1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:1

Ambrosiaster: It is normal that we should imitate those whom God has set over us as teachers. For if they imitate God, why should we not imitate them? For just as God the Father sent Christ as the teacher and author of life, so Christ sent the apostles to be our teachers, so that we should imitate them, for we are unable to imitate him directly. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Basil of Caesarea: If, indeed, the goal of Christianity is the imitation of Christ according to the measure of his incarnation, insofar as is conformable with the vocation of each individual, they who are entrusted with the guidance of many others are obliged to animate those still weaker than themselves, by their assistance, to the imitation of Christ. — THE LONG RULES 43

CS Lewis: A perfect practice of Christianity would, of course, consist in a perfect imitation of the life of Christ—I mean, insofar as it was applicable in one’s own particular circumstances. Not in an idiotic sense—it doesn’t mean that every Christian should grow a beard, or be a bachelor, or become a traveling preacher. It means that every single act and feeling, every experience, whether pleasant or unpleasant, must be referred to God. It means looking at everything as something that comes from Him, and always looking to Him and asking His will first, and saying: “How would He wish me to deal with this?” — ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON CHRISTIANITY, from God in the Dock

Clement of Alexandria: And openly and expressly the apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians says, “Be ye followers of me, as also I am of Christ,” in order that that may take place. If ye are of me, and I am of Christ, then ye are imitators of Christ, and Christ of God. Assimilation to God, then, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with wisdom, he lays down as the aim of faith, and the end to be that restitution of the promise which is effected by faith. — The Stromata Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: If you imitate Paul as he imitated Christ, then you will be imitating Christ as he represented God. — The Stromata Book 2

Desert Fathers: Cassian told this story about John, who was the father of a community because he was great in his way of life. When he was dying, he was cheerful, and his mind was set upon the Lord; his brothers stood around him and asked for a sentence that would sum up the way to salvation, which he could give them as a legacy by which they might rise to the perfection that is in Christ. With a sigh he said ‘I have never obeyed my own will, and I never taught anyone to do anything which I did not do myself first.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Ignatius of Antioch: Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to imitate Him as Paul did. For, says he, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” — Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

John Chrysostom: “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

This is a rule of the most perfect Christianity, this is a landmark exactly laid down, this is the point that stands highest of all; viz. the seeking those things which are for the common profit: which also Paul himself declared, by adding, “even as I also am of Christ.” For nothing can so make a man an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors. Nay, though thou shouldest fast, though thou shouldest lie upon the ground, and even strangle thyself, but take no thought for thy neighbor; thou hast wrought nothing great, but still standest far from this Image, while so doing.

However, in the case before us, even the very thing itself is naturally useful, viz; the abstaining from idol-sacrifices. But “I,” saith he, “have done many of those things which were unprofitable also: e.g., when I used circumcision, when I offered sacrifice; for these, were any one to examine them in themselves, rather destroy those that follow after them and cause them to fall from salvation: nevertheless, I submitted even to these on account of the advantage therefrom: but here is no such thing. For in that case, except there accrue a certain benefit and except they be done for others’ sake, then the thing becomes injurious: but in this, though there be none made to stumble, even so ought one to abstain from the things forbidden.

But not only to things hurtful have I submitted, but also to things toilsome. For, “I robbed other Churches,” saith he, “taking wages of them; and when it was lawful to eat and not to work, I sought not this, but chose to perish of hunger rather than offend another.” This is why he says, “I please all men in all things.” “Though it be against the law, though it be laborious and hazardous, which is to be done, I endure all for the profit of others. So then, being above all in perfection, he became beneath all in condescension.” — Homily on 1 Corinthians 25

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: What, then, is it? Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer. But because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious, though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish religion from superstition, nor to express the meaning of the names. — The Divine Institutes Book 4

Methodius of Olympus: If he who says so speaks the truth, let us ask him to explain what was the evil which the apostle hated and willed not to do, but did; and the good which he willed to do, but did not; and conversely, whether as often as he willed to do good, so often he did not do the good which he willed, but did the evil which he willed not? And how he can say, when exhorting us to shake off all manner of sin, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ? "

Tertullian: So far, however, as regards the dress of women, the variety of observance compels us-men of no consideration whatever-to treat, presumptuously indeed, after the most holy apostle, except in so far as it will not be presumptuously if we treat the subject in accordance with the apostle. — On Prayer

1 Corinthians 11:2

Ambrosiaster: Having attacked their morals and behavior, Paul now goes on to correct their traditions. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Cyprian: Although I know, dearest brother, that very many of the bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; yet since some, either by ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught, I have thought it as well a religious as a necessary thing to write to you this letter, that, if any one is still kept in this error, he may behold the light of truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord. Nor must you think, dearest brother, that I am writing my own thoughts or man’s; or that I am boldly assuming this to myself of my own voluntary will, since I always hold my mediocrity with lowly and modest moderation. But when anything is prescribed by the inspiration and command of God, it is necessary that a faithful servant should obey the Lord, acquitted by all of assuming anything arrogantly to himself, seeing that he is constrained to fear offending the Lord unless he does what he is commanded.

Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, “I am the true vine.” the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. — Epistle LXII

John Chrysostom: Having finished therefore all the discourses concerning all these things, he next proceeds also to another accusation. And what was this? Their women used both to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare, (for then women also used to prophesy;) but the men went so far as to wear long hair as having spent their time in philosophy, and covered their heads when praying and prophesying, each of which was a Grecian custom. Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?”

Thou seest that some obeyed, whom he praises; and others disobeyed, whom he corrects by what comes afterwards, saying, “Now if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom.” For if after some had done well but others disobeyed, he had included all in his accusation, he would both have made the one sort bolder, and have caused the others to become more remiss; whereas now by praising and approving the one, and rebuking the other, he both refreshes the one more effectually, and causes the other to shrink before him. For the accusation even by itself was such as might well wound them; but now that it takes place in contrast with others who have done well and are praised, it comes with a sharper sting. However, for the present he begins not with accusation, but with encomiums and great encomiums, saying, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things.” For such is the character of Paul; though it be but for small matters he weaves a web of high praise; nor is it for flattery that he doth so: far from it; how could he so act to whom neither money was desirable, nor glory, nor any other such thing? but for their salvation he orders all his proceedings. And this is why he amplifies the encomium, saying, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things.”

“That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others’ pride, who oppose themselves. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Tertullian: In vain do you labour to seem adorned: in vain do you call in the aid of all the most skilful manufacturers of false hair. God bids you “be veiled.” I believe (He does so) for fear the heads of some should be seen! And oh that in “that day” of Christian exultation, I, most miserable (as I am), may elevate my head, even though below (the level of) your heels! I shall (then) see whether you will rise with (your) ceruse and rouge and saffron, and in all that parade of headgear: whether it will be women thus tricked out whom the angels carry up to meet Christ in the air If these (decorations) are now good, and of God, they will then also present themselves to the rising bodies, and will recognise their several places. — On the Apparel of Women Book II

Tertullian: And so they upbraid the discipline of monogamy with being a heresy; nor is there any other cause whence they find themselves compelled to deny the Paraclete more than the fact that they esteem Him to be the institutor of a novel discipline, and a discipline which they find most harsh: so that this is already the first ground on which we must join issue in a general handling (of the subject), whether there is room for maintaining that the Paraclete has taught any such thing as can either be charged with novelty, in opposition to catholic tradition, or with burdensomeness, in opposition to the “light burden” of the Lord. — On Monogamy

1 Corinthians 11:3

Ambrose of Milan: This is a warning that no one ought to rely on oneself. She who was made as a helper needs the protection of the stronger. In this sense “the head of the woman is the man.” Yet while he believed that he would have the assistance of his wife, he fell because of her. Hence no one ought to entrust himself lightly to another unless he has first put that person’s virtue to the test. Neither should he claim for himself in the role of protector one whom he believes is lesser to his strength. Rather, each one should share his special grace with the other. Especially is this true of the man, who is in the position of greater strength, who plays the part of protector. — On Paradise, 4.24

Ambrosiaster: God is the head of Christ because he begat him; Christ is the head of the man because he created him, and the man is the head of the woman because she was taken from his side. Thus one expression has different meanings, according to the difference of person and substantive relationship. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Apostolic Constitutions: Let the wife be obedient to her own proper husband, because “the husband is the head of the wife.” [1 Corinthians 11:3] But Christ is the head of that husband who walks in the way of righteousness; and “the head of Christ is God,” even His Father. Therefore, O wife, next after the Almighty, our God and Father, the Lord of the present world and of the world to come, the Maker of everything that breathes, and of every power; and after His beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom glory be to God, you fear your husband, and reverence him, pleasing him alone, rendering yourself acceptable to him in the several affairs of life, that so on your account your husband may be called blessed, according to the Wisdom of Solomon, which thus speaks: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For such a one is more precious than costly stones. The heart of her husband does safely trust in her…” — Apostolic Constitutions (Book I), Section 3, VIII

