Quotes Regarding "Love Feasts"

By David J. Riggs

Some people claim that the vast majority of scholars teach that Jude 12 and 1 Cor. 11:20-34 refer to a "love feast" (a meal eaten when brethren came together for worship). I want to emphasize strongly that it is absolutely wrong to try to prove a position solely by the so-called scholars. The following quotes are given, not to prove a position, but to show that what some are claiming about the vast majority of scholars is certainly not true.

B.W. Johnson says that the Corinthians were having a meal before the Lord's Supper, but the practice was rebuked by Paul:

"21. For every one partaketh before others his own supper. It was customary in Corinth to eat a meal together as did Christ and his disciples the night of the Lord's supper [Mt 26:26; Mr 14:22; Lu 22:14]. After this came the Lord's supper. At this meal each party in Corinth sat apart and ate when it was ready. The result was that some began before the others. One would be hungry, and another drunken. This last clause means that he had eaten and was satisfied. 22. What! Have you not houses to eat and drink in? The practice is rebuked. The place to eat their feasts was at home." (The Peoples's New Testament With Notes, By B.W. Johnson, 1 Cor. 11).

Johnson added regarding verse 33,

"33. Wherefore, when ye come together to eat, etc. Let all wait, and let all eat and partake of the Lord's supper together. 34. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home. This feast is not in order to satisfy the cravings of the appetite." (Ibid., 1 Cor. 11).

Albert Barnes teaches that 1 Cor. 11 refers to the Lord's Supper. He says that Paul is speaking of an abuse, making a meal out of the Lord's Supper. He states that Jude 12 may refer to the Lord's Supper rather than a common meal.

"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: not 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 hand 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 festival entertainment." (Barnes' Notes, By Albert Barnes, 1 Cor. 11).
"In your feasts of charity. Your feasts of love. The reference is probably to the Lord's Supper, called a feast or festival of love, because (1,) it revealed the love of Christ to the world; (2,) because it was the means of strengthening the mutual love of disciples: a festival which love originated, and where love reigned." (Barnes' Notes, Jude 12).

David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd say concerning 1 Cor. 11:33-34:

"33 Wherefore, by brethren, when ye come together to eat, -[The eating referred to is, of course, the Lord's Supper, and he enjoins perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The table is common for the rich and poor, and the rich have no claim of priority over the poor.]
"Wait one for another. -[By their indecent haste, each eating his own meal without waiting for the rest, they had turned the Supper from the memorial purpose into an ordinary and insignificant meal, a mere eating and drinking. He therefore exhorts them to wait for one another, and make their coming together joint service in commemoration of the Lord's suffering and death.]
"34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; -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." (Gospel Advocate Commentary, By David Lipscomb and J.W. Shepherd, 1 Cor. 11).

Matthew Henry states that the Corinthians were perhaps having "love-feasts" annexed to the Lord's Supper; however, he goes on to show that Paul condemned it. First of all, he said:

"Heathens used to drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord's table, or at least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough." (Matthew Henry's Commentary, By Matthew Henry, 1 Cor. 11).

Matthew Henry then followed by showing how Paul corrected the evil at Corinth:

"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." (Ibid., 1 Cor. 11).

Adam Clark strongly shows how Paul corrected the problem at Corinth:

"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 an 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." (Clark's Commentary, By Adam Clark, 1 Cor. 11)

Holman's Bible Dictionary in defining the "love feasts" of Jude 12 shows that they were not "meals when brethren came together for worship," but were ordinary meals.

"On these occasions a family or 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," Holman's Bible Dictionary).

The New Bible Dictionary in defining the "Lord's Supper," states that Paul condemned the meal the Corinthians were having:

"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 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)." (The New Bible Dictionary, Defining, "Lord's Supper").

T.R. Applebury in his Commentary says that Paul eliminated the Corinthian's meal.

"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." (Studies in First Corinthians, By T.R. Applebury, 1 Cor. 11).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary states that Paul condemned their meals:

"If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was not the place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord's Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit." (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1 Cor. 11).

James Macknight shows that commentators are not agreed about the meaning of "love feasts" in Jude 12:

"In your love feasts. Commentators are not agreed about the meaning of this word. Some think Jude is speaking of the ancient love suppers, which Tertullian hath described, Apol. c.39., and which do not seem to have been accompanied with the Eucharist. Others think they were those suppers which the first Christians ate, previous to their eating the Lord's supper, and of which St. Paul hath spoken, I Cor. XI. 21." (Commentary on the Epistles, By James Macknight, Jude 12)

The Jerome Biblical Commentary shows two possibilities as taught by various commentators:

"33-34. Does Paul only correct the abuse of the lack of charity in the celebration of the Lord's Supper (Allo, Kuss, and many others)? Or does he abolish the meal with which the Eucharist was celebrated (J. Huby, Coppens, VDBS, 2, 1174)?" (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1 Cor. 11).

