Let us not be accusing each other of "blinding bias" or whatever, but let's continue do as those
who were commended by God who "searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things
were so." (Acts 17:11).
The only place in the Scriptures where "love feasts" are mentioned is in Jude 12. Jude 12 does
not define or explain what the love feasts are. No other inspired writer explains to us what those
feasts are. Paul certainly did not say that the Corinthians were having a "love feast." He simply
stated, "When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's
supper: for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and
another is drunken." (ASV). Whatever type of meal it might have been, and whatever abuses
there might have been, Paul corrected the problem once and for all by commanding them to eat at
home. (1 Cor. 11:22,34). Jude 12 simply said regarding the false teachers, "These are they who
are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feasts with you..." (ASV). Certainly, the false
teachers would have been promoting their evils in every kind of love feasts among Christians. To
make Jude's "love feasts" to be "feasts when the church was gathered together for worship," one
must go to some other source besides the Bible.
You tried in your earlier reply to prove your view of the love feasts by the early church fathers.
Now you try to do it by scholars. Let me emphasize that we should never try to prove anything
by men. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. 3:4). "Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8). "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby
they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14) "Let no man deceive you with vain words..." (Eph. 5:6).
Vine, Thayer, Arndt and Gingrich are only men. They are not the final source of authority. We
will not be judged by what they wrote. People understood God's will before those men were
born, and people can understand God's will without them today. Untold thousands of godly men
and woman do not own the lexicons of those men, nor do they need them for their salvation or to
understand God's will. It is a terrible evil for one to depend on lexicons rather than the Bible to
establish his doctrine.
After quoting Vine, you said, "Do you accept Vine on this?" I will not accept Vine on that for the
following reasons: (1) Vine was just a man and sometimes taught error. For example, he believed
and taught premillennialism. In defining the word "coming" (Greek: "parousia), Vine says, "When
used of the return of Christ, at the Rapture of the Church, it signifies, not merely His momentary
coming for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and
manifestation to the world. In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that
period, the course of the period being implied, 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1;
Jas. 5:7, 8; 2 Pet. 3:4." (Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. and O.T. words). Thus, I now ask
you the same question you asked me. Do you accept Vine on this? On what basis do you not
accept him on this? No doubt, you reject him on this on the very same basis that I reject him on
the "love feast." (2) Many lexicons and commentaries (as shown by my numerous quotes below)
teach the opposite of what Vine said.
It appears that both Thayer and Arndt & Gingrich use the writings of the so-called "early church
fathers" to elaborate on what they thought the "love feasts" were. Thus, I was wrong in saying
that Thayer quoted non-religious writers rather than religious ones, and I apologize for not
knowing that. I want to emphasize, though, that the so-called "early church fathers" were really
the "early church apostates." Those "early church fathers" were not church fathers at all. It
doesn't have quite the same ring to it, when one says, "Let me now quote from the "early church
apostates." Remember, in my last reply to you, I asked you to prove that those early church
fathers existed. As a matter of fact, I tried to make it easy for you by asking you to prove the
existence of only one of them; namely, Dionysius. Dionysius is one of those who has been quoted
often by scholars. Here are many Roman Catholic statements regarding the writings of Dionysius:
"It is admitted to be a forgery." (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 179). "It was plainly
for the purpose of deceiving." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 13). "It was intended to create
the impression that the author belonged to the time of the apostles." (Cath. Ency. V, 14). The
writings of Dionysius were forged in order to "secure the authority of the Roman Pontiff," and
"fabricated to defend the hierarchy." (Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. I, p.
25). The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Dionysius forgery, "It was a universally
acknowledged authority...lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century." (Vol. p. 15). The
Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is largely based on Dionysius,
as well as many other Catholic Doctrines. (Cath. Ency. Vol. I, p. 608). The Catholic Dictionary
says, "The word (hierarchy) first occurs in the work of pseudo-Dionysius on Celestial and
Ecclesiastical Hierarchies...The signification was gradually modified until it came to be what is
now present." The Catholic Encyclopedia also says, "Although he (Dionysius) openly wove into
the genuine Catholic system NeoPlatonic thoughts and phrases, nevertheless he enjoyed an
unparalleled reputation among the greats scholastics of the Middle Ages because he was supposed
to have been a disciple of the Apostles." (Cath. Ency., XIV, 589).
Bear in mind that the same can be proven regarding the writings of many other of the so-called
church fathers. Many of their writings are nothing but forgeries, fabricated by evil monks and
priests during the Dark Ages. Forgeries have been proven in the writings of Origen, Ambrose,
Ignatius, Jerome, Aquinas, Eusebius, Clemet, Polycarp, Tertullian, and many others. It is truly
sad that much of what is in so-called Christianity today, comes from the teachings of the "early
church apostates" rather than the Bible. I certainly do not wish to have what I believe and
practice established by those men. Anyone who quotes from them, or from scholars who quote
from them, to establish his doctrine is committing a very grave error to say the least.
You insisted repeatedly that I should accept what scholars have taught on Jude 12 and I Cor. 11.
I now quote from many scholars, both old and recent, who teach the exact opposite of what your
scholars teach. Please bear in mind that I am not quoting from these scholars to prove my
position. One should never rely on uninspired men to prove anything. I am quoting these men to
show that your scholarship argument proves nothing. In other words, there is equal scholarship,
if not more, which does not uphold your contention, but rather condemns it.