Apostolic Constitutions: We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” [1 Corinthians 14:34] but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For “if the head of the wife be the man,” [1 Corinthians 11:3] it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head. — Apostolic Constitutions (Book III), Section 1, VI

Apostolic Constitutions: Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the “man be the head of the woman,” [1 Corinthians 11:3] and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, “He shall rule over you.” [Genesis 3:16] For the principal part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action; as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution. — Apostolic Constitutions (Book III), Section 1, IX

Augustine of Hippo: For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man. — AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS 2.12.16

Clement of Alexandria: Whom does he bless? Not the woman decked out, but another’s hair, and through them another head. And if “the man is head of the woman, and God of the man”. “For I would have you know “says the apostle, “that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.” And if “the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman” the man, “being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.” The head is, then, a sign of most princely rule; and otherwise we have heard it said, “The Head of Christ is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” — The Instructor Book 3

Cyril of Jerusalem: The Head suffered in the “place of the skull.” O great and prophetic appellation! The very name all but reminds you to think not of the crucified as a mere man. He is the head of every principality and power. The Head which was crucified is the Head of all power. — Catechetical Lecture 13:23

Gregory the Dialogist: He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord’s head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation? — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

Gregory the Dialogist: “You did not anoint my head with oil.” If we understand the feet of the Lord as the mystery of his incarnation, fittingly his divinity is designated by his head. Hence also through Paul it is said: “The head of Christ is God.” For the Jewish people professed to believe in God, and not in him as if in a man. But it is said to the Pharisee, “You did not anoint my head with oil,” because he neglected to proclaim with worthy praise even that very power of his divinity, in which the Jewish people pledged to believe. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 33

Novatian: Scripture states: “And the two shall be but one flesh,” so that what was once one may become one again.… The head matches its own limbs and the limbs their own head, a natural bond uniting both in complete harmony, lest the closeness of the divine covenant be shattered by some sort of discord arising from the division of members.… Husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church, and wives are to love their husbands as the church loves Christ. — IN PRAISE OF PURITY 5

Pelagius: The man is head of the woman in the natural order but not in Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female. Nevertheless, Paul wanted women to be subject to their husbands. God is the head of Christ’s humanity, because the divinity which was in the human Jesus controlled his doings. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 11

Severian of Gabala: Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only [the relation of] submission. The nature of God and Christ is the same. Similarly the nature of man and woman is the same. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: To what kind of a crown, I ask, did Christ Jesus submit for the salvation of both sexes? What crown has he who is the head of man and the glory of the woman and the husband of the church? It was made from thorns and thistles. — THE CHAPLET 14

Tertullian: “The head of every man is Christ.” What Christ, if He is not the author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now “authority” will accrue to none else than the “author. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: Now this, to be sure, is an astonishing thing, that the Father can be taken to be the face of the Son, when He is His head; for “the head of Christ is God.” — Against Praxeas

Tertullian: , it is the custom of some to make prayer with cloaks doffed, for so do the nations approach their idols; which practice, of course, were its observance becoming, the apostles, who teach concerning the garb of prayer. would have comprehended in their instructions, unless any think that is was in prayer that Paul had left his cloak with Carpus! God, forsooth, would not hear cloaked suppliants, who plainly heard the three saints in the Babylonian king’s furnace praying in their trousers and turbans. — On Prayer

Tertullian: If “the man is bead of the woman,” of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If” it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn,” of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. — On the Veiling of Virgins

Tertullian: The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman-why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not-it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. — On the Veiling of Virgins

Victorinus of Pettau: “And His head and His hairs were white as it were white wool, and as it were snow.” On the head the whiteness is shown; “but the head of Christ is God.” in the white hairs is the multitude of abbots like to wool, in respect of simple sheep; to snow, in respect of the innumerable crowd of candidates taught from heaven.

“His eyes were as a flame of fire.” God’s precepts are those which minister light to believers, but to unbelievers burning. — Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John

1 Corinthians 11:4

Irenaeus: We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we must also orderly go over the whole passage. For perhaps some one might here have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of a crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or the man covered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence.

Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman’s inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.

For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil: (“for the woman,” saith He, “shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garments:”) much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say Nature, I mean God. For He it is Who created Nature. When therefore thou overturnest these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue.

And tell me not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself: being as it is disobedience. Next, though it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor and the governed being regularly kept in their several places by it.

So that he who transgresseth disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honor bestowed on him from above; not however the man only, but also the woman. For to her also it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behavior of a rebel. Wherefore he laid it down concerning both, thus saying,

“Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled. dishonoreth her head.”

For there were, as I said, both men who prophesied and women who had this gift at that time, as the daughters of Philip, as others before them and after them: concerning whom also the prophet spake of old: “your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions.”

Well then: the man he compelleth not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays. “For every man,” saith he, “praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.” But the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head,” he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.” But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, “The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.” He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. To be covered he then only forbids, when a man is praying; but the wearing long hair he discourages at all times. Wherefore, as touching the woman, he said, “But if she be not veiled, let her also be shorn;” so likewise touching the man, “If he have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him.” He said not, “if he be covered” but, “if he have long hair.” Wherefore also he said at the beginning, “Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonoreth his head.” He said not, “covered,” but “having any thing on his head;” signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. “For the hair,” saith he, “is given for a covering.” — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Pelagius: Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 11

Severian of Gabala: There is a difference between ancient and recent prophets, as follows. The ancients prophesied about the redemption of Israel, the calling of the Gentiles and the incarnation of Christ, whereas recent prophets prophesy about particular things or people, as Peter prophesied about Ananias, for example.. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: What is “every woman, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying” every” he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, “Every man.” As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of” man” even the" youth" is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled. Equally in each sex let the younger age follow the discipline of the elder; or else let the male “virgins,” too, be veiled, if the female virgins withal are not veiled, because they are not mentioned by name. Let “man” and “youth” be different, if “woman” and “virgin” are different. For indeed it is “on account of the angels” that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God. — On Prayer

1 Corinthians 11:5

Clement of Alexandria: And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. — The Instructor Book 3

Tertullian: What is the meaning of the expression “every woman” except women of every age, every rank and every circumstance? No one is excepted. — ON PRAYER 22.4

Tertullian: In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: For they who allow to virgins immunity from head-covering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle has not defined “virgins” by name, but “women,” as “to be veiled; “nor the sex generally, so as to say “females,” but a class of the sex, by saying “women: “for if he had named the sex by saying “females,” he would have made his limit absolute for every woman; but while he names one class of the sex, he separates another class by being silent. — On Prayer

Tertullian: But, withal, the declaration is plain: “Every woman,” saith he, “praying and prophesying with head uncovered, dishonoureth her own head.” What is “every woman, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying” every” he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, “Every man. — On Prayer

Victorinus of Pettau: “Seven thunders uttered their voices.” The seven thunders uttering their voices signify, the Holy Spirit of sevenfold power, who through the prophets announced all things to come, and by His voice John gave his testimony in the world; but because he says that he was about to write the things which the thunders had uttered, that is, whatever things had been obscure in the announcements of the Old Testament; he is forbidden to write them, but he was charged to leave them sealed, because he is an apostle, nor was it fitting that the grace of the subsequent stage should be given in the first. “The time,” says he, “is at hand.” For the apostles, by powers, by signs, by portents, and by mighty works, have overcome unbelief. After them there is now given to the same completed Churches the comfort of having the prophetic Scriptures subsequently interpreted, for I said that after the apostles there would be interpreting prophets.

For the apostle says: “And he placed in the Church indeed, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers,” and the rest. And in another place he says: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge.” And he says: “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head” And when he says, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge,” he is not speaking in respect of the Catholic prophecy of things unheard and unknown, but of things both announced and known. But let them judge whether or not the interpretation is consistent with the testimonies of the prophetic utterance. It is plain, therefore, that to John, armed as he was with superior virtue, this was not necessary, although the body of Christ, which is the Church, adorned with His members, ought to respond to its position. — Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John

1 Corinthians 11:6

John Chrysostom: “But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.”

Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven,” and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but “covered over,” meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, “but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn.” As if he had said, “If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.”

But if any say, “Nay, how can this be a shame to the woman, if she mount up to the glory of the man?” we might make this answer; “She doth not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor.” Since not to abide within our own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminution. For as he that desireth other men’s goods and seizeth what is not his own, hath not gained any thing more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had, (which kind of thing also happened in paradise:) so likewise the woman acquireth not the man’s dignity, but loseth even the woman’s decency which she had. And not from hence only is her shame and reproach, but also on account of her covetousness.

Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven,” he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, “let her be covered.” And he said not, “let her have long hair,” but, “let her be covered,” ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. “For it is one and the same thing,” saith he, “as if she were shaven.” But if any say, “And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?” we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature’s doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven hath her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Tertullian: If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes “the woman.” — On the Veiling of Virgins

1 Corinthians 11:7

Ambrosiaster: Although man and woman are of the same substance, the man has relational priority because he is the head of the woman. He is greater than she is by cause and order, but not by substance. Woman is the glory of man, but there is an enormous distance between that and being the glory of God. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: [The Manichaeans say]: “The devil should not have been allowed to approach the woman.” On the contrary, she should not have allowed the devil to approach her. She was made so that, if she were unwilling, she could have prevented his approach. Then they say: “Maybe the woman should not even have been made.” This would be to admit that something good should not have been made. For there can be no doubt that the woman is good—so good that the apostle says that she is the glory of man and that all things are from God. .

