Love Feast
Love-Feast
The history of the Agapae or Love-Feasts of the Christian Church is beset with peculiar difficulties, and has given rise to grave differences of opinion among scholars. It has even been maintained by Batiffol* [Note: tudes dhistoire et de thologie positive5, Paris, 1907.] that they were absolutely non-existent in the Apostolic Age; and, though this view has not found general acceptance, it certainly deserves to be treated with respect. The name is indeed found only in the Epistle of Jude (v. 12; cf. also 2Pe 2:13), the date of which is quite uncertain; and it is probable that in the earliest days the name was unknown. Still there is reason to believe that the common meals, which afterwards gained the name of Agapae, were held by Christians from the beginning. These common meals were an external expression of the sense of brotherhood which was characteristic of the primitive Christian churches, and they were no doubt suggested by similar institutions, which seem to have been common among both Jews and Gentiles. It is also probable that the recollection of the Last Supper of our Lord with His disciples was an additional cause of the holding of these meals.
1. In the Acts.-The Acts of the Apostles gives us a picture of the life of the primitive Church at Jerusalem.* [Note: See art. Eucharist.] In Act 2:42 we read that the converts continued stedfastly in the apostles teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. In Act 2:46 we read that day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart. These passages are patient of an interpretation which excludes anything like an Agape. Breaking bread may refer only to the Eucharist; and the reference to the taking of food may be merely an expression denoting their joyous manner of life. So it is understood by Batiffol. [Note: cit. p. 285.] But the view of Leclercq [Note: Agape in Cabrols Dict. darchologie chrtienne et de liturgie, vol. i., Paris, 1907.] seems more probable-that the breaking of bread was accompanied by a meal. For we know that that was the case at Corinth, and it is exceedingly probable that the communism of the Church at Jerusalem would involve common meals. Indeed, something of the kind seems to be indicated by Act 6:1. That this included the Eucharist there can be very little doubt, though it is unlikely that it was identical with the Eucharist. The breaking of the bread is an unusual phrase, and as it seems clear that in Corinth the Eucharist took place during or at the end of a supper, so it probably did in Jerusalem. But the evidence is not sufficient to make any conclusion certain. In Act 20:7-11 we read that at Troas on the first day of the week the Christians were gathered together to break bread. St. Paul spoke to them till midnight, broke bread and tasted it. Here the object of the meeting was the breaking of bread. And the whole context points to its having been a religious rite. There is no hint of a meal in the ordinary sense. The word certainly does not necessarily imply it. It is, however, possible, though it seems unlikely, that such a meal took place.
2. In 1 Corinthians.-We now come to the account given in 1Co 11:18-34 of the Eucharist at Corinth: When ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lords supper: for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. The most probable interpretation of the passage is that St. Paul blames the Corinthians for misbehaviour at the supper, which should be the Lords Supper, but cannot be so regarded in view of their behaviour. It seems that the rich men brought their own food, and immediately on arrival formed groups, and began to eat their supper without waiting to see whether there were any poor men present who had nothing to eat. St. Paul suggests that if they are hungry, they had better have something to eat before they come. The whole supper is the Lords, for He is the host. And St. Paul reminds them of the significance of what takes place at the supper, namely the Eucharist-a real Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ, and a memorial of His Death.
Batiffol, on the other hand, maintains that St. Paul blames them for associating the Eucharist with a meal at all, and the same view was previously taken by John Lightfoot. [Note: Works, ed. Pitman, London, 1822-26, vol. vi. p. 232 ff.] It must be admitted that his language in 1Co 11:22, Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? seems logically to imply that the assembly of Christians is not a suitable occasion for a meal. But his exhortation to them to wait one for another seems to have no point unless there is to be, a meal. While the considerations adduced by St. Paul no doubt were ultimately operative in bringing about a separation of the Eucharist from the Agape, yet it is highly probable that they were not carried to their logical conclusion at once, nor indeed intended to be so carried. There is no doubt that there was a supper at Corinth at the time when St. Paul wrote; that all the members of the Church came together to it, bringing their own contributions. This was apparently a sort of funeral memorial feast, sacred in its associations, but especially sacred because in the course of it the Eucharist was celebrated. This meal was desecrated by the Corinthians, who ignored its sacred character, making it no longer an expression of the brotherhood of the community, but an ordinary meal, and an occasion for display and gluttony.