"This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly
perverted the design of the Lord's Supper. Have ye not houses, &c. Do you not know that the
church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry: nor even a place where to
partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be, that you will come to the places of public worship and
make them scenes of feasting and riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder;
no revelry; no intemperance; yet on every account it was grossly irregular and disorderly to make
the place of public worship a place for a festival entertainment." (Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes, 1
Cor. 11:22, p. 213).
"They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a
common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake
of them, lest they should come together for condemnation." (Matthew Henry, 1 Cor. 11:22; Vol.
6, p. 566.)
"Verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? They should have taken their ordinary
meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord's supper." Verse 34.
And if any man hunger. Let him not come to the house of God to eat and ordinary meal, let him
eat at home --- take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he
comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view." (Adam
Clark, Vol. 2. p. 255ff.)
"On these occasions a family or a group of friends who had banded together for purposes of
special devotion (known as chaburoth from the Hebrew word for "friends") would gather weekly
before sundown for a meal in the home or another suitable place." (Defining, "Love Feast,"
Homan's Bible Dictionary).
"Paul's advice was to eliminate the custom of eating together since this was the thing that had
gotten them into trouble. They could eat at home; then, when they came together they could eat
the Lord's Supper." (T.R. Applebury, Studies in First Corinthians, College Press, pg. 212)
"There were serious excesses within the Corinthian assembly, such as greediness, selfishness,
drunkenness and gluttony. Paul issued a grave warning, and the impression we gather is that it
was his desire to have the two parts kept separate, as happened in the later church. Let the hungry
eat at home, and come with reverence and self-examination to the Table, is his caution (11:22,
30-34)." (Defining, "Lord's Supper," The New Bible Dictionary)
"If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of
the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord's Supper was
intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit." (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1 Cor.
11:22)
"He should take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of the body before he
comes to the assembly, where he should have the feeding of the spiritual man alone in view."
(Commentary on New Testament Epistles, David Liscomb, 1 Cor. 11:34, p. 178).
"There is nothing in the passage (Jude 12, DJR) to indicate that the church, rather than an
individual, even sponsored the feast. All that this passage reveals is that some saints gathered
together for a common meal." (A Commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, Mike
Willis, p. 411).
"The public assembly was not designed as an occasion to satisfy one's hunger; it was an occasion
to offer worship to Almighty God. The Corinthians had distorted the divine nature of the church.
Paul, by this rhetorical question, commanded the Corinthians to eat at home. The congregational
assembly is not designed to be a place for eating and, certainly, the Lord's Supper is no common
meal. Many twentieth century churches have not taken seriously what Paul wrote in this verse.
He is not only condemning the refusal of the rich to share with the poor, he is forbidding
altogether the practice of eating a common meal at the public assembly. I wonder why this verse
does not say as much to those who have "fellowship dinners" in the twentieth century as it said to
those in the first century. This verse prohibits the perverting of the congregational assembly into
an occasion for a common meal." (A Commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, Mike
Willis, p. 395).
I want to say, again, that one should never seek to establish his doctrine on the basis of scholars.
My wife and I recently had a home study with a woman who is a Catholic. The Catholic lady had
many quotes from Greek lexicons who stated that "baptism" means "pouring" as well as
"emersion." We did not try to teach her by quoting from an equal number of scholars who taught
differently. She would have simply said, "I'll take my scholars rather than yours." We simply
went to the passages which clearly show the action of baptism: Rom. 6:3-4; Acts 8:38-39.
On page two of your reply, you said, "Don't you think it's significant that Jude didn't say, 'And
you brethren should not have been having love feasts in the first place!'" Our disagreement, again,
is on what the love feasts of Jude 12 actually were. The only thing the verse reveals is that they
were feasts of love among brethren. Neither the church nor worship is mentioned. Your
argument seems to be saying, "Since Jude did not condemn brethren having love feasts when they
came together, the church can have love feasts when it comes together for worship." I answer by
saying that one can never prove anything by what the Bible does not say. In other words, by the
same logic, I could affirm, "It's significant that Paul did not condemn instrumental music in
worship in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16; therefore, the church can have instrumental music when it
comes together for worship." Also, "It's significant that Paul did not mention hamburgers and
coke in 1 Cor. 11:23-26 and, therefore, we can have hamburgers and coke in the Lord's Supper.
In some passages in the Bible, both a positive (instruction, direction) and a negative
(condemnation, reproof) are mentioned. 1 Cor. 11:20-34 is clearly one of those passages.
Positive instruction was given on how to partake of the Lord's Supper. Reproof was given
concerning what they were doing. He not only reproved them for their selfish indulgence, but
told them they had houses in which to eat and drink (1 Cor. 11:22). Their eating was to be done
at home, so that when they came together they could properly partake of the Lord's Supper. (1
Cor. 11:33-34).
In closing, I emphasis again that no inspired writer explains what the love feasts of Jude 12 were.
The contention that they were "meals eaten by Christians when they came together for worship"
comes from man, not God. Paul did not say that the Corinthians were having a "love feast" and
whatever type of meal it might have been, and whatever abuses there might have been, he
corrected the problem once and for all by commanding them to eat at home. (1 Cor. 11:22,34).
His commandment is in perfect harmony with other Divine principles. "Do not work for the food
which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to
you, for on Him the Father, even God, has set His seal." (John 6:27 NASV). "...For the kingdom
of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom.
14:17 NASV).
I hope these things will help.
Brotherly,
David J. Riggs