Homilies on First Corinthians

But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

It is necessary in considering the present charge to state also first the occasion of it. For thus again will our discourse be more intelligible. What then is this occasion?

As in the case of the three thousand who believed in the beginning, all had eaten their meals in common and had all things common; such also was the practice at the time when the Apostle wrote this: not such indeed exactly; but as it were a certain outflowing of that communion which abode among them descended also to them that came after. And because of course some were poor, but others rich, they laid not down all their goods in the midst, but made the tables open on stated days, as it should seem; and when the solemn service was completed, after the communion of the Mysteries, they all went to a common entertainment, the rich bringing their provisions with them, and the poor and destitute being invited by them, and all feasting in common. But afterward this custom also became corrupt. And the reason was, their being divided and addicting themselves, some to this party, and others to that, and saying, “I am of such a one,” and “I of such a one;” which thing also to correct he said in the beginning of the Epistle, “For it has been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas.” Not that Paul was the person to whom they were attaching themselves; for he would not have borne it: but wishing by concession to tear up this custom from the root, he introduced himself, indicating that if any one had inscribed upon himself even his name when breaking off from the common body, even so the thing done was profane and extreme wickedness. And if in his case it were wickedness, much more in the case of those who were inferior to him.

2. Since therefore this custom was broken through, a custom most excellent and most useful; (for it was a foundation of love, and a comfort to poverty, and a corrective of riches, and an occasion of the highest philosophy, and an instruction of humility) since however he saw so great advantages in a way to be destroyed, he naturally addresses them with severity, thus saying: “But in giving you this charge, I praise you not.” For in the former charge, as there were many who kept (the ordinances), he began otherwise, saying thus: “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things:” but here contrariwise, “But in giving you this charge, I praise you not.” And here is the reason why he placed it not after the rebuke of them that eat the idol-sacrifices. But because that was unusually harsh he interposes the discourse about wearing of long hair, that he might not have to pass from one set of vehement reproofs to others again of an invidious kind and so appear too harsh: and then he returns to the more vehement tone, and says, “But in giving you this charge, I praise you not.” What is this? That which I am about to tell you of. What is, “giving you this charge, I praise you not?” “I do not approve you,” says he, “because you have reduced me to the necessity of giving advice: I do not praise you, because you have required instruction in regard to this, because you have need of an admonition from me.” Do you perceive how from his beginning he signifies that what was done was very profane? For when he that errs ought not to require so much as a hint to prevent his erring, the error would seem to be unpardonable.

And why do you not praise? Because “ye come together,” says he, “not for the better but for the worse;” i.e., because ye do not go forward unto virtue. For it were meet that your liberality should increase and become manifold, but you have taken rather from the custom which already prevailed, and have so taken from it as even to need warning from me, in order that you may return to the former order.

Further, that he might not seem to say these things on account of the poor only, he does not at once strike in to the discourse concerning the tables, lest he render his rebuke such as they might easily come to think slightly of, but he searches for an expression most confounding and very fearful. For what says he?