What is a love feast?

Let us now consult once more the Book of Acts. When the disciples were brought into their blessed place as the church of God, the Holy Ghost came down, and they were so filled with joy and gladness that they could hardly keep away from one another. So we find them meeting every day; and I have no doubt from Acts 2:46, that they then partook of the Lord's-supper every day. It was not merely what people call, and indeed what scripture calls, a love-feast. They did this too. But a love-feast meant nothing more than that the saints united in partaking of a meal with the word of God and prayer. They did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people, even as the Lord at first. (Luke 2:52.) That is, they enjoyed every sort and measure of communion with one another as fully as they could. But the Lord's-supper was far more than this, since it is the communion of Christ's body and of His blood. It was not a mere token of brotherly intercourse, but the most solemn though joyful act of Christian worship. They also broke bread at home. This is the Lord's supper.

According to the early Christian writers these feasts were simple meals, taken on the same occasion as the Lord's supper, and were instituted for the sake of the poor. Chrysostom speaks of such feasts as derived from apostolic practice. "When all the faithful met together, and had heard the sermon and prayers, and received the communion, they did not immediately return home upon the conclusion of the service; but the rich and wealthy brought meat and food from their own houses, and called the poor and made a common table, a common dinner, a common banquet in the church." By others it is judged that the meal was taken before the Lord's supper, prior to the rule of taking the supper fasting. It is generally supposed that the disorder spoken of in 1 Cor. 11 refers to some such meal being taken in connection with the Lord's supper. Whether such feasts were held at other times, apart from the Lord's supper, is not known; it is difficult to conceive the persons described in Jude 10-12 being allowed to come to the Lord's supper; or those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:13, if that also refers to the love-feasts.

In Ephesians 5:26 we see the bridal beauty of the assembly is unmarred by spots; she is untainted by immorality. Some scholars think the word for spots might better be rendered as 'sunken rocks' (spilos), not unlike icebergs lurking with hidden danger. This was what the ones Jude writes about were like whilst revelling at the love feasts (agapai). These feasts appear to have been a common evening meal among the Lord's people in the early years of the church, which was concluded with the Lord's Supper. It seems the point of contact between the love feasts and the Lord's Supper is that there was also a sacred character to these meals and they were intended to be expressive of the unity of the Lord's people and their union with Christ as their Head. These apostates were spots or disfigurements in the christian company; false brethren had inveigled themselves among the saints at this early date but they had no link with the Head. They were pasturing themselves, tending their own wants, seeking their own things. These intrusions were false shepherds without an atom of love for others. The situation is reminiscent of the shepherds that 'have fed themselves, and not fed my sheep' in Ezekiel 34:8. Not only do they neglect the sheep, but furthermore they lead them astray.

What gave occasion to the grievous impropriety of the assembly in its then low and careless estate was apparently the mixing up the love-feast with the Lord's supper. The love-feast (or Agape) was a meal of which the early Christians partook in common, the aim being to cultivate social intercourse among those who are strangers and pilgrims called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. The Corinthians however had lost the sense of christian strangership, and as they had let in from the world the rivalry of the schools in zeal for favourite teachers, so they degraded even the Agape by holding to class distinctions, the rich feasting on their own contributions to the meal, while those who had nothing to give were made keenly to feel their poverty. Thus the principle of christian society was destroyed at the very meal which ought to have displayed it in practice; and as they thus selfishly forgot wherefore they thus came together, God gave them up to the deeper sin of degrading the Lord's supper, which was partaken of at the same time, by the effects of their licence in eating and drinking.

It would seem that they were mixing up the love-feast (a common meal which the early Christians partook of together) with the Lord's Supper and were thus eating the Supper in an unworthy and irreverent manner so that the real character of the Supper of the Lord was lost sight of. They had even degraded the character of the love-feast by holding to class distinctions, the rich feasting on their abundance while the poor went hungry because they had little to bring to the meal.

Love Feasts.

The "feasts of charity" we read of in Jude 12 were continued in the early church. It is not clear whether they were associated with the Lord's supper or not. In the account we have given from Justin Martyr respecting the Lord's supper, he does not name the Love Feast. Tertullian mentions the Feast, without naming the Lord's supper. He says, "Our souls ascend in prayer to God before we sit down to meat. We eat only what suffices nature, and drink no more than is strictly becoming chaste and regular persons. We sup as servants that know we must wake in the night to the service of our Master, and discourse as those who are in the hearing of God. When supper is ended, every one is invited forth to sing praises to God; and by this you may judge of the manner of drinking at a christian feast. As we begin, so we conclude, with prayer, and depart with the same tenor of temperance and modesty as we came; as men who have not so properly been drinking as imbibing religion." The same writer does not always speak thus of their Love Feasts, for abuses crept in, as indeed may be alluded to in 2 Peter 2:13, and the feasts were forbidden by some.

