Brent T. Willey, evangelist

January 11, 2011

Introduction:

In many respects I was catapulted into this study. Never did I imagine that I would ever be involved in this kind of an examination of one of the most fundamental and important aspects of our worship as the body of believers: the Lord’s Supper.

It had come to my attention that in a congregation, where in my earlier years I had served as the evangelist, a few members were “re-thinking” their understanding of the Lord’s Supper and had decided to incorporate an “agapé feast” along with the “normal” observance of the Lord’s Supper. They did not do so during the regular assembly of the church on Sunday mornings with the entire congregation, but at one of the member’s home in the afternoon. Any and all were invited to come to the “table” and enjoy a full meal which was immediately followed by the partaking of the “bread” and the “fruit of the vine” again and then have an open discussion regarding the meaning of the Lord’s Supper as it pertained to the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. One of the primary proponents of the practice referred to it as an “extension of the Lord’s Supper.”

I was soon called upon by a particular opponent of this practice to consider this peculiar observance and asked to re-examine the teaching of the apostle Paul in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians, particularly verses 17-34, and create a study-guide. This I gladly did, but I must admit that with the requested rapidity of which I was asked to produce the material that I am now convinced that my work was insufficient in several respects. While I do not believe that it was an erroneous work, I am certain that it did contain some flaws in that it was not as thorough as it should have been and therefore came across as an inductive study as opposed to a complete deductive analysis of the overall subject. I wish not to repeat this regrettable error.

The purpose of this treatise will be to thoroughly analyze both the Lord’s Supper and the agapé feast and try to determine if the incorporation of the two is in accordance with the teachings of Christ and is clearly a part of the New Testament pattern for the worship of the assembled church. My contention is there is no satisfactory biblical proof for their simultaneous observance, and that in fact, such practice is contrary to the inspired Word of God. We shall begin by establishing the principles of authority.

UNDERSTANDING OUR STANDARD OF AUTHORITY

Sensible people recognize the need for authority in every aspect of life, including the home, school, business and government. Chaos and anarchy are resultant of the absence of an accepted standard of authority, and for these reasons we have strict guidelines that regulate the time of day, weights and measurements, monetary values, and various laws for conduct within society and civil government. In like manner, serious students of the Bible affirm the absolute need for authority for everything we do in spiritual and religious matters, indeed, to “speak as of the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).

Authority is defined as “The right to command and enforce obedience; the right to act by virtue of office. Objectively: permission or right granted by one possessing such right to command or enforce obedience” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). Jesus conveyed and assumed this position of authority when He announced, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18 – nkjv). The King James Version uses the word “power,” which carried the idea of “authority,” as granted to kings and magistrates. The Greek word employed in Matthew’s account is exousia, which is “the power or rule of government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)” (Thayer). A certain centurion used the same word when he said to Jesus, “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.’” (Matthew 8:9). The fact is, exousia is used 102 times in the Greek New Testament and is translated variously as “power,” “authority,” “right,” “jurisdiction,” and “strength.”

As Christians, none of us should ever believe in a practice simply because we assume it is acceptable to God, but neither should we reject a belief or practice because we never have practiced it before and never included it in our “traditional” approach to Christianity. It is therefore incumbent for the Christian to “search the Scriptures” to see what is true (Acts 17:11). It takes study and careful consideration of God’s Word to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Diligent study coupled with fervent prayer will assist in our ability to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

The purpose of this particular paper is not to provide an apologetic investigation of the accepted canon of Scripture; neither is it to explore or to establish a hermeneutical methodology; but rather, the following will be assumed, understood and applied:

1. Only the 66 books of the Bible comprise the accepted canon of Scripture and must be understood in their historical, cultural and lexical context (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

2. In this study the hermeneutical approach will insist on at least one of the following three criteria as a basis for authority: an expressed statement or command, an approved precedent or example, and/or a necessary inference or conclusion. Any practice or belief within Christianity that cannot be unequivocally validated or substantiated by at least one of these principles cannot be deemed as being authorized. Furthermore, for any practice to be considered as an approved expedient, anything used to facilitate any particular command, the stated expedient must never change the nature of the original command. For example, sprinkling in place of immersion for the mode of baptism can never be justified as an acceptable expedient in that it changes the very nature of the commanded action.