Augustine of Hippo: It is not as though one part of humanity belongs to God as its author and another to darkness, as some claim. Rather the part that has the power of ruling and the part that is ruled are both from God. Thus the apostle says, “A man certainly should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but a woman is the glory of man.” .

Augustine of Hippo: This image made to the image of God is not equal to and coeternal with him whose image he is, and it would not be, even if it had not sinned at all. The meaning of the words of God when he said: “Let us make man to our image and likeness” must be understood. They were not spoken in the singular but in the plural. For man was not made in the image of the Father alone, or of the Son alone, or of the Holy Spirit alone, but in the image of the Trinity.

John Chrysostom: Then he states also a cause, as one discoursing with those who are free: a thing which in many places I have remarked. What then is the cause?

“For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”

This is again another cause. “Not only,” so he speaks, “because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman.” For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee.

And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” Therefore the rule of the man is natural. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Methodius of Olympus: And he asks what will be the appearance of the risen body, when this human form, as according to him useless, shall wholly disappear; since it is the most lovely of all things which are combined in living creatures, as being the form which the Deity Himself employs, as the most wise Paul explains: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; " — Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection

Severian of Gabala: From this we learn that man is not the image of God because of his soul or because of his body. If that were the case, woman would be the image of God in exactly the same way as man, because she too has a soul and a body. What we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship. For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does—she has man over her. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Caesar’s, said, “Render to Caesar what are Caesar’s, and what are God’s to God; “that is, the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself. — On Idolatry

Tertullian: Of what man indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon afterwards: “The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God.” Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness” ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore “ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because “she was created for the man,” and taken out of the man, according to the Creator’s purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: The will of God is our sanctification, for He wishes His “image “-us-to become likewise His “likeness; " that we may be “holy” just as Himself is “holy. — On Exhortation to Chastity

1 Corinthians 11:8

Epiphanius of Salamis: For even if women among them [the Montanists] are appointed to the office of bishop and presbyter by appealing to Eve, they hear the Lord saying: “Your resort shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: “I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.” And again, “For man is not from woman, but woman from man.” — PANARION 49.3

John Chrysostom: Then, having affirmed his point, he states again other reasons and causes also, leading thee to the first creation, and saying thus:

“For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.”

But if to be of any one, is a glory to him of whom one is, much more the being an image of him.

“For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Theodoret of Cyrus: Man has the first place because of the order of creation. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 234

1 Corinthians 11:9

Tertullian: Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness” ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore “ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because “she was created for the man,” and taken out of the man, according to the Creator’s purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodoret of Cyrus: This is all that is needed to demonstrate the primacy of the man, for the woman was created to serve him, not the other way round. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 234

1 Corinthians 11:10

Ambrosiaster: The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Irenaeus ((Reporting Valentinian Views)): Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, “A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.” — Against Heresies Book I

John Chrysostom: “For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head”

“For this cause:” what cause, tell me? “For all these which have been mentioned,” saith he; or rather not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “For although thou despise thine husband,” saith he, “yet reverence the angels.”

It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.

Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And thou doest the same as if having received a diadem, thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Tertullian: It is on account of the angels, he says, that the woman’s head is to be covered, because the angels revolted from God on account of the daughters of men. — ON PRAYER 22.5

Tertullian: She has the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of the angels, much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above. — De Corona

Tertullian: What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator’s, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! (The apostle) says: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,” and adds: “Doth God take care of oxen? “Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For, says he, “it is written for our sakes.” Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the gospel. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness” ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore “ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because “she was created for the man,” and taken out of the man, according to the Creator’s purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness” ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore “ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because “she was created for the man,” and taken out of the man, according to the Creator’s purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: “Because of the angels.” What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: Let “man” and “youth” be different, if “woman” and “virgin” are different. For indeed it is “on account of the angels” that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God. — On Prayer

Tertullian: If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). — On the Veiling of Virgins

1 Corinthians 11:11

Ignatius of Antioch: Be not ashamed of servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them. Do not hold women in abomination, for they have given thee birth, and brought thee up. It is fitting, therefore, to love those that were the authors of our birth (but only in the Lord), inasmuch as a man can produce no children without a woman. It is right, therefore, that we should honour those who have had a part in giving us birth. “Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man,” except in the case of those who were first formed. For the body of Adam was made out of the four elements, and that of Eve out of the side of Adam. And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of the Lord was of a virgin alone. [This took place] not as if the lawful union [of man and wife] were abominable, but such a kind of birth was fitting to God. For it became the Creator not to make use of the ordinary method of generation, but of one that was singular and strange, as being the Creator. — Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch

John Chrysostom: “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Thus, because he had given great superiority to the man, having said that the woman is of him and for him and under him; that he might neither lift up the men more than was due nor depress the women, see how he brings in the correction, saying, “Howbeit neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” “Examine not, I pray,” saith he, “the first things only, and that creation. Since if thou enquire into what comes after, each one of the two is the cause of the other; or rather not even thus each of the other, but God of all.” Wherefore he saith, “neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

“For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman.”

He said not, “of the woman,” but he repeats the expression, “of the man.” For still this particular prerogative remains entire with the man. Yet are not these excellencies the property of the man, but of God. Wherefore also he adds, “but all things of God.” If therefore all things belong to God, and he commands these things, do thou obey and gainsay not. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

1 Corinthians 11:12

Ambrosiaster: Paul adds that all things are from God so that the woman will not be upset because of her dependent condition nor will the man be proud of his responsible position. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Concerning the male and female sexes, what has the son of perdition to say? That the two sexes are not from God but from the devil? What has the vessel of election to say about this? “For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman— but all things are from God.” What does the devil say through the mouths of the Manichaeans about the flesh? That it is an evil substance, a creature not of God but of the enemy.

1 Corinthians 11:13

Ambrosiaster: This was the church’s tradition, but since the Corinthians were ignoring it, Paul made his appeal to nature. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God veiled?” Again he places them as judges of the things said, which also he did respecting the idol-sacrifices. For as there he saith, “judge ye what I say:” so here, “judge in yourselves:” and he hints something more awful here. For he says that the affront here passes on unto God: although thus indeed he doth not express himself, but in something of a milder and more enigmatical form of speech: “is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?”

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him?”

“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” His constant practice of stating commonly received reasons he adopts also in this place, betaking himself to the common custom, and greatly abashing those who waited to be taught these things from him, which even from men’s ordinary practice they might have learned. For such things are not unknown even to Barbarians: and see how he every where deals in piercing expressions: “every man praying having his head covered dishonoreth his head;” and again, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled:” and here again, “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him; but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering.”

“And if it be given her for a covering,” say you, “wherefore need she add another covering?” That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also. This is why God accusing the Jews said, “Thou hast slain thy sons and thy daughters: this is beyond all thy abominations.”

And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. “For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature.” For this cause then here also he employs this argument signifying this very thing, both that he is not enacting any strange law and that among Gentiles their inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of novelty against nature. So also Christ, implying the same, said, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also so them;” showing that He is not introducing any thing new. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Origen of Alexandria: Here then we see the just judgment of God’s providence, that diversity of conduct is taken into account and that each is treated according to the deserts of his departure and defection from goodness. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.7

1 Corinthians 11:14

Ambrose of Milan: One act is becoming to a man, another to a woman.… How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman! — LETTER 78

Ambrosiaster: This is in line with Leviticus [19:27], which prohibits a man from having long hair. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: What is the reason, I wonder, why men wear their hair long contrary to the precept of the apostle? Is it to furnish greater leisure to the barbers? Or is it because they wish to imitate the birds of the gospel? Maybe they fear being plucked so that they might be unable to fly? I refrain from saying more concerning this habit, because of certain long-haired brothers whom, in almost all other respects, we hold in high esteem. But in proportion as we love them the more in Christ, to that degree do we advise them the more earnestly. — On the Work of Monks 31

Tertullian: If you demand a divine law, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, written on the tablets of nature, to which also St. Paul is accustomed to appeal. Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: “Does not nature teach you this?” Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law. — THE CHAPLET 6.1

Tertullian: So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled “daughters” and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that “nature herself,” which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, “teaches that veiling is the duty of females,” has not the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins? If “it is shameful” for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too. — On Prayer

Tertullian: If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of “nature,” that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair. — On the Veiling of Virgins

Tertullian: If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning Nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. — On the Veiling of Virgins