The way in which the misuse of the Lord's supper came in at Corinth is highly instructive. The Corinthians valued the social character of Christianity more than moderns; and it is a very valuable trait. In those early days Christians loved to be together, and so partook of a love-feast. No doubt, plausible reasons were not wanting for uniting this with the Lord's supper. As all were assembled then, it would be a saving of time; why not on the same occasion take the two together? Was there not something like it at the last Passover when the Lord was here in person before instituting His supper?

Perhaps many Christians now are willing to take the Lord's supper together who would shrink from taking a meal in common. But the Corinthians had not yet lost sight of the bonds which unite the holy brotherhood. They had a stronger sense of it than some who like to speak of their faults. Nevertheless their low moral state exposed them to evil and error; and this effect, not being corrected in the Spirit, brought out dangerous fleshly activity. There was levity and looseness among them; Christ was forgotten. At these love-feasts they each brought their fare as for the convivial feast (or ἒρανος) of the Greeks. This was in point of fact a contribution meal. What a descent from Christianity to heathen practice, when each would bring his own! and thus the rich came with plenty, and the poor had little or nothing! Hence the open result of their coming thus together was, that selfishness, not love, characterised them. Those well off soon proved how easy it is to have too much; and the poor were made to feel lack on these occasions. So the whole scene became a reflection, not of heaven and God's grace in Christ, but of the proud heartless world; and the holiest feast on earth — the Lord's supper — gilded and turned into a disgrace to His name that covered all. In fact, their state at this very time was such as to bring down His hand in judgment on His people.

The Spirit of God, using Jude as the vehicle of His thoughts, proceeds in the next place to use a variety of figures and illustrations to indicate the worthless and deceitful character of these wolves in sheep's clothing. They are, he says, "spots in your feasts." It was the practice of the early saints, in the fervour of their first love, to gather together in happy fellowship at what was termed love-feasts; but just as at the feast, which the King made for the marriage of His Son, there was a man who had not on the wedding garment; so at these feasts, of which Jude speaks, these "dreamers" were found — having no title whatsoever to be present. They were therefore "spots," or, as some prefer to render, "sunken rocks," rocks which are peculiarly the danger of the unwary mariner. In like manner these constituted a hidden peril for the saints with whom they were assembled; and yet, being what they were, they feasted "together with them without fear, pasturing themselves." What a proof of hard hearts and seared consciences! For being hypocrites they yet mingled with the saints of God, professing to enjoy what they enjoyed, and were not afraid. Nay, as some of whom Paul writes, their God was their belly, for they "fed themselves," they gloried in their shame, and minded earthly things. (Phil. 3:18-19.)

The way in which the misuse of the Lord's Supper came in at Corinth is highly instructive. The Corinthians valued the social character of Christianity more than moderns, and it is a very valuable trait. In those early days Christians loved to see their brethren together, and then partook together of a love-feast. No doubt plausible reasons were not wanting for uniting this with the Lord's Supper. As all were assembled then, it would be a saving of time; why not on the same occasion take the two together? Was it not so at the last passover?

I dare say many Christians now are willing to take the Lord's Supper together who would shrink from taking a meal in common. But the Corinthians had not yet lost sight of the bonds which unite the holy brotherhood. They had a much higher sense of it than many who love to speak of their faults. Nevertheless their low spiritual state exposed them to evil and error; and this very effect not being corrected in the Spirit brought out their fleshly state. There was levity among them, a low moral condition. At these love-feasts they each brought their fare as at the convivial feast (or eranos) of the Greeks. This was, in point of fact, a contribution-meal. What a descent from Christianity to heathen practice, when each would bring his own; and thus the rich came with plenty, and the poor had little or nothing to bring! Thus the effect of their coming together to have these feasts was that selfishness, not love, characterized them. Those who had plenty soon proved how easy it is to have too much; those who were poor were made to feel it on these occasions. Thus the whole scene became a reflection, not of God and His grace, but of the world, to the confusion of all who loved the Lord and His church; and the holiest feast on earth — the Lord's Supper for the church of God — was dragged down into the disgrace that covered all. In fact, their state at this very time was such as to bring down His hand in judgment on His people. This and more is what we have before us here.

Next notice that he speaks of their meetings for singing, and to "take meat." This no doubt referred to their taking the Lord's supper, with which were perhaps connected their love-feasts, that were often taken before the Lord's supper, as was the case at Corinth. (1 Cor. 11) At this time nothing but simplicity and sincerity marked the meetings of the Christians. They were privately accused of wickedness, and many were tortured to induce them to reveal what they did at their private meetings; but after all that could be drawn from them, Pliny is obliged to confess to the simplicity of their meetings.