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament seems to indicate that the Corinthians were having a love feast; however, their mis-use of it, lead to a complete separation of it from the Lord's Supper.

"21. Taketh before (prolambanei). Before others. Old verb to take before others. It was conduct like this that led to the complete separation between the Love-feast and the Lord's Supper. It was not even a common meal together (kqinon deipnon), not to say a Lord's deipnon. It was a mere grab-game. This one is hungry (hos de peinai). Demonstrative hos. Nothing is left for him at the love-feast. Another is drunken (hos de methuei). Such disgusting conduct was considered shameful in heathen club suppers. 'Hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord' (Robertson and Plummer." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, By A.T. Robertson, 1 Cor. 11)
"For disorder at the Lord's Supper (and love-feasts?) see I Cor. 11:17-34)." (Ibid., Jude 12).

The NIV Compact Bible Commentary is especially plain regarding 1 Cor. 11:

"The practice of commemorating the Lord's Supper in the Corinthian church is censured strongly by Paul. He says, 'Your meetings do more harm than good' (v.17), meaning, apparently, that their disruptive 'divisions' and their practice of greedy feasting and drunkenness obscured the purpose of their commemoration. The bread and cup are intended to 'proclaim the Lord's death until he comes' (v.26) and thus are symbols of his own body: 'For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself' (v.29). The purpose of the meal was not to satisfy hunger, but to remember the work of Christ. Failure to recognize or presume upon Christ's work brings one under God's judgment. What was the remedy for their abuse in the practice of the Supper? When they came together to eat, they were to 'wait for each other' (v.33), thus, acknowledging that the meal was not to satisfy hunger but was a commemoration." (The NIV Compact Bible Commentary, 1 Cor. 11).

Calvin's Commentary is very forceful and plain on 1 Cor. 11:

"22. Have ye not houses? From this we see that the apostle was utterly dissatisfied with this custom of feasting...We know for what exercises a Church should assemble-to hear doctrine, to pour forth prayers, and sing hymns to God, to observe the sacraments, to make confession of their faith, and to engage in pious observance, and other exercises of piety. If anything else is done there, it is out of place. Every one has his own house appointed him for eating and drinking, and hence that is an unseemly thing in a sacred assembly.
"33. Wherefore, my brethren. From the discussion of a general doctrine, he returns to the particular subject with which he had set out, and comes to this conclusion, that equality must be observed in the Lord's Supper, that there may be a real participation, as there ought to be, and that they may not celebrate every one his own supper; and farther, that this sacrament ought not to be mixed up with common feasts." (Calvin's Commentaries, By John Calvin, 1 Cor. 11).

Matthew Poole, in his Commentary, says that Paul abolished the feasts themselves.

"What have ye not houses to eat and drink in?" hence evidently appears, that these love feasts were kept in the place where the assembly met for the public worship of God; for the apostle would have them (if they would continue them) kept in their private houses: and he doth not only blame the abuses of these feasts, but the feasts themselves as kept in the place where the church met..." (A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole, 1 Cor. 11:22)
"And if anyone hungered, they should not make the place where they met together for the solemn worship of God, a place for eating and drinking at feasts, but eat at home; lest, by these disorderly and irreverent actions, they incurred the displeasure of God, and brought down the judgment of God upon themselves." (Ibid., 1 Cor. 11:34).

Guy N. Woods in his commentary on Jude defines the "love feasts" simply as charitable meals among brethren, and when the Lord's supper was corrupted into such a meal at Corinth, it brought sharp rebuke from Paul:

"The 'love-feasts' were meals common to the apostolic age at which the saints met from social, charitable, and humanitarian reasons. They appear to have had their origin in the practice of wealthier members of the congregation providing food for the poorer ones, and eating with them, in token of their brotherliness. These feasts are not to be identified in any way with the Lord's supper; indeed, when this supper was corrupted into such a meal, it occasioned a sharp rebuke from Paul. (1 Cor. 11:17-34)" (Commentary on Peter, John and Jude, By Guy N. Woods, Jude 12).

Mike Willis in his Commentary on 1 Cor. is very explicit against the practice of eating a common meal in the public assemblies:

"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 his 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, By Mike Willis, 1 Cor. 11).
"There is nothing in the passage (Jude 12, DJR) to indicate that the church, rather than an individual, even sponsored the feast. All that the passage reveals is that some saints gathered together for a common meal." (Ibid., p. 411).


As I indicated in the beginning, the above quotes are given to show that what some are claiming about the majority of scholars is certainly not true. Some scholars say that the Corinthians were not having a love feast. Others after indicating they were having one, continue by saying that it was condemned by Paul. Certainly, it is not true to say that the majority of scholars condone having meals when the saints come together for worship.