3. While the Old Testament has been “written for our learning” (Romans 15:4) and has been amazingly preserved through the ages (I believe providentially), it must not be used as the basis for establishing specific authorized practices within the realm of New Testament Christianity. Unquestionably, various principles of faith and obedience can and must be appreciated by the numerous accounts found within the Old Testament, but the specific laws and examples of the Old Testament do not serve as prima facie proof and substantiation for the worship, work, organization and doctrines to be carried out by the New Testament church. As the author of the Book of Hebrews stated, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (Hebrews 8:13 – niv; cf., 2 Corinthians 3:4-18; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 2:8-19).

A noteworthy example of this would be the use of mechanical instruments of music within the worship of the assembled church. Under the Old Law the use of such instruments was actually commanded for temple worship (2 Chronicles 29:25), and there are numerous commands and examples found within many of the Psalms as well. However, these commands and examples must not be used as precedent for Christian worship because there is no expressed command, no apostolic example, nor is there a necessary inference within the New Testament regarding the incorporation of such instruments within the worship of the primitive church.

The bedrock of acceptable Christianity begins and finishes with unambiguous substantiated biblical authority – not “according to the tradition of men,” nor “according to the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:8, 22). Whereas, the stated “traditions” that were commanded by the apostles were revealed to them by the Holy Spirit and are clearly a part of the inspired word of God intended for Christians to follow today (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, 14; cf., Romans 10:17).

THE INCEPTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

The institution of the Lord’s Supper is found in the three synoptic gospel accounts: Matthew 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25 & Luke 22:7-20. The non-synoptic gospel, John, gives a detailed account of the setting when Jesus met with His disciples in the upper room, but John does not include Jesus’ specific instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper (John 13-17).

The purpose of the upper room gathering was to observe the Passover (Feast of Unleavened Bread) as required by the Old Law (Exodus 12:1-20). In this setting, Jesus did not eat the “Lord’s Supper” with His disciples – they ate the “Passover” together, which was His “fervent desire” (Luke 22:15). Mark 14:22-25 reads, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, ‘This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’” As commentator, Adam Clarke observed, “‘Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ – That is, until that of which the Passover is a type is fulfilled in my death, through which the kingdom of God, or of heaven (See Matt. 3:2), shall be established among men.”

Jesus was not rolling the Passover feast forward into His near-future, newly established kingdom, but from that feast two items were selected to symbolize His body and blood. Jesus seized the opportunity to institute a memorial that was to be observed by His disciples for the purpose of remembering His sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary. The Lord’s Supper is not a mere ceremonial ritual; in its observance actual bread and fruit of the vine are consumed by the partakers, hence it is likened unto a feast, but one with deep spiritual implications. During the Lord’s Supper Christians commune with the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). The emphasis is the association or communion one has with Christ when so partaking. Paradoxically, however, when Jesus instituted His own memorial His body had not yet been given nor had His blood been shed. Again, the purpose of the upper room meal was to “eat the Passover,” whereas, the institution of the Lord’s Supper was with the future in mind, which is why Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). Was it Jesus’ intention for the soon-to-be-established church to participate in the Passover meal (or a physical meal of any kind) immediately before observing the Lord’s Supper? There is no such indication in His language or in the apostolic directives contained in Scripture, unless of course, we are to assume that the “love feast” (Jude 12) was designed as an integral part of the Lord’s Supper, as is the opinion of several sources. According to many of the Ante-Nicene writings (late 1^st century – 325 AD), the primitive church engaged in such a practice (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Agapé). However, it prompts the question, “If so, was this done with apostolic approval?” Furthermore, in the one text where a schismatic group of Christians tried to integrate a physical meal with the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:17-22), abuses were present and they were told to take their physical meals home where they belonged! We will have much more to consider about the Jude 12 text, as well as 1 Corinthians 11.