1 Corinthians 11:15

Clement of Alexandria: But additions of other people’s hair are entirely to be rejected, and it is a most sacrilegious thing for spurious hair to shade the head, covering the skull with dead locks. For on whom does the presbyter lay his hand? Whom does he bless? Not the woman decked out, but another’s hair, and through them another head. And if “the man is head of the woman, and God of the man,” how is it not impious that they should fall into double sins? For they deceive the men by the excessive quantity of their hair; and shame the Lord as far as in them lies, by adorning themselves meretriciously, in order to dissemble the truth. And they defame the head, which is truly beautiful. — The Instructor Book 3

1 Corinthians 11:16

Cyprian: For what is there either in peace so suitable, or in a war of persecution so necessary, as to maintain the due severity of the divine rigour? Which he who resists, will of necessity wander in the unsteady course of affairs, and will be tossed hither and thither by the various and uncertain storms of things; and the helm of counsel being, as it were, wrenched from his hands he will drive the ship of the Church’s safety among the rocks; so that it would appear that the Church’s safety can be no otherwise secured, than by repelling any who set themselves against it as adverse waves, and by maintaining the ever-guarded rule of discipline itself as if it were the rudder of safety in the tempest. Nor is it now but lately that this counsel has been considered by us, nor have these sudden appliances against the wicked but recently occurred to us; but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said “that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” unless already from thence that vigour had borrowed the roots of faith from those times; from which praise and glory it is a very great crime to have become degenerate. For it is less disgrace never to have attained to the heraldry of praise, than to have fallen from the height of praise; it is a smaller crime not to have been honoured with a good testimony, than to have lost the honour of good testimonies; it is less discredit to have lain without the announcement of virtues, ignoble without praise, than, disinherited of the faith, to have lost our proper praises. For those things which are proclaimed to the glory of any one, unless they are maintained by anxious and careful pains, swell up into the odium of the greatest crime. — Epistle XXX

Cyprian: Hence it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth; or as if that were not to be sought after in spiritual matters which has been revealed as the better by the Holy Spirit. For one who errs by simplicity may be pardoned, as the blessed Apostle Paul says of himself, “I who at first was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; yet obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly.” But after inspiration and revelation made to him, he who intelligently and knowingly perseveres in that course in which he had erred, sins without pardon for his ignorance. For he resists with a certain presumption and obstinacy, when he is overcome by reason. Nor let any one say, “We follow that which we have received from the apostles,” when the apostles only delivered one Church, and one baptism, which is not ordained except in the same Church. And we cannot find that any one, when he had been baptized by heretics, was received by the apostles in the same baptism, and communicated in such a way as that the apostles should appear to have approved the baptism of heretics. — Epistle LXXII

Cyprian: These things, dearest brother, I have briefly written to you, according to my abilities, prescribing to none, and prejudging none, so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well, and having the free exercise of his judgment. We, as far as in us lies, do not contend on behalf of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain a divine concord and the peace of the Lord; especially since the apostle says, “If any man, however, is thought to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of God.” Charity of spirit, the honour of our college, the bond of faith, and priestly concord, are maintained by us with patience and gentleness. For this reason, moreover, we have with the best of our poor abilities, with the permission and inspiration of the Lord, written a treatise on the “Benefit of Patience,” which for the sake of our mutual love we have transmitted to you. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell. — Epistle LXXII

John Chrysostom: “But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.”

It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. “For we,” saith he, “have no such custom,” so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, “neither the Churches of God;” signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding. However, even if the Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the whole world hath both received and kept this law. So great is the power of the Crucified. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 26

Tertullian: Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to “every woman? ““If any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.” He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming “every woman,” whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). — On the Veiling of Virgins

1 Corinthians 11:17

John Chrysostom: 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 hath 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 saith, 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.

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 ye 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,” saith he, “because ye have reduced me to the necessity of giving advice: I do not praise you, because ye have required instruction in regard to this, because ye have need of an admonition from me.” Dost thou perceive how from his beginning he signifieth 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 dost thou not praise? Because “ye come together,” saith 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 ye 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 ye may return to the former order.

Further, that he might not seem to say these things on account of the poor only, he doth 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. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

1 Corinthians 11:18

John Chrysostom: “For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that divisions exist among you.”

And he saith not, “For fear that you do not sup together in common;” “for I hear that you feast in private, and not with the poor:” but what was most calculated thoroughly to shake their minds, that he set down, the name of division, which was the cause of this mischief also: and so he reminded them again of that which was said in the beginning of the Epistle, and was “signified by them of the house of Chloe.”

“And I partly believe it.”

Thus, lest they should say, “But what if the accusers speak falsely?” he neither saith, “I believe it,” lest he should rather make them reckless; nor again, on the other hand, “I disbelieve it,” lest he should seem to reprove without cause, but, “I partly believe it,” saith he, i.e., “I believe it in a small part;” making them anxious and inviting them to return to correction. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

Tertullian: For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended “to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: These were the ingenious arts of “spiritual wickednesses,” wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have “to wrestle,” as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion’s disciples, (to say nothing of his angels, ) have any desire for women. We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among “works of the flesh,” and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing. — Against Marcion Book V

1 Corinthians 11:19

Ambrosiaster: Paul did not want heresies or choose them, but he foresaw the future and knew that they would come. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: People become heretics, even though they would still have held wrong opinions if they had remained within the church. Now that they are outside, they do us more good, not by teaching the truth, for they do not know it, but by provoking carnal Christians to seek the truth and spiritual Christians to expound it. In the church there are innumerable people who are approved by God, but they do not become manifest among us as long as we are content with the darkness of our ignorance and prefer to sleep rather than to behold the light of truth. — ON TRUE RELIGION 7.15

Clement of Alexandria: Further, it is said that it is on account of “those that are approved that heresies exist.” — The Stromata Book 7

Cyprian: Hence heresies not only have frequently been originated, but continue to be so; while the perverted mind has no peace-while a discordant faithlessness does not maintain unity. But the Lord permits and suffers these things to be, while the choice of one’s own liberty remains, so that while the discrimination of truth is testing our hearts and our minds, the sound faith of those that are approved may shine forth with manifest light. The Holy Spirit forewarns and says by the apostle, “It is needful also that there should be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Thus the faithful are approved, thus the perfidious are detected; thus even here, before the day of judgment, the souls of the righteous and of the unrighteous are already divided, and the chaff is separated from the wheat. — Treatise I On the Unity of the Church

Cyprian: That it was foretold that heresies would arise. In the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “Heresies must needs be, in order that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” — Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

Hippolytus of Rome: , to furnish an account and refutation of those heresies that have sprung up in our own day, by which certain ignorant and presumptuous men have attempted to scatter abroad the Church, and have introduced the greatest confusion — Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book IX

John Chrysostom: “For there must be also factions among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

By “factions,” here he means those which concern not the doctrines, but these present divisions. But even if he had spoken of the doctrinal heresies, not even thus did he give them any handle. For Christ Himself said, “it must needs be that occasions of stumbling come,” not destroying the liberty of the will nor appointing any necessity and compulsion over man’s life, but foretelling what would certainly ensue from the evil mind of men; which would take place, not because of his prediction, but because the incurably disposed are so minded. For not because he foretold them did these things happen: but because they were certainly about to happen, therefore he foretold them. Since, if the occasions of stumbling were of necessity and not of the mind of them that bring them in, it was superfluous His saying, “Woe to that man by whom the occasion cometh.” But these things we discussed more at length when we were upon the passage itself; now we must proceed to what is before us.

Now that he said these things of these factions relating to the tables, and that contention and division, he made manifest also from what follows. For having said, “I hear that there are divisions among you,” he stopped not here, but signifying what divisions he means he goes on to say, “each one taketh before other his own supper;” and again, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God?” However, that of these he was speaking is evident. And if he call them divisions, marvel not. For, as I said, he wishes to touch them by the expression: whereas had they been divisions of doctrine, he would not have discoursed with them thus mildly. Hear him, for instance, when he speaks of any such thing, how vehement he is both in assertion and in reproof: in assertion, as when he says, “If even an angel preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed;” but in reproof, as when he says, “Whosoever of you would be justified by the law, ye are fallen away from grace.” And at one time he calls the corrupters “dogs,” saying, “Beware of dogs:” at another, “having their consciences seared with a hot iron.” And again, “angels of Satan:” but here he said no such thing, but spoke in a gentle and subdued tone.

