Tag Archives: First Corinthians

One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk, Part 2

Posted on by
Reply
Judith with the head of Holofernes, Lucas Cranach The Elder. (c. 1530) In the Book of Judith, the Jewish heroine enters the tent of the Assyrian general Holofernes, gets him drunk and chops off his head to save her town. Judith, who is “the pride of all our people and the glory of our race” is considered to be a type of the Mother of God: As Judith beheaded Holofernes, so also is Mary the woman who by her divine pregnancy and childbearing (of Jesus) crushed the head of the serpentine demon, the Devil. Read more about Judith as a type here.


For in eating, each one by preference takes his or her own meal; and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Don’t you have houses for eating and drinking? (1 Cor. 11:21-22)

The apostle condemns the parish members who are better off bringing their own food and wine to parish dinners and then refusing to share, getting drunk while other people at dinner are going hungry. The meal that was meant to erase and heal social divisions only exposed these divisions and made them worse.

The contrast between the “haves” and the “have nots” is a classic theme of Greek and Roman writers. Pliny complained that some hosts served “cheap and paltry” food and wine to guests that they thought less important while having “elegant dishes” served to themselves and a few special guests. Pliny thought this was sordid behavior. (Epistle 2.6)

Other writers, like Juvenal, made fun of hosts who did this. The host was not refusing to spend money, Juvenal said; the host just wanted to cause his guests pain. “What comedy … is more amusing than a disappointed stomach?” A host who did this was truly malicious, Juvenal thought.

Socrates insisted that meals be truly communal experiences. Plutarch warned against disorder at meals and dinner parties. Nevertheless, drunkenness was so common at common meals that Sparta and Crete outlawed dinner parties. Even in the Old Testament, hosts were urged to take care of their guests before sitting down at the table themselves. The host who is generous with food is blessed and guests were expected to help others before helping themselves to the meal. (Sirach 31-32)

Alas, the misbehavior of the Corinthians at dinner had a long pedigree. Their misbehavior revealed that they despised the Church rather than loving their brothers and sisters, as they claimed. Actions always speak louder than words.

Paul reminds us that the Master gave up everything, including himself, for us. But we are reluctant to even share a little food with our fellow believers…. Do not dishonor your brothers or neglect them in their hunger. Do not get drunk. Do not insult the Church. When you come together, give thanks for what you have to eat and do not cut yourself off from your neighbors.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 27 on 1st Corinthians

One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk

Posted on by
Reply
The cathedral in Monreale, Sicily has many beautiful mosaics of Bible episodes, including this depiction of Noah growing grapes after the flood and getting drunk (Genesis 9:24-25). This was evidently the first time in human history that anyone had gotten drunk and passed out. Noah’s sons are shown covering him with a cloak as he is asleep; his pose is very similar to that as Adam when God put him to sleep and then took a rib to fashion Eve.

When, however, you come together in the same place it is not to eat the supper of the Lord. For in eating each one by preference takes his or her own meal; and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Don’t you have houses for eating and drinking? Do you despise the church of God and dishonor those who have not? What shall I tell you? Shall I commend you? (1 Cor. 11:20-22)

St. Paul tells the Corinthians several times, “I do not commend you.” There were several practices that the parish was evidently proud of–or at least, practices that several prominent people in the parish were proud of. St. Paul, however, is not proud of these practices and tells the Corinthians exactly what he thinks.

We know that early Christians met for several sorts of community meals. Some were called agapes, or “love feasts,” and were fellowship dinners that began with prayers. People brought food to share with others. People generally brought enough that there would be enough to share with the poor after the dinner or the next day.

We also know that the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of a festive community meal. The celebration began with the sharing of the Holy Bread, the Body of Christ. The meal followed, during which there might be reading and preaching. The “cup of blessing,” the Blood of Christ, was shared at the conclusion. Although a wealthy church member might host the meal sometimes, these meals were also a “potluck” and people brought food to eat themselves and to share. (We know this from early Christian writings like the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus.)

We are not sure whether St. Paul is criticizing the behavior at either an agape or at the celebration of the Eucharist, although the reference to “the supper of the Lord” suggests that it was probably the Eucharist that he was talking about.

The parish met in the home of a community member. Most Greek and Roman homes were built around a central courtyard; the rooms opened onto the courtyard and guests might circulate between the rooms that were open. Most of the Christians in Corinth were not wealthy so their homes would not be large. Even the homes of wealthy parishioners might not have a single room that was large enough for the whole parish to gather in at one time.

At these parish meals–either agape or Eucharist–the people were probably not all in the same room. The wealthier members were evidently in a grander room while the poorer members were in smaller rooms off to the side. Because they were not in the same room, it was easy for the richer people to eat and drink among themselves–even gorging themselves and getting drunk–and let the poorer members have less to eat and drink.

Even though they had “come together in the same place,” i.e. one house, they were not all in one room. In one room, people were going hungry. In another room, people were getting drunk. St. Paul saw nothing commendable in this. Such behavior despises the Church and dishonors the members gathered in fellowship, in communion. St. Clement of Alexandria wrote,

If a person is wealthy and eats without restraint or is insatiable, he disgraces himself in a special way and does wrong on two accounts. First, he adds to the burden of those who do not have, and second, he lays his own intemperance bare in front of those who do have.

St. Clement of Alexandria, in “Christ the Educator,” 2.13

There is so much other background to what St. Paul is talking about in this passage, we will continue with it next week.

A Woman Should Cover Her Head Because of the Angels

Posted on by
2
Angels are depicted with red boots indicating their role as messengers of the heavenly court; red boots were worn by officials associated with the Byzantine imperial system and imperial messengers on imperial business were often identified by their red boots. So the angels, delivering messages from God to humans, were identified in icons as messengers of the King of heaven by their red boots as well.


For if a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut; if, however, it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair or shave it off, it is better to keep her head covered…. A woman should keep her head covered because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:6, 10)

This passage is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for modern readers to understand. St. Paul talks about women keeping silent and their heads covered all because of the angels. How can the apostle who wrote these words also have written that in Christ there is neither rich nor poor, slave or free, male or female? What is he talking about in this passage?

Hairstyles were important in 1st century Greco-Roman culture. Elite women and men spent a lot of time and money to have their hair done “properly” and even the wives of the emperors could be criticized for having an incorrect hairstyle. Men were expected to have hairstyles that were very different from women; women were expected to wear hairstyles that made it easy to see that they were not men. So the easiest and most basic way to do that was for men to cut their hair short and women to keep their hair long; a woman who cut her hair short might as well shave it all off. Philosophers spent a lot of time and ink writing about proper, appropriate hairstyles.

St. Paul wants the Christian men and women in Corinth to be recognizable as men and women. The scandal of the Cross and Resurrection should be the only hurdle making it difficult for non-Christians to embrace the Faith; upending social norms should not be a reason for non-believers to reject the Faith. But what do the angels have to do with this?

Praying and prophesying involve exposing the worshipper to the power and influence of powerful spiritual entities. Some of these are good. Some are evil. Wearing their hair like a “proper” woman was a talisman against the evil spirits that might try to deceive a woman who was praying or prophesying or interpreting Scripture (a sub-genre of prophesy). Keeping their hair long and properly coiffed was a way to protect the Christian women of Corinth, allowing only the good angels to speak to them or inspire their words.

Perhaps one reason modern readers have difficulty with this passage is because we don’t take prophesying and angels seriously any more. Understanding preaching and interpretation of scripture as acts of prophesying and acknowledging the reality, importance, and power of the angels go a long way to make a difficult passage comprehensible and not as a misogynistic rant.