It is interesting to note that from the Passover meal, which included roasted lamb and bitter herbs, Jesus chose the “unleavened bread” (azumos) and the “fruit of the vine” (geneÉmatos teÉs ampÉlou) as the two items to be consumed for this new memorial. Simplicity at its best. Paul reconfirmed this divine principle when he quoted Jesus verbatim, “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me’” (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). As we shall also see, the apostle Paul corrects the Corinthian church’s abusive practice of the Lord’s Supper, and in doing so; he takes them back to the simplicity of Jesus’ original words. Corinth had turned the Lord’s Supper into a common physical meal, rift with division and debauchery, so much so that Paul concluded, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat” (1 Corinthians 11:20; emphasis mine – btw). Subsequently, the apostle immediately emphasizes the two consumed items that fittingly symbolize the body and blood of the Savior by his inspired conclusion in verse 26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” Nowhere in the context of the overall passage (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) does Paul encourage or promote the Corinthian brethren to continue in the practice of incorporating an actual physical meal with the Lord’s Supper in the assembled church, nor does he define or outline the proper manner in which to observe an agapé feast. On the contrary, and on the verge of my being overly redundant, I call your attention again to Paul’s rebuke, “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you…” and, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come” (verses 22 & 34, respectively – nau).

The argument is made that Paul is only condemning the following: (1) the divisive manner in which the meal was being observed, (2) the fact that some had plenty to eat while others did not, and (3) that some were getting intoxicated. The interpretation stresses that Paul was not condemning an integration of an actual physical meal with the Lord’s Supper at all. In fact, some maintain that the physical meal was a part of the overall observance. Some are even concluding that the integration of an agapé feast and the Lord’s Supper is the established pattern and precedent for the New Testament church, which would make the practice a requirement, although they are hesitant in coming right out and saying so (Casio). I disagree with this line of thinking because in Paul’s immediate correctional instruction he quotes Jesus and emphasizes the simplicity of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), with no mention, let alone emphasis, of an integrated agapé feast. It is dangerous to assume that Paul was indirectly endorsing a physical table fellowship along with the “Lord’s table” (the “Lord’s Supper”).

We are restrained by these four major texts that provide us with the information regarding the institution of the Lord’s Supper and its implementation (Matthew 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20 & 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). The numerous feasts and meals found within the Old Testament were instituted to celebrate many significant events that occurred among the Israelites, including the Passover. However, great caution should be exercised in attempting to specifically incorporate them with the observance of the Lord’s Supper – a separate observance intended to highlight and commemorate the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus that made possible humanity’s deliverance from sin. While the parallels that exist between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper are not coincidental (e.g., lamb, blood, deliverance, etc.), it is a mistake to carry over the specific practices of the Passover into the simple observance of the Lord’s Supper. Another study is warranted that explores both covenants, demonstrating and contrasting the complex physical requirements of the old covenant as compared with the simple practices found within New Testament (covenant) Christianity.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IDIOM “THE BREAKING OF BREAD”

The most common idiom found within the New Testament referring to the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20) is the “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42), or simply, “to break bread” (Acts 20:7). An examination of this idiom becomes increasingly germane in our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. However, an ambiguity exists because the idiom “breaking bread” was a very common figure of speech for eating and sharing a meal of any sort, both religious and non-religious. The phrase, “breaking bread” (klÁsai Árton), must be analyzed in its context and can be better understood with associated expressions within the sentence or paragraph where the idiom is used. As Eric Lyons noted, “to ‘break bread’ in Bible times often referred to the eating of common meals. God once warned His prophet Jeremiah not to ‘break bread for the mourner’ (Jeremiah 16:7, rsv). Jesus ‘took bread…and broke it’ with the disciples to whom He appeared on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30,35). The early Christians are said to have continued daily ‘breaking bread from house to house’ eating ‘food with gladness and simplicity of heart’ (Acts 2:46). Paul once ‘took bread and…broke it’ and instructed his 275 companions on board a ship to Italy to eat it for their ‘preservation’ (Acts 27:34-35, nasb). In ancient times, to ‘break bread’ was a figure of speech known as synecdoche where a part (to break bread) was put for the whole (to eat a common meal, regardless of the kind of food and drink consumed).