But what is, “that they which are approved may be made manifest among you?” That they may shine the more. And what he intends to say is this, that those who are unchangeable and firm are so far from being at all injured hereby, but even shows them the more, and that it makes them more glorious. For the word, “that,” is not everywhere indicative of cause, but frequently also of the event of things. Thus Christ Himself uses it, when He saith, “For judgement I am come into this world; that they which see not may see, and that they which see may be made blind.” So likewise Paul in another place, when discoursing of the law, he writes, “And the Law came in beside, that the trespass might abound.” But neither was the law given to this end that the trespasses of the Jews might be increased: (though this did ensue:) nor did Christ come for this end that they which see might be made blind, but for the contrary; but the result was such. Thus then also here must one understand the expression, “that they which are approved may be made manifest.” For not at all with this view came heresies into being, that “they which are approved may be made manifest,” but on these heresies taking place such was the result. Now these things he said to console the poor, those of them who nobly bore that sort of contempt. Wherefore he said not, “that they may become approved,” but, “that they which are approved may be made manifest;” showing that before this also they were such, but they were mixed up with the multitude, and while enjoying such relief as was afforded them by the rich, they were not very conspicuous: but now this strife and contentiousness made them manifest, even as the storm shows the pilot. And he said not, “that ye may appear approved,” but, “that they which are approved may be made manifest, those among you who are such.” For neither when he is accusing doth he lay them open, that he may not render them more reckless; nor when praising, that he may not make them more boastful; but he leaves both this expression and that in suspense, allowing each man’s own conscience to make the application of what he saith.

Nor doth he here seem to me to be comforting the poor only, but those also who were not violating the custom. For it was likely that there were among them also those that observed it.

And this is why he said, “I partly believe it.” Justly then doth he call these “approved,” who not only with the rest observed the custom, but even without them kept this good law undisturbed. And he doth this, studying by such praises to render both others and these persons themselves more forward. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Before all things, it is befitting that we should know both that He Himself and His ambassadors foretold that there must be numerous sects and heresies, which would break the unity of the sacred body; and that they admonished us to be on our guard with the greatest prudence, lest we should at any time fall into the snares and deceits of that adversary of ours, with whom God has willed that we should contend. — The Divine Institutes Book 4

Severian of Gabala: Paul is not talking here about doctrinal error but about moral failures. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being “approved.” Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence of the many who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: And therefore “heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, both those who remained stedfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that “there must be heresies also.” For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended “to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: It was indeed necessary that there should be heresies; and yet it does not follow from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: Nor do I risk contradiction in saying that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that “there must be heresies, which there cannot be without the Scriptures. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: Now if there are no heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed to have fabricated, then the apostle who predicted them must have been guilty of falsehood. — Against the Valentinians

Tertullian: Now it is no matter of surprise if arguments are captiously taken from the writings of (the apostle) himself, inasmuch as there “must needs be heresies; " but these could not be, if the Scriptures were not capable of a false interpretation. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: Now, since it was “needful that there should be heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made manifest; " since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold front without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain enough that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials for their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed (so distorted) are refutable from the same Scriptures. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Vincent of Lérins: It is as if the apostle meant that the authors of heresies are not instantly rooted out by God, in order to make manifest those who are approved, that is, in order to make evident to what degree each one is a steadfast, faithful and firm lover of the orthodox faith. — COMMONITORIES 20

1 Corinthians 11:20

Clement of Alexandria: But always must we conduct ourselves as in the Lord’s presence, lest He say to us, as the apostle in indignation said to the Corinthians, “When ye come together, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” — The Instructor Book 2

John Chrysostom: “When ye assemble yourselves together,” saith he, “it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper.”

Seest thou how effectually appealing to their shame, even already by way of narrative he contrives to give them his counsel? “For the appearance of your assembly,” saith he, “is different. It is one of love and brotherly affection. At least one place receives you all, and ye are together in one flock. But the Banquet, when you come to that, bears no resemblance to the Assembly of worshippers.” And he said not, “When ye come together, this is not to eat in common;” “this is not to feast with one another;” but otherwise again and much more fearfully he reprimands them, saying, “it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper,” sending them away now from this point to that evening on which Christ delivered the awful Mysteries. Therefore also he called the early meal “a supper.” For that supper too had them all reclining at meat together: yet surely not so great was the distance between the rich and the poor as between the Teacher and the disciples. For that is infinite. And why say I the Teacher and the disciples? Think of the interval between the Teacher and the traitor: nevertheless, the Lord Himself both sat at meat with them and did not even cast him out, but both gave him his portion of salt and made him partaker of the Mysteries. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

Theodoret of Cyrus: The Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of the Lord. Everyone participates equally in it, whether they are poor or rich, slaves or lords, rulers or ruled. Common tables must at all costs be truly common so as to imitate the table of the Lord, which is open to all equally. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 236-37

1 Corinthians 11:21

Clement of Alexandria: Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame those who have not? " — The Instructor Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: And among those who have, they, who eat shamelessly and are insatiable, shame themselves. And both act badly; the one by paining those who have not, the other by exposing their own greed in the presence of those who have. — The Instructor Book 2

John Chrysostom: “For in your eating, each one taketh before other his own supper,” saith he, “and one is hungry, and another is drunken.”

Perceivest thou how he intimates that they were disgracing themselves rather? For that which is the Lord’s, they make a private matter: so that themselves are the first to suffer indignity, depriving their own table of its greatest prerogative. How and in what manner? Because the Lord’s Supper, i.e., the Master’s, ought to be common. For the property of the master belongs not to this servant without belonging to that, but in common to all. So that by “the Lord’s” Supper he expresses this, the “community” of the feast. As if he had said, “If it be thy master’s, as assuredly it is, thou oughtest not to withdraw it as private, but as belonging to thy Lord and Master to set it in common before all. For this is the meaning of, ’the Lord’s.’ But now thou dost not suffer it to be the Lord’s, not suffering it to be common but feasting by thyself.” Wherefore also he goes on to say,

“For each one taketh before other his own supper.” And he said not, “cutteth off,” but “taketh before,” tacitly censuring them both for greediness and for precipitancy. This at least the sequel also shows. For having said this, he added again, “and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” each of which showed a want of moderation, both the craving and the excess. See also a second fault again whereby those same persons are injured: the first, that they dishonor their supper: the second, that they are greedy and drunken; and what is yet worse, even when the poor are hungry. For what was intended to be set before all in common, that these men fed on alone, and proceeded both to surfeiting and to drunkenness. Wherefore neither did he say, “one is hungry, and another is filled:” but, “is drunken.” Now each of these, even by itself, is worthy of censure: for it is a fault to be drunken even without despising the poor; and to despise the poor without being drunken, is an accusation. When both then are joined together at the same time, consider how exceeding great is the transgression. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

1 Corinthians 11:22

Ambrosiaster: The false apostles had sown divisions among them so that they were possessive of their offerings. Although they were all blessed with one and the same prayer, those who had not offered or who had nothing to offer were covered with shame and did not take part. Furthermore, it all happened so quickly that those who came later found nothing left to eat. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and put them to shame that have not?”

Seest thou how he transferred the charge from the indignity offered to the poor to the Church, that his words might make a deeper impression of disgust? Here now you see is yet a fourth accusation, when not the poor only, but the Church likewise is insulted. For even as thou makest the Lord’s Supper a private meal, so also the place again, using the Church as a house. For it was made a Church, not that we who come together might be divided, but that they who are divided might be joined: and this act of assembling shows.

“And put them to shame that have not.” He said not, “and kill with hunger them that have not,” but so as much more to put them to the blush, “shame them;” to point out that it is not food which he cares for so much as the wrong done unto them. Behold again a fifth accusation, not only to overlook the poor but even to shame them. Now this he said, partly as treating with reverence the concerns of the poor, and intimating that they grieve not so for the belly as for the shame; and partly also drawing the hearer to compassion.

Having therefore pointed out so great impieties, indignity to the Supper, indignity to the Church, the contempt practised towards the poor; he relaxes again the tones of his reproof, saying, all of a sudden, “Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.” Wherein one might especially marvel at him that when there was need to strike and chide more vehemently after the proof of so great offences, he doeth the contrary rather, gives way, and permits them to recover breath. What then may the cause be? He had touched more painfully than usual in aggravating the charge, and being a most excellent physician, he adapts the incision to the wounds, neither cutting superficially those parts which require a deep stroke; (for thou hast heard him how he cut off among those very persons him that had committed fornication;) nor delivering over to the knife those things which require the milder sort of remedies. For this cause then here also he conducts his address more mildly, and in another point of view likewise, he sought especially to render them gentle to the poor: and this is why he discourses with them rather in a subdued tone. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

1 Corinthians 11:23

Apostolic Constitutions: Being mindful, therefore, of those things that He endured for our sakes, we give You thanks, O God Almighty, not in such a manner as we ought, but as we are able, and fulfil His constitution: “For in the same night that He was betrayed, He took bread” [1 Corinthians 11:23] in His holy and undefiled hands, and, looking up to You His God and Father, “He broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mystery of the new covenant: take of it, and eat. This is my body, which is broken for many, for the remission of sins.” In like manner also “He took the cup,” and mixed it of wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered it to them, saying: “Drink all of this; for this is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth my death until I come.” Being mindful, therefore, of His passion, and death, and resurrection from the dead, and return into the heavens, and His future second appearing, wherein He is to come with glory and power to judge the quick and the dead, and to recompense to every one according to his works, we offer to You, our King and our God, according to His constitution, this bread and this cup, giving You thanks, through Him, that You have thought us worthy to stand before You, and to sacrifice to You; and we beseech You that You will mercifully look down upon these gifts which are here set before You, O God, who standest in need of none of our offerings. And accept them, to the honour of Your Christ, and send down upon this sacrifice Your Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus’ sufferings, that He may show this bread to be the body of Your Christ, and the cup to be the blood of Your Christ, that those who are partakers thereof may be strengthened for piety, may obtain the remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and his deceit, may be filled with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Your Christ, and may obtain eternal life upon Your reconciliation to them, O Lord Almighty. — Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), Section 2, XII

