|
Introduction:
In the Pulpit
Commentary: Jude, S.D.F. Salmond wrote regarding Jude
12: “What
is referred to appears not to be ordinary friendly gatherings or
occasions for the interchange of affection, but the well-known agapae,
or love-feasts, of the primitive Church, the meals provided in
connection with the Lord’s Supper, at which rich and poor sat
down together.”
To read this statement, one might believe we could find
love feasts and descriptions of them all over our New Testaments.
However, amazingly enough, the only passage that mentions love
feasts is the one about which Salmond was writing. How then can we
call them “well-known?” They are called that, not based on the
Bible, but based on writings that were written in the two
centuries that follow the Bible and based on the modern desire to
make eating a part of serving God.
Some suggest that this passage is authorization for
“fellowship halls” and church sponsored social meals. Others
claim this was just the practice of individual Christians eating
with one another. Others suggest that this refers only to the
simple Lord’s Supper. Still others claim that this was a common
meal within which the early church would partake of the Lord’s
Supper. Is it possible to cut through all the preconceived notions
and simply look at what the Bible says about these love feasts? I
believe we can.
As I have studied these passages, I have traveled down two
different paths of understanding. Most are convinced these love
feasts are literally meals. I, however, am not so convinced of
that. But for sake of argument I want to travel down both paths,
seeing where they lead us. Discussion: I.
Path #1: The love feasts as literal meals. A.
One of the first problems we encounter as we grapple with
Jude’s text is the realization that it does not actually say
anything about the love feasts. It does not tell us what they were
or how they were conducted. There is a parallel passage that due
to similarities probably refers to the same thing. But II
Peter 2:13 also only mentions feasts in passing without any
description. Further, while the Bible mentions meals and feasts in
other contexts, not a single passage says, “Here is the love
feast.” Never once does the Bible say the love feast was the
Lord’s Supper. Never once does it say it was a common meal. B.
With this dilemma in mind, we need to remember that we have
to keep these passages in their context. Further, we must see how
they fit harmoniously with the rest of the New Testament. What we
are not allowed to do is come up with a whole teaching on church
feasts based solely on two vague, passing comments. What we are
not allowed to do is go outside the Bible and take man’s words,
whether ancient or modern, as God’s rule for what was going on
here. What we must do is examine the Bible. While the term “love
feast” is not used anywhere else, we do see passages that talk
about the church and meals. When we examine what they did, we can
apply that learning to these passages and have a scriptural guide
to follow God’s will. C.
We first need to recognize the overarching principle found
in Romans 14:17. Christ’s kingdom is not about eating and drinking. I
am amazed at those who want to make a common meal the very center
of the Christian assembly or the most important aspect of
Christianity in light of this passage. We cannot rip Jude
12 and II Peter 2:13
out of their biblical contexts to rewrite this passage making the
centerpiece of our service to God a common meal. D.
We find a very interesting dichotomy in Acts
2:46-47. The whole church came together daily in one accord in
the temple. But they only ate meals from house to house. They ate
with one another because they were part of the church together,
but they did not come together as the church to eat common meals.
The Jerusalem church was not sponsoring fellowship meals. E.
In Acts 20:7,
the church gathered on the first day of the week to break bread.
Consistent with other passages, such as I
Corinthians 10:16-17, we know this was the Lord’s Supper,
the memorial established by Jesus Christ on the night of His
betrayal. The most enlightening passage in this regard is I
Corinthians 11:17-34. The Corinthian church had a problem.
They were filled with divisions and factions. Their divisiveness
was manifesting itself in the way they partook of the Lord’s
Supper. Their problem was that instead of taking the Lord’s
Supper, each one was taking his own supper. They were not having a
memorial meal in honor of the Lord but a selfish supper honoring
only themselves. Being centered on themselves, taking their own
supper, they were leaving some out of the whole process entirely.
Paul answered these problems with three points. 1.
In vss. 23-32, he reminded them that this meal was not about their hunger, but
about Jesus’ death. The partakers are not to discern their
hunger while they eat, but their head. That is, they were to keep
in mind Who was in control, Jesus, and what He had done for them. 2.
In vs. 33, he
reminded them that this was something they were to do in the
assembly, not just when the first person showed up and saw the
food. 3.
Finally, in vs. 34,
he pointed out that meals to fulfill hunger were to be eaten at
home. Notice that Paul did not say, “If you are so hungry that
you won’t be able to control yourself…” Or, “If
you are starved to the point that you will be selfish, eat at home
first.” He simply said, “If you are hungry, eat at home.”
Neither the church’s assemblies nor the Lord’s Supper are
designed to fulfill physical hunger, but spiritual. Thus, making
an actual meal out of the Lord’s Supper completely misses the
point of the observance. Interestingly, there is only one passage
that demonstrates a common meal taking place in connection with
the Lord’s Supper and in that passage it is condemned. In that
passage, we are told to fill our hunger at home. We gather here to
commemorate our Lord’s death with a memorial. F.
What is our conclusion then about love feasts? If we agree
that the love feasts were literal times of eating, we must agree
that nothing in these passages explains which is the love
feast—the Lord’s Supper or the common meals. But whichever the
case, we cannot blend the common meals and Lord’s Supper
together based on Jude and
II Peter. Instead, if the love feast refers to the Lord’s Supper,
as it is a meal in which we remember our Lord’s love for us and
proclaim our love for Him, all Jude and Peter are saying is that
these hypocrites take the supper with us while living however they
want to. If on the other hand, love feasts refer to common meals
in which we show our love for one another through hospitality,
then Jude and Peter are merely saying that the hypocrites are more
than happy to eat from house to house with their brethren, while
carousing in their sins behind the backs of the brethren. II.
Path #2: The love feast as a metaphor. A.