3. In Jude and 2 Peter.-The writer of the Epistle of Jude speaks (Jud 1:12) of certain heretics who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you. In the parallel passage in 2Pe 2:13 the bulk of the Manuscripts read for . J. B. Lightfoot* [Note: Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii. 2 vol. ii., London, 1889, p. 313.] regards as an obvious error for , and Bigg [Note: on Epp. of Peter and Jud 1:2 (ICC, Edinburgh, 1902).] follows him in this view. The matter is of no importance for our purpose, as it is the opinion of the majority of scholars that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude, and there can be no reasonable doubt that in Jude is the right reading. Batiffol maintains that Jude is in the habit of using plurals instead of singulars, and understands him here to mean love with no reference to the Agape. But this translation of the word does not seem possible; and we are clearly driven to the conclusion that, among the people to whom Jude wrote, the Agape was an established institution, and the name had already been given to it. But the destination of the Epistle is very doubtful. M. R. James [Note: on 2 Peter and Jude (Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge, 1912), p. xxxviii.] writes: We may place the community to which he writes very much where we please: Dr. Chases conjecture [Note: HDB, art. Jude, Epistle of.] that it was at or near the Syrian Antioch is as good as any. There is nothing to indicate the relation of the Agape mentioned by Jude to the Eucharist. It seems most probable that, as in Corinth, the Eucharist took place at or near the end of the supper. St. Pauls words in 1Co 11:25 make it fairly certain that Chrysostom is wrong in his statement that the Eucharist was followed by a meal. No doubt Chrysostom based his view on the customs of his own time, when fasting communion was the rule.
4. Analogies with Love-Feast.-A great deal of information has been collected by Leclercq|| [Note: | Loc. cit.] about the prevalence of funeral banquets all round the Mediterranean. These banquets were originally for the benefit of the dead, though later they became simply memorial meals. These supply us with an analogy to the Agape. But it is probable that even more operative was the example of the common meals of the various gilds which were a prominent feature of social life in Greek cities. It would be most natural that converts to Christianity should welcome a Christian common meal, on the lines of those to which they were accustomed. Parallels are also to be found among the Jews. [Note: Josephus, Ant. xiv. x. 8; Jer 16:7.] Unfortunately, our evidence is not sufficient to enable us to draw a clear picture of what the Christian Agape was like. It was not purely a charity-supper, though the evidence of the Corinthians shows us that it was intended that this characteristic should not be wholly absent. It seems to have been primarily an expression of the sense of brotherhood which Christians felt. The fact that the Eucharist was associated with it gave it a specially sacred character, and makes it certain that it must have been connected in the minds of those who took part in it with the Last Supper. But abuses arose in connexion with it both in Corinth and-apparently-among those to whom the Epistle of Jude was written. The evidence which we have suggests plenty of reasons for the separation of the Eucharist from the Agape, which seems to have taken place at an early date.
Literature.-Besides books and articles already mentioned, see J. F. Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist, London, 1901; A. J. Maclean, article Agape in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics ; J. B. Mayor, Appendix C in Hort and Mayors Clement of Alexandria, Seventh Book of the Stromateis, London, 1902; also books and articles mentioned in article Eucharist.
G. H. Clayton.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
love feast
(Greek: love)
Meal taken in common by primitive Christians , usually in connection with the Holy Eucharist ; a development of the Jewish funeral feasts. It was never a universal institution in the Church , led to excesses, and disappeared soon after the 5th century .