Desert Fathers: Daniel the disciple of Arsenius used to talk also about a hermit in Scetis, saying that he was a great man but simple in the faith, and in his ignorance he thought and said that the bread which we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a symbol of His Body. Two of the monks heard what he said but because they knew of his sublime works and labours, they imagined that he had said it in innocence and simple-mindedness; and so they came to him and said unto him, ‘Abba, someone told us something that we do not believe; he said that this bread that we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a mere symbol.’ He said to them, ‘I said that.’ They begged him, saying, ‘You mustn’t say that, abba; according to what the Catholic Church has handed down to us, even so do we believe, that is to say, this bread is the Body of Christ in very truth, and is not a mere symbol. It is the same as when God took dust from the earth, and made man in His image; just as no one can say that he is not the image of God, so also with the bread of which He said, “This is My Body” is not to be regarded as a merely commemorative thing; we believe that it is indeed the Body of Christ.’ The hermit said, ‘Unless I can be convinced by the thing itself I will not listen to this.’ Then the monks said to him, ‘Let us pray to God all week about this mystery, and we believe that He will reveal the truth to us.’ The hermit agreed to this with great joy, and each went to his cell. Then the hermit prayed, saying, ‘O Lord, you know that it is not out of wickedness that I do not believe, so in order that I may not go astray through ignorance, reveal to me, Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of this mystery.’ The other two brothers prayed to God and said, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, give this hermit understanding about this mystery, and we believe that he will not be lost.’ God heard the prayer of the two monks. When the week was over they came to the church, and the three of them sat down by themselves on one seat, the hermit between the other two. The eyes of their understanding were opened, and when the time of the mysteries arrived, and the bread was laid upon the holy table, there appeared to the three of them as it were a child on the table. Then the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, and behold the angel of the Lord came down from heaven with a knife in his hand, and he killed the child and pressed out his blood into the cup. When the priest broke off from the bread small pieces, the hermit went forward to receive communion and a piece of living flesh smeared and dripping with blood was given to him. Now when he saw this he was afraid and he cried out loudly, saying, ‘Lord, I believe that the bread is Your Body, and that the cup is Your Blood.’ At once the flesh that was in his hand became bread, and he took it and gave thanks to God. The brothers said to him, ‘God knows the nature of men, and that we are unable to eat living flesh, and so He turneth His Body into bread, and His Blood into wine for those who receive Him in faith.’ Then they gave thanks to God for the hermit, because He had not let Satan destroy him, and the three of them went back to their cells joyfully. — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Didache: Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

But after ye are filled, thus give thanks: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire. — The Didache, Chapters 9-10

Fulgentius of Ruspe: The blessed Paul, recalling the most sacred mystery of that supper, makes known no other cup than the one called the new covenant by the Lord: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” — LETTER 14, TO FERRANDUS 40

JRR Tolkien: You speak of ‘sagging faith’, however. That is quite another matter: In the last resort faith is an act of will, inspired by love. Our love may be chilled and our will eroded by the spectacle of the shortcomings, folly, and even sins of the Church and its ministers, but I do not think that one who has once had faith goes back over the line for these reasons (least of all anyone with any historical knowledge). ‘Scandal’ at most is an occasion of temptation – as indecency is to lust, which it does not make but arouses. It is convenient because it tends to turn our eyes away from ourselves and our own faults to find a scape-goat. But the act of will of faith is not a single moment of final decision : it is a permanent indefinitely repeated act > state which must go on – so we pray for ‘final perseverance’. The temptation to ‘unbelief (which really means rejection of Our Lord and His claims) is always there within us. Pan of us longs to find an excuse for it outside us. The stronger the inner temptation the more readily and severely shall we be ‘scandalized’ by others. I think I am as sensitive as you (or any other Christian) to the ‘scandals’, both of clergy and laity. I have suffered grievously in my life from stupid, tired, dimmed, and even bad priests; but I now know enough about myself to be aware that I should not leave the Church (which for me would mean leaving the allegiance of Our Lord) for any such reasons: I should leave because I did not believe, and should not believe any more, even if I had never met any one in orders who was not both wise and saintly…

The only cure for sagging of fainting faith is Communion. Though always Itself, perfect and complete and inviolate, the Blessed Sacrament does not operate completely and once for all in any of us. Like the act of Faith it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals. Also I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children – from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn – open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to Communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. (It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding of the Five Thousand – after which [Our] Lord propounded the feeding that was to come.) — Letter #250, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, To Michael Tolkien 1963

John Chrysostom: “For I received of the Lord,” saith he, “that which also I delivered unto you: how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

Wherefore doth he here make mention of the Mysteries? Because that argument was very necessary to his present purpose. As thus: “Thy Master,” saith he, “counted all worthy of the same Table, though it be very awful and far exceeding the dignity of all: but thou considerest them to be unworthy even of thine own, small and mean as we see it is; and while they have no advantage over thee in spiritual things, thou robbest them in the temporal things. For neither are these thine own.”

However, he doth not express himself thus, to prevent his discourse becoming harsh: but he frames it in a gentler form, saying, that “the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread.”

And wherefore doth he remind us of the time, and of that evening, and of the betrayal? Not indifferently nor without some reason, but that he might exceedingly fill them with compunction, were it but from consideration of the time. For even if one be a very stone, yet when he considers that night, how He was with His disciples, “very heavy,” how He was betrayed, how He was bound, how He was led away, how He was judged, how He suffered all the rest in order, he becometh softer than wax, and is withdrawn from earth and all the pomp of this world. Therefore he leads us to the remembrance of all those things, by His time, and His table, and His betrayal, putting us to shame and saying, “Thy Master gave up even Himself for thee: and thou dost not even share a little meat with thy brother for thine own sake.”

But how saith he, that “he received it from the Lord?” since certainly he was not present then but was one of the persecutors. That thou mayest know that the first table had no advantage above that which cometh after it. For even to-day also it is He who doeth all, and delivereth it even as then.

And not on this account only doth he remind us of that night, but that he may also in another way bring us to compunction. For as we particularly remember those words which we hear last from those who are departing; and to their heirs if they should venture to transgress their commands, when we would put them to shame we say, “Consider that this was the last word that your father uttered to you, and until the evening when he was just about to breathe his last he kept repeating these injunctions:” just so Paul, purposing hence also to make his argument full of awfulness; “Remember,” saith he, “that this was the last mysterious rite He gave unto you, and in that night on which He was about to be slain for us, He commanded these things, and having delivered to us that Supper after that He added nothing further.”

Next also he proceeds to recount the very things that were done, saying, “He took bread, and, when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you.” If therefore thou comest for a sacrifice of thanksgiving, do thou on thy part nothing unworthy of that sacrifice: by no means either dishonor thy brother, or neglect him in his hunger; be not drunken, insult not the Church. As thou comest giving thanks for what thou hast enjoyed: so do thou thyself accordingly make return, and not cut thyself off from thy neighbor. Since Christ for His part gave equally to all, saying, “Take, eat.” He gave His Body equally, but dost not thou give so much as the common bread equally? Yea, it was indeed broken for all alike, and became the Body equally for all. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

Oecumenius: By “received” Paul means that he was taught. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord’s body and blood in opposition to Marcion’s phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges. — Against Marcion Book V

1 Corinthians 11:24

Ambrose of Milan: Do you want to know why it is consecrated with heavenly words? Receive the words. The priest says: ‘Make this offering written, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, on the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy hands, looked up to you, holy Father almighty, eternal God, giving thanks, he blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his apostles and disciples, saying: Take and eat all of you from this; for this is my body which will be broken for many.’ He took bread in his holy hands the day before he suffered. Before it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ have been spoken, it becomes the body of Christ. And before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water: when the words of Christ have been spoken, there the blood of Christ is made, which redeemed the people. — On the Sacraments, Book 4, Chapter 5

Cyril of Jerusalem: The teaching of the blessed Paul is of itself sufficient to give you full assurance about the divine mysteries by admission to which you have become one body and blood with Christ.… When the Master himself has explicitly said of the bread, “This is my body,” will anyone still dare to doubt? When he is himself our warranty saying, “This is my blood,” who will ever waver and say it is not his blood?… With perfect confidence, then, we partake as of the body and blood of Christ. — ON THE MYSTERIES, FOURTH LECTURE 1.2

Pelagius: In blessing the bread even before his suffering, Jesus left behind a last commemoration, or memorial. This is rather like someone who, when about to go on a journey, leaves some token of himself with his loved one, so that whenever she looks at it she will be reminded of his goodness and love toward her. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 11

1 Corinthians 11:25

Augustine of Hippo: Old things are passed away and are made new in Christ, so that altar yields to altar, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, victim to Victim, blood to Blood. — LETTER 36

Fulgentius of Ruspe: The word cup means nothing other than the new covenant in the Lord.… The grace of suffering was intended by the Lord when the word cup is used. For what did he wish to be understood when he said to the sons of Zebedee, “Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” … and “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?” A stone’s throw from his disciples he is torn away to die for the sins of humanity. This is his cup of suffering. He shows his feelings of human weakness, saying … “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me.”. — LETTER 14, TO FERRANDUS 41

John Chrysostom: “In like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood: this do, as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of Me.”