I am not altogether convinced that Jude
12 and II Peter 2:13
refer to actual meals at all. In fact, I believe it is possible
that Jude and Peter were using the terms “feast” and “love
feasts” metaphorically and were referring to something
altogether different from literal meals. B.
This claim is completely in keeping with the immediate
context of both passages. In II
Peter 2, Peter uses simile to claim the hypocrites are like
natural brute beasts (vs. 12) and as those who carouse in the daytime (vs.
13). Further in vs. 17,
he metaphorically says these people are wells without water and
clouds carried by a tempest. Jude uses several metaphors to
describe the hypocrites that mar the love feasts, saying in vss.
12-13 that they are clouds without water, autumn trees without
fruit, raging waves of the sea and wandering stars. C.
Considering the possible metaphorical use of feasts, we are
reminded of I Corinthians
5:6-8. In this passage, Paul was persuading the Corinthians to
withdraw fellowship from an immoral Christian. Instead of speaking
of congregational fellowship and sin, he presented a picture of
the Passover Feast, which under the Old Law was to be eaten
without leaven. Pointing out that Jesus is the Passover lamb
sacrificed for Christians, he paralleled the brethren’s
fellowship together as the ongoing feast, which should be eaten
without leaven. Therefore, the sinful man should have been purged
out because his little leaven would leaven the whole lump. His sin
would spread throughout the congregation if they did not do
something about it. D.
I believe Peter and Jude may well have been using
“feast” and “love feasts” in the exact same way as Paul.
After all, Peter was well aware of Paul’s writings and assumed
that his audience was as well (II
Peter 3:15). Jude’s book is most certainly modeled after
Peter’s. E.
Consider these verses with this possible parallel in mind. 1.
In II Peter 2:13-14,
when Peter referred to the hypocrite’s as “spots and
blemishes,” he was also calling to mind the picture of the
Passover sacrifice, which was to be without spot and blemish.
Further, as he spoke of these hypocrites carousing, which meant to
live luxuriously, “in their own deceptions,” he was making a
spiritual contrast. They were feasting with Christians, that is,
they appeared to be worshipping with the brethren, but were
actually deceiving the brethren. Instead of feasting on Jesus, our
Passover lamb, they were actually carousing in deception, lusting,
sinning and even enticing others to do the same. 2.
In Jude 12, some
translators, based on the parallels between Peter and Jude
translated the Greek term “spilas” as “spots.” However,
the term actually means “a ledge or reef of rock in the sea.”
Just as rock ledges underneath sea level are a danger to sailing
ships, these hypocrites are an unseen danger to the congregation.
Why are they a danger? Because they serve only themselves. I find
it hard to believe that the danger described here is based on the
fact that in the setting of a literal meal the hypocrite only
fills his own plate. Rather, he was highlighting their dangerous
self-serving attitudes. When Jude said “serving only
themselves,” he used the same word (poimaino) as Jesus used
asking Peter to “tend my lambs,” in John
21:16. Instead of being good shepherds, concerned about
others, these hypocrites were only focused on themselves. This
brings to mind the anti-shepherds of Isaiah
56:9-12 and Ezekiel 34:1-6. Their selfishness rips the flock to shreds. That is
truly dangerous. As James
3:16 said, where self-seeking is, every evil thing is there. F.
What is our conclusion then? If I am right and Peter and
Jude were using the idea of feasting as a metaphor amid other
metaphors, then the love feasts are not to be viewed as literal
meals at all. Rather, the feast to which Peter and Jude were
referring was the same one about which Paul spoke in I Corinthians 5:6-8. They were referring to our continued fellowship
with one another in the congregation and our times together
feasting on God’s word. They were referring to what we do every
time we gather together to worship God. Hypocrites are a spot and
blemish in that. We must beware of them. As Jude said in Jude
22-23, we will make a distinction, having compassion on some,
presumably those who are struggling with sin but are striving to
serve God. But we must save some with fear, presumably those who
are rebellious hypocrites, pulling them out of the fire, hating
even the garment defiled by the flesh. However, if they will not
allow us to pull them from the fire, then as Paul said, we must
remove the leaven so that we can partake in the feast with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Conclusion:
Brethren, these are our choices. If we believe the love
feasts were literal meals, then we must choose between the
Lord’s Supper and the eating from house to house that Christians
often did. If we believe Peter and Jude were speaking
metaphorically, then we learn about our fellowship with one
another and our congregational worship and work. But whichever
path we take, we do not come up with congregational fellowship
meals as some kind of worship. We do not come up with eating the
Lord’s Supper as a common meal or as part of a common meal.
I am well aware that we can go to post-biblical Christian
writers such as Tertullian, who wrote nearly 100 years after the
New Testament was completed, and find descriptions of what
churches did in the second and third centuries and what they
called love feasts. Considering the fact that Christians during
the lives of the apostles were messing things up regarding feasts
(I Corinthians 11), how
wise is it to accept the testimony of Christians 100 years or more
after the apostles as accurately reflecting the scriptural
teaching we are to follow? Further, I still believe II
Timothy 3:16-17. The scriptures provide all the equipping we
need. If we have to step outside the scriptures to come up with
the authority for what we do, then it is not a good work. The conclusion of this whole matter is that we need to continue on as we have been. We must make the same distinction we find in the New Testament between what the church is to be involved in and what individuals are responsible for. We must continue to gather to remember the death of Jesus, not through a common meal, but a memorial one. We must not make eating the centerpiece of our time together in worship or otherwise. Rather, we must make the centerpiece serving God according to His word. Let us be aware of hypocrites and sinners, restoring them or removing them lest they cause us to lose our souls as well. Let us focus not on pleasing ourselves, but on pleasing our God.
Glory
to God in the church by Christ Jesus
|
||||||||||