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Love-feast
In the article AGAPE SEE AGAPE (q.v.) the subject has been treated so far as it relates to an institution in the early Church. It remains for us here only to speak of the love-feast as observed in some Protestant churches, especially the Methodist connection. In a strictly primitive form, the love- feast is observed by the Moravian Brethren. They celebrate it on various occasions, “generally in connection with a solemn festival or preparatory to the holy communion. Printed odes are often used, prepared expressly for the occasion. In the course of the service a simple meal of biscuit and coffee or tea is served, of which the congregation partake together. In some churches the love-feast concludes with an address by the minister” (E. de Schweinitz, Moravians Manual [Philad. 1859, 12mo], page 161). From the Moravians Wesley borrowed the practice for his own followers, assigning for its introduction into the Methodist economy the following reasons: “In order to increase in them Lpersonls in bands (q.v.)] a grateful sense of all his [God’s] mercies, I desired that one evening in a quarter all the men in band, on a second all the women, would meet, and on a third both men and women together, that we might together ‘eat bread,’ as the ancient Christians did, ‘with gladness and singleness of heart.’ At these love-feasts (so we termed them, retaining the name as well as the thing, which was in use from the beginning) our food is only a little plain cake and water; but we seldom return from them without being fed not only with the ‘meat which perisheth,’ but with ‘that which endureth to everlasting life’ (Wesley, Works, 5:183). In the Wesleyan Church only members are attendants at love-feasts, and they are appointed by or with the consent of the superintendent (Minutes, 1806). Admission itself is gained only by a ticket; and as it frequently happened that members would lend their tickets to strangers, it was enacted in 1808 that “no person who is unwilling to join our society is allowed to attend a love-feast more than once, nor then without a note from the traveling preacher;”…. and “that any person who is proved to have lent a society ticket to another who is not in society, for the purpose of deceiving the door-keepers, shall be suspended for three months” (comp. Grindrod, Laws and Regulations of Wesl. Methodism [Lond. 1842], page 180). In the Methodist Episcopal Church the rule also exists that admission to love-feasts is to be had by tickets only (comp. Discipline, part 2, chapter 2, 17 [2]), but the rule is rarely, if ever observed, and they are frequently attended by members of the congregation as well as by the members of the Church. By established usage, the presiding elder (and in his absence only the minister in charge) is entitled to preside over the love-feasts, and they are therefore held at the time of the Quarterly Conference. SEE CONFERENCE, METHODIST.
The manner in which they are now generally observed among Methodists is as follows: They are opened by the reading of the Scriptures, followed by the singing of a hymn, and then by prayer. During and after the dealing out of the bread and water, the different members of the congregation so disposed relate their Christian experience since the last meeting, etc. This is also the occasion for a report of the prosperity of the Church on the part of the pastor and by rule of Discipline (part 2, chapter 2, 17); for the report of the names of those who have been received into the Church or excluded therefrom during the quarter; also the names of those who have been received or dismissed by certificate, and of those who have died or have withdrawn from the Church. Among the Baptists, in their missionary churches abroad, they seem to celebrate the real Agape. At Berlin, Prussia, they are held quarterly, and are made the occasion of a general social gathering, substituting coffee and cake for the Tread and water; but this practice is by no means general among the communicants of that Church. (J.H.W.)
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Love Feast
LOVE FEAST (Agape).The Love Feast of the Christian Church in Apostolic times was a common meal of which all the brethren partook, and was still connected with the Eucharist. The breaking of bread from house to house (Act 2:46) probably included both under the title the Lords Supper (1Co 11:20). From Act 20:7 we gather that the religious exercises of the Love Feast were prolonged till dawn, and ended with the Eucharist. The scandalous behaviour, which St. Paul was constrained to rebuke at Corinth in a.d. 5758 (1Co 11:17-34), shows that not all who came to the Love Feast were in a fit condition to communicate. More serious evils still were introduced by false teachers described by Jud 1:12 : they who are hidden rocks at your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves. The writer is dependent on 2Pe 2:13 : spots are they and blemishes, revelling in their love feasts, while they feast with you.
In spite of the disorders, which marred the religious value of these social club-feasts and led in the end to their suppression, they lasted for a considerable period. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnans (c. 8): It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love feast, in a context which proves that the Agape included the Eucharist. Tertullian (Apol. c. xxxix.) gives a vivid description of the feast explained by its own name.
The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger: as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the Holy Scriptures or one of his own composing. This is a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so it is closed with prayer.