What sayest thou? Art thou making a remembrance of Christ, and despisest thou the poor and tremblest not? Why, if a son or brother had died and thou wert making a remembrance of him, thou wouldst have been smitten by thy conscience, hadst thou not fulfilled the custom and invited the poor: and when thou art making remembrance of thy Master, dost thou not so much as simply give a portion of the Table?

But what is it which He saith, “This cup is the New Covenant?” Because there was also a cup of the Old Covenant; the libations and the blood of the brute creatures. For after sacrificing, they used to receive the blood in a chalice and bowl and so pour it out. Since then instead of the blood of beasts He brought in His own Blood; lest any should be troubled on hearing this, He reminds them of that ancient sacrifice. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

Tertullian: We may not, I say, we may not call into question the truth of the (poor vilified) senses, lest we should even in Christ Himself, bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He did not really “behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; " that He did not really hear the Father’s voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touching Peter’s wife’s mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial; and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood. On this false principle it was that Marcion actually chose to believe that He was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body. — A Treatise on the Soul

1 Corinthians 11:26

Ambrose of Milan: Therefore, whenever you receive, what does the Apostle say to you? Whenever we receive, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim his death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. Whenever his blood is poured out, it is poured out for the forgiveness of sins; I must always receive it, so that my sins are always forgiven. As I always sin, I must always have the medicine. — On the Sacraments, Book 4, Chapter 6

Ambrosiaster: Paul shows that the Lord’s Supper is not a meal in the normal sense but spiritual medicine, which purifies the recipient if he partakes of it reverently. It is the memorial of our redemption, so that mindful of our Redeemer we might follow him more closely. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Apostolic Constitutions: We also, our Father, thank You for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us and for His precious body, whereof we celebrate this representation, as Himself appointed us, “to show forth His death.” [1 Corinthians 11:26] For through Him glory is to be given to You forever. Amen. Let no one eat of these things that is not initiated; but those only who have been baptized into the death of the Lord. But if any one that is not initiated conceal himself, and partake of the same, “he eats eternal damnation;” because, being not of the faith of Christ, he has partaken of such things as it is not lawful for him to partake of, to his own punishment. But if any one is a partaker through ignorance, instruct him quickly, and initiate him, that he may not go out and despise you. — Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII), Section 2, XXXV

Cyprian: And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For Scripture says, “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till He come.” As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and of His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did. And let this conclusion be reached, dearest brother: if from among our predecessors any have either by ignorance or simplicity not observed and kept this which the Lord by His example and teaching has instructed us to do, he may, by the mercy of the Lord, have pardon granted to his simplicity. But we cannot be pardoned who are now admonished and instructed by the Lord to offer the cup of the Lord mingled with wine according to what the Lord offered, and to direct letters to our colleagues also about this, so that the evangelical law and the Lord’s tradition may be everywhere kept, and there be no departure from what Christ both taught and did. — Epistle LXII

Cyril of Alexandria: Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and we thus approach the spiritual blessings and are made holy, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and of the precious blood of Christ, the Savior of us all. — LETTER 17.12

1 Corinthians 11:27

Augustine of Hippo: What does it mean to receive unworthily? To receive in mockery, to receive in contempt. — SERMON 227

Augustine of Hippo: You hold the sacraments in their order. First, after the prayer, you are admonished to lift up your hearts; this befits the members of Christ. For if you have become members of Christ, where is your head? Members have a head. If the head had not gone before, the members would not follow. Where did our head go? What did you recite in the Creed? On the third day, He rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father. Therefore, our head is in Heaven. Thus when it is said: Lift up your hearts, you answer: We have them with the Lord. And so that you do not attribute the fact that you have your hearts with the Lord to your own strengths, merits, or labors—for it is a gift of God to have your heart lifted up to Him—the bishop or the priest who offers the sacrifice continues and says—when the people respond: We have them with the Lord—: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, because we have our hearts with the Lord. Let us give thanks because if he did not give it, we would have our hearts on earth. And you attest by saying: It is right and just, that we should give thanks to Him who made us have our hearts lifted up to our head. Then, after the sanctification of God’s sacrifice, because he willed that we ourselves should be his sacrifice—this was shown when the first sacrifice of God was laid down and we—meaning the sign of the reality—which we are; behold where the sanctification has been accomplished, we say the Lord’s Prayer, which you have received and rendered. After it has been said: Peace be with you, and the Christians give each other a holy kiss. It is a sign of peace: as the lips show, let it be done in conscience, that is, just as your lips approach your brother’s lips, let your heart not depart from his heart. Great indeed are the sacraments and very great indeed. Do you wish to know how they are commended? The Apostle says: Whosoever shall eat of the body of Christ or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. What does it mean to receive unworthily? To receive it contemptuously, to receive it scoffingly. Do not make it seem cheap to you, because you see it. What you see passes away, but what is signified, the invisible, does not pass, but remains. Behold, it is received, eaten, consumed. Does the body of Christ perish? Does the Church of Christ perish? Do the members of Christ perish? By no means. Here they are cleansed, there they are crowned. Therefore, what is signified remains, even though that which signifies might seem to pass away. — SERMON 227

Clement of Alexandria: Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One’s own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour. — The Stromata Book 1

John Chrysostom: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.”

Why so? Because he poured it out, and makes the thing appear a slaughter and no longer a sacrifice. Much therefore as they who then pierced Him, pierced Him not that they might drink but that they might shed His blood: so likewise doth he that cometh for it unworthily and reaps no profit thereby. Seest thou how fearful he makes his discourse, and inveighs against them very exceedingly, signifying that if they are thus to drink, they partake unworthily of the elements? For how can it be other than unworthily when it is he who neglects the hungry? who besides overlooking him puts him to shame? Since if not giving to the poor casteth one out of the kingdom, even though one should be a virgin; or rather, not giving liberally: (for even those virgins too had oil, only they had it not abundantly:) consider how great the evil will prove, to have wrought so many impieties?

“What impieties?” say you. Why sayest thou, what impieties? Thou hast partaken of such a Table and when thou oughtest to be more gentle than any and like the angels, none so cruel as thou art become. Thou hast tasted the Blood of the Lord, and not even thereupon dost thou acknowledge thy brother. Of what indulgence then art thou worthy? Whereas if even before this thou hadst not known him, thou oughtest to have come to the knowledge of him from the Table; but now thou dishonorest the Table itself; he having been deemed worthy to partake of it and thou not judging him worthy of thy meat. Hast thou not heard how much he suffered who demanded the hundred pence? how he made void the gift vouchsafed to him? Doth it not come into thy mind what thou wert and what thou hast become? Dost thou not put thyself in remembrance that if this man be poor in possessions, thou wast much more beggarly in good works, being full of ten thousand sins? Notwithstanding, God delivered thee from all those and counted thee worthy of such a Table: but thou art not even thus become more merciful: therefore of course nothing else remaineth but that thou shouldest be “delivered to the tormentors.” — Homily on 1 Corinthians 27

1 Corinthians 11:28

Ambrosiaster: Paul teaches that one should come to Communion with a reverent mind and with fear, so that the mind will understand that it must revere the one whose body it is coming to consume. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: In your conscience, where no one is present except God who sees all, there judge yourself, examine your sins. When you reflect upon your whole life, bring your sins to the court of the mind. Correct your mistakes, and in this way, with a clean conscience, touch the sacred table and participate in the holy sacrifice. — ON FASTING, HOMILY 6.5.22

John Chrysostom: “But let a man prove himself:” which also he saith in the second Epistle: “try your own selves, prove your own selves:” not as we do now, approaching because of the season rather than from any earnestness of mind. For we do not consider how we may approach prepared, with the ills that were within us purged out, and full of compunction, but how we may come at festivals and whenever all do so. But not thus did Paul bid us come: he knoweth only one season of access and communion, the purity of a man’s conscience. Since if even that kind of banquet which the senses take cognizance of cannot be partaken of by us when feverish and full of bad humors, without risk of perishing: much more is it unlawful for us to touch this Table with profane lusts, which are more grievous than fevers. Now when I say profane lusts, I mean both those of the body, and of money, and of anger, and of malice, and, in a word, all that are profane. And it becomes him that approacheth, first to empty himself of all these things and so to touch that pure sacrifice. And neither if indolently disposed and reluctantly ought he to be compelled to approach by reason of the festival; nor, on the other hand, if penitent and prepared, should any one prevent him because it is not a festival. For a festival is a showing forth of good works, and a reverence of soul, and exactness of deportment. And if thou hast these things, thou mayest at all times keep festival and at all times approach. Wherefore he saith, “But let each man prove himself, and then let him approach.” And he bids not one examine another, but each himself, making the tribunal not a public one and the conviction without a witness. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28

