meaning of the words, "This cup is the new covenant"? There was also a cup of the Old Testament – libations and the blood of dumb animals; they filled the cup and phial with blood, and after the sacrifice they made a libation. Offering His blood instead of the blood of the dumb ones, (the Lord) reminded Him of the ancient sacrifice, so that when someone heard this, someone would not be confused. Having spoken of the supper, he then joins the present with the past, so that the faithful may now be in the same frame of mind, as if they were present at that very supper, reclining together (with the apostles) and receiving 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" (v. 26). Just as Christ, having said of the bread and the cup, "Do this in remembrance of me," revealed to us the reason for the institution of the sacrament, and among other things suggested that this reason is sufficient to arouse reverence in us – and truly, when you imagine what your Lord has suffered for you, you will become wiser – so Paul says here: "For as often as you eat, you proclaim the death of the Lord." Such is this supper! Further, he inspires that it will remain until the end of the age, with the words: "Until He comes." "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty against the body and blood of the Lord" (v. 27). Why? Because he sheds blood and slaughters, and does not offer sacrifice. As then those who pierced (the Lord) did not pierce in order to drink, but to shed (His blood), so also does he who partakes unworthily and receives no benefit. Do you see how terrible his speech was, and how much he touched them, showing that if they intended to drink (the blood of the Lord) in this way, they would unworthily partake of those who were set before (the mysteries)? And does not he approach unworthily who despises the hungry, and in addition to despising him, puts him to shame? If not giving (alms) to the poor deprives a man of the kingdom of heaven, even if he be a virgin, as well as not giving generously, for they (virgins) also had oil, but not in abundance, then imagine how great the evil will be if so many crimes are committed.

5. What crimes, you say? What are you asking –

Have you not heard what he who demanded a hundred denarii from his brother suffered, how he lost the gift that his lord had given him? Do you not know what you were before and what you have become now? Do you not remember that much more than this poor man in money you were poor in good works, being full of innumerable sins? God has forgiven you all your sins and has vouchsafed you such a meal; but even after that thou didst not become more philanthropic; therefore there is nothing left but to deliver you over to the tormentors (Matt. 18:34). Let us all heed these words (of the Apostle), because here we also partake of the sacred table together with the poor, and when we come out of here, we do not even want to look at them, but, indulging in drunkenness ourselves, we leave their hunger unattended, of which the Corinthians were also guilty at that time. When, you say, is this done? Always, especially on feast days, when it would be most appropriate not to do this. It is then, after communion, that drunkenness and neglect of the poor immediately begin: then, after receiving the blood of the Lord, when you should have observed fasting and abstinence, you give yourself over to drunkenness and disorder. When you happen to eat something pleasant at dinner. you are careful not to spoil the former with another bad meal; and, having received the Spirit, you give yourself over to satanic pleasures Remember what the apostles did when they communed of the Holy Supper; Did they not turn to prayers and hymns, to the sacred vigil, to a long teaching filled with great wisdom? Truly great and wondrous mysteries (the Lord) taught and explained to them when Judas went to call His future crucifiers. Have you not also heard that the three thousand faithful, who were vouchsafed communion, were constantly in prayer and teaching, and not in drunkenness and disorder? And you, if before communion you fast in order to prove yourself worthy of communion, then after communion, when it would be necessary to strengthen abstinence, you destroy 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. Is it possible, you will say, that one should fast after communion? I do not say this, I do not force it; Of course, it is good to do so, but I do not force it, but only exhort you not to give yourself over to immeasurable satiety. If one should never be satiated at all, as Paul inspires in the words: "But she who eats abundantly alive is dead" (1 Timothy 5:6), then death is all the more threatening here (for those who are satiated after communion). If for a woman gluttony is death, how much more so for the husband; if it is pernicious 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 do you not know how much evil comes from gluttony? Inappropriate laughter, obscene speech, pernicious jokes, useless idle talk, and many other things that are indecent to talk about. You do all this after you have communed of Christ's table, on the very day on which you were vouchsafed to touch His flesh with your tongue. Therefore, in order that this may not happen, let each one keep clean his right hand, tongue, and lips, which served as the threshold at the coming of Christ, and, having offered his sensual meal, turn his thoughts to that spiritual table, to the Lord's Supper, to the vigil of the disciples on that sacred night: or rather, if we carefully delve into it, then now it is the same night. Let us watch together with the Lord and revere together with His disciples. One should pray without ceasing, and not get drunk, especially on feast days. The feast is not for us to riot and multiply our sins, but to cleanse even those that we have. I know that I am saying this in vain, but I will not stop saying it. If you do not all obey, then you will not all obey; and if you all do not obey, then I will have a great reward, and you will be all the more condemned. And lest this happen to you, I will not cease to speak; By frequent repetition, perhaps, I will touch you. And so I exhort: so that communion does not serve to condemn us, let us feed Christ, give him water, clothe Him: this is worthy of such a meal. Have you heard sacred songs, seen a spiritual marriage, enjoyed the royal meal, were filled with the Holy Spirit, joined the ranks of the seraphim, became an accomplice of the heavenly powers? Do not disturb such joy, do not lose your treasure, do not give yourself over to drunkenness – this source of sorrow, the consolation of the devil, the author of countless evils, from which sleep is like death, and dizziness, and illness, and oblivion, and mortal exhaustion. Of course, you would not dare to meet even a friend in a drunken state: how dare you, tell me, indulge in such drunkenness, having Christ in you? But do you like pleasure? Therefore, stop indulging in drunkenness. And I wish you pleasure, but true pleasure, never fading. What kind of pleasure is this true and always blooming? Call upon Christ to dinner, share with Him your own, or rather His: this is the infinite and ever-blossoming pleasure! But sensual pleasures are not like that; as soon as they appear, they immediately disappear, and the one who enjoys them is not in a better condition, but even in a worse state than the one who does not enjoy. This one is, as it were, in a harbor, and the latter is carried away by the stream and besieged by diseases, not being able to overcome such a storm. Therefore, in order that this may not happen, let us observe moderation; then let us keep our bodies healthy and our souls calm, let us be freed from present and future evils, from which we have been delivered, and may we all be vouchsafed the Kingdom of Heaven, by the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] In Synod. "and thus"

[2] In Russian translation. Punctuation marks are placed differently: "Should I praise you for this? I will not praise"

CONVERSATION 28

"Let a man examine himself, and thus let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28).

1. Why were these words spoken, when it was about another subject? Paul, as I said before, usually discusses not only what is the main subject of his discourse, but if he touches upon another, he expounds it with great care, especially when it comes to subjects that are very necessary and urgent. Thus, when he was talking about spouses and in his speech he touched upon slaves, he expounded this subject also very strongly and in detail; when he spoke about the fact that one should not be judged in the courts, and touched upon covetousness in his instruction, he said much about this subject as well; He does the same here. Having mentioned the sacraments, he found it necessary to expound this subject in more detail, as it is not unimportant; therefore, in a conversation about it, he inspires great fear and proves that the main good is to approach them with a clear conscience. Not content with what has been said before, he adds the following: "Let man examine himself"; he says the same in the second epistle: "Try ye" (2 Corinthians 13:5), and not as we do, conforming more to the time than to the disposition of the soul. We do not try to approach prepared, cleansed of all evil and with complete reverence, but to approach on feast days and when everyone approaches.