The food consisted of bread, fish, and vegetables. The pictures of the Love Feasts in the catacombs give fish a prominent place. Interesting specimens of prayers used at them are found in the Didache. The direction to give thanks after ye are satisfied plainly associates the prayer with the Love Feast rather than the Eucharist (c. 10):
We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Servant Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy Names sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.
The separation of the Love Feast from the Eucharist seems to have been due, in the first instance, to the action of the Roman Government, always jealous of secret societies. Plinys letter to Trajan speaks of the celebration of the Eucharist in the early morning as followed by a simple meal, which had been left off since the issue of the edict forhidding clubs. On the other hand, fear of calumnies regarding any more or less secret feast, and experience of disorders like those which prevailed at Corinth, were motives which from time to time hindered the practice in certain districts, and finally extinguished it.
A. E. Burn.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Love-Feast
luvfest. See AGAPE.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Love Feast
Usually termed Agape, and signifying the social meal of the primitive Christians, which generally accompanied the Eucharist. If we reflect on the profound impression which the transactions of ‘the night on which the Lord was betrayed’ (1Co 11:23) must have made on the minds of the apostles, nothing can be conceived more natural, or in closer accordance with the genius of the new dispensation, than a wish to perpetuate the commemoration of his death in connection with their social meal. The primary celebration of the Eucharist had impressed a sacredness on the previous repast (comp. Mat 26:26, Mar 14:22, with Luk 22:20, 1Co 11:25); and when to this consideration we add the ardent faith and love of the new converts on the one hand, and the loss of property with the disruption of old connections and attachments on the other, which must have heightened the feeling of brotherhood, we need not look further to account for the institution of the Agape, at once a symbol of Christian love and a striking exemplification of its benevolent energy. However soon its purity was soiled, at first it was not undeserving of the eulogy pronounced by the great orator of the church’A custom most beautiful and most beneficial; for it was a supporter of love, a solace of poverty, a moderator of wealth, and a discipline of humility!’
Thus the common meal and the Eucharist formed together one whole, and were conjointly denominated the Lord’s Supper and agape. They were also signified (according to Mosheim, Neander. and other eminent critics) by the phrases breaking of bread (Act 2:42; Act 2:46; Act 20:7). We find the term agape thus applied once, at least, in the New Testament (Jud 1:12), ‘These are spots in your feasts of charity.’
The following is the description given by Tertullian of these feasts. ‘The nature of our Caena,’ he says, ‘may be gathered from its name, which is the Greek term for love. However much it may cost us, it is real gain to incur such expense in the cause of piety: for we aid the poor by this refreshment; we do not sit down to it till we have first tasted of prayer to God; we eat to satisfy our hunger; we drink no more than befits the temperate; we feast as those who recollect that they are to spend the night in devotion; we converse as those who know that the Lord is an ear-witness. After water for washing hands, and lights have been brought in, everyone is required to sing something to the praise of God, either from the Scriptures or from his own thoughts; by this means, if anyone has indulged in excess, he is detected. The feast is closed with prayer.’ Contributions or oblations of provisions or money were made on these occasions, and the surplus placed in the hands of the presiding eldercompare 1Ti 5:17, by whom it was applied to the relief of orphans and widows, the sick and destitute, prisoners and strangers.
From the passages in the Epistles of Jude and Peter, already quoted, and more particularly from the language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, it appears that at a very early period the Agape were perverted from their original design: the rich frequently practiced a selfish indulgence, to the neglect of their poorer brethren: ‘every one taketh before other his own supper’ (1Co 11:21); i.e. the rich feasted on the provisions they brought, without waiting for the poorer members, or granting them a portion of their abundance.
On account of these and similar irregularities, and probably in part to elude the notice of their persecutors, the Christians, about the middle of the second century, frequently celebrated the Eucharist by itself and before daybreak. From Pliny’s Epistle it appears that the agape were suspected by the Roman authorities of belonging to the class of unions or secret societies which were often employed for political purposes, and as such denounced by the imperial edicts.
In modern times social meetings bearing a resemblance to the agape, and in allusion to them termed ‘Love Feasts,’ have been regularly held by the church of the United Brethren and the Wesleyan Methodists, also in Scotland by the followers of Mr. Robert Sandeman.