1 Corinthians 11:30

John Chrysostom: “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.” Here he no longer brings his examples from others as he did in the case of the idol-sacrifices, relating the ancient histories and the chastisements in the wilderness, but from the Corinthians themselves; which also made the discourse apt to strike them more keenly. For whereas he was saying, “he eateth judgment to himself,” and, “he is guilty;” that he might not seem to speak mere words, he points to deeds also and calls themselves to witness; a kind of thing which comes home to men more than threatening, by showing that the threat has issued in some real fact. He was not however content with these things alone, but from these he also introduced and confirmed the argument concerning hell-fire, terrifying them in both ways; and solving an inquiry which is handled everywhere. I mean, since many question one with another, “whence arise the untimely deaths, whence the long diseases of men;” he tells them that these unexpected events are many of them conditional upon certain sins. “What then? They who are in continual health,” say you, “and come to a green old age, do they not sin?” Nay, who durst say this? “How then,” say you, “do they not suffer punishment?” Because there they shall suffer a severer one. But we, if we would, neither here nor there need suffer it. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28

1 Corinthians 11:31

Aphrahat the Persian Sage: Judge in yourself what I am going to tell you: suppose you happen to go on a long journey and, parched with thirst in the heat, you chance upon one of the brothers. You say to him, “Refresh me in my exhaustion from thirst,” and he replies, “It is the time for prayer; I will pray and then I will come to your aid”; and while he is praying, before coming to you, you die of thirst. What seems to you the better, that he should go and pray, or alleviate your exhaustion? — DEMONSTRATION 4.15

Augustine of Hippo: Indeed, many sins seem to be ignored and go unpunished. But their punishment is reserved for the future. It is not in vain that the day when the Judge of the living and the dead shall come is rightly called the day of judgment. Just so, on the other hand, some sins are punished here, and if they are forgiven will certainly bring no harm upon us in the future age. Hence, referring to certain temporal punishments which are visited upon sinners in this life, the apostle, speaking to those whose sins are blotted out and not reserved to the end says: “But if we judged ourselves truly we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” — Enchiridion 17.66

Clement of Alexandria: “For there are certainly among us many weak and sickly, and many sleep. But if we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged.” — The Stromata Book 1

John Chrysostom: “For if we discerned ourselves,” saith he, “we should not be judged.” And he said not, “if we punished ourselves, if we were revenged on ourselves,” but if we were only willing to acknowledge our offence, to pass sentence on ourselves, to condemn the things done amiss, we should be rid of the punishment both in this world and the next. For he that condemns himself propitiates God in two ways, both by acknowledging his sins, and by being more on his guard for the future. But since we are not willing to do even this light thing, as we ought to do it, not even thus doth He endure to punish us with the world, but even thus spareth us, exacting punishment in this world, where the penalty is for a season and the consolation great; for the result is both deliverance from sins, and a good hope of things to come, alleviating the present evils. And these things he saith, at the same time comforting the sick and rendering the rest more serious. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28

1 Corinthians 11:32

Ambrosiaster: The person who comes to the Lord’s table irreverently is no better than an unbeliever. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Clement of Alexandria: But when it sees any one in such a condition as to appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one to death, as the course most conducive to health. “Being judged by the Lord,” says the apostle, “we are chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world.” For the prophet had said before, “Chastening, the Lord hath chastised me, but hath not given me over unto death.” — The Stromata Book 1

Clement of Alexandria: When we are judged by the Lord, it is for our education, so that we may not be condemned along with the world. Earlier the prophet said, “The Lord has given me a stern lesson but not handed me over to death.”. — The Stromata Book 1

Hippolytus of Rome: Now the image is the Spirit that is wafted over the water; and whosoever is not fashioned into a figure of this, will perish with the world, inasmuch as he continues only potentially, and does exist actually. This, he says, is what has been spoken, “that we should not be condemned with the world.” — Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book VI

John Chrysostom: Instead of passing idly by what are considered slight sins, let us daily require an account of ourselves for words and glances and execute sentence upon ourselves so as to be free from punishment later. This is the reason Paul said, “If we judge ourselves, we would not be judged.” Thus if we judge ourselves for our sins every day here, we shall preclude the severity of the judgment in that other place. But if we should be remiss, “we will be judged and chastised by the Lord.” So let us take the initiative in passing sentence on ourselves with all good will, holding the court of conscience unbeknown to anyone. Let us examine our own thoughts and determine a proper verdict so that through fear of imminent punishment our mind may forbear to be dragged down and instead may check its impulses, and by keeping in view that unsleeping eye may ward off the devil’s advances. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 60.16

John Chrysostom: “Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without, God judgeth?” For since he had said, “What have I to do with judging those without;” lest any one should think that these were left unpunished, there is another tribunal which he sets over them, and that a fearful one. And this he said, both to terrify those, and to console these; intimating also that this punishment which is for a season snatches them away from that which is undying and perpetual: which also he has plainly declared elsewhere, saying, “But now being judged, we are chastened, that we should not be condemned with the world.” — Homily on 1 Corinthians 16

John Chrysostom: “But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord.” He said not, we are punished, he said not, we have vengeance taken on us, but, “we are chastened.” For what is done belongs rather to admonition than condemnation, to healing than vengeance, to correction than punishment. And not so only but by the threat of a greater evil he makes the present light, saying, “that we may not be condemned with the world.” Seest thou how he brings in hell also and that tremendous judgment-seat, and signifies that that trial and punishment is necessary and by all means must be? for if the faithful, and such as God especially cares for, escape not without punishment in whatsoever things they offend, (and this is evident from things present,) much more the unbelieving and they who commit the unpardonable and incurable sins. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28

1 Corinthians 11:33

Ambrosiaster: Paul tells them to wait for one another so that they may make their offering together and serve one another. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Clement of Alexandria: Necessarily, therefore, against those who have cast off shame and unsparingly abuse meals, the insatiable to whom nothing is sufficient, the apostle, in continuation, again breaks forth in a voice of displeasure: “So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. And if any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation.” — The Instructor Book 2

Cyprian: That too great lust of food is not to be desired. In Isaiah: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die.” Also in Exodus: “And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: “Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want.” . And again: “When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment.” Also to the Romans: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” In the Gospel according to John: “I have meat which ye know not of. My meat is, that I should do His will who sent me, and should finish His work.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

John Chrysostom: “Wherefore when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.” Thus, while their fear was yet at its height and the terror of hell remained, he chooses again to bring in also the exhortation in behalf of the poor, on account of which he said all these things; implying that if they do not this they must partake unworthily. But if the not imparting of our goods excludes from that Table, much more the violently taking away. And he said not, “wherefore, when ye come together, impart to them that need,” but, which has a more reverential sound, “wait one for another.” For this also prepared the way for and intimated that, and in a becoming form introduced the exhortation. Then further to shame them, — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28

1 Corinthians 11:34

Augustine of Hippo: We are given to understand by this that it was too much for him to set forth in a letter the whole manner of proceeding to be observed by the universal church and that what he set in order personally cannot be altered. — LETTER 54, To Januarius

John Chrysostom: “And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home.” By permitting, he hinders it, and more strongly than by an absolute prohibition. For he brings him out of the church and sends him to his house, hereby severely reprimanding and ridiculing them, as slaves to the belly and unable to contain themselves. For he said not, “if any despise the poor,” but, “if any hunger,” discoursing as with impatient children; as with brute beasts which are slaves to appetite. Since it would be indeed very ridiculous, if, because they were hungry they were to eat at home.

Yet he was not content with this, but added also another more fearful thing, saying, “that your coming together be not unto judgment:” that ye come not unto chastisement, unto punishment, insulting the Church, dishonoring your brother. “For for this cause ye come together,” saith he, “that ye may love one another, that ye may profit and be profited. But if the contrary happen, it were better for you to feed yourselves at home.”

This, however, he said, that he might attract them to him the more. Yea, this was the very purpose both of his pointing out the injury that would arise from hence, and of his saying that condemnation was no trifling one, and terrifying them in every way, by the Mysteries, by the sick, by those that had died, by the other things before mentioned.

Then also he alarms them again in another way, saying, “and the rest will I set in order whensoever I come:” with reference either to some other things, or to this very matter. For since it was likely that they would yet have some reasons to allege, and it was not possible to set all to rights by letter, “the things which I have charged you, let them be observed for the present,” saith he; “but if ye have any thing else to mention, let it be kept for my coming;” speaking either of this matter, as I said, or of some other things not very urgent. And this he doth that hence too he may render them more serious. For being anxious about his coming, they would correct the error. For the sojourning of Paul in any place was no ordinary thing. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 28