“In New Testament times, however, the phrase ‘to break bread’ was also used to describe the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this special supper while celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread with His disciples shortly before His death. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘“Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom”’ (Matthew 26:26-29).

“In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.’ Paul later reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this memorial feast, saying, ‘For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me”’ (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). Because part of this memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual breaking of bread, the expression ‘to break bread’ was used in reference to the Lord’s Supper in the early church (Behm, 1965, 3:730). Similar to how this phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit of the vine is referred to as simply ‘the breaking of bread’).

“Furthermore, because the phrase ‘to break bread’ refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed. For example, since in Acts 2:42 ‘breaking bread’ is listed with other religious activities carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping (from the Greek koinonia, which may include several aspects of ‘joint participation,’ including free-will offerings on the first day of the week – cf., Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (Jackson, p. 31), one may logically conclude that ‘the breaking of bread’ is a reference to the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper. [The use of the definite article in this verse also leaves the impression that a particular event is under consideration, rather than a common meal where “food” (Greek trophe, a word never used of the Lord’s Supper – Barnes, 1956, p. 59) is served for the purpose of gaining nourishment (e.g., Acts 2:46; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).]

“But what about the use of the phrase ‘to break bread’ in Acts 20:7? What textual indicators are present that should warrant the phrase in this passage to be understood as the Lord’s Supper? First, the term ‘to break bread’ is a first aorist active infinitive (Robertson, 1997). Since infinitives in Greek and English denote the objective or purpose of action for the principal verb (cf. Mounce, 1993, p. 298), one can know that Paul, Luke, and the disciples at Troas ‘gathered together’ for the primary purpose of ‘breaking bread.’ When this information is processed in light of the fact that Paul earlier had written to the church at Corinth and implied that the purpose for them coming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper (in an orderly manner – 1 Corinthians 11:20,33), then the passage in Acts 20 makes much better sense: ‘to break bread’ was (or at least included) the eating of the Lord’s Supper. What’s more, Paul remained in Troas for seven days despite being in a hurry to get to Jerusalem before Pentecost (which was about 31 days, 10 stops, and 1,000 miles away – cf., Acts 20:6,13-16; 21:1,3,7,8,15). Why tarry in Troas for seven days? It was not simply to eat a common meal with the saints. Rather, Paul desired to worship with the church in Troas ‘on the first day of the week,’ which included observing ‘communion’ with them (1 Corinthians 10:16)” (Eric Lyons, “Breaking Bread” on the “First Day” of the Week).

Accordingly, theologians that go at great strains to associate the Lord’s Supper with a common physical meal based upon the idiomatic expression “breaking bread” fail to properly analyze and understand some important lexical information provided in the texts. The two critically significant passages (Acts 2:42-46 & Acts 20:7-11) have been sadly misconstrued. It is the result of a misunderstanding of the multifaceted idiom, “the breaking of bread” and its variant forms, and it is here that we must revisit these texts.

In both chapters 2 and 20 of Acts there is a separation of time and circumstances in the use of the idioms respectively. “The breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42) and “the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7) are separated from the subsequent expressions, “and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food” (Acts 2:46) and “when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten” (Acts 20:11) [emphasis mine]. W.E. Vine recognizes the lexical differentiation and states that Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 refer to the Lord’s Supper, while Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:11 refers to an ordinary meal (“Break, Breaking, etc.” Vines Expository Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 147). In Acts 2, there is a separation of time and circumstance between verse 42 and verse 46. Verse 42 refers to spiritual activities done on the day of Pentecost (always on the first day of the week), while verse 46 refers to ordinary meals the disciples were enjoying together on a daily basis. If “breaking bread” in verse 46 refers to the Lord’s Supper, then it also serves as a precedent to observe the Lord’s Supper every day of the week. The English Standard Version (2007) fittingly translates the passage: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.” Similarly, in Acts 20:11 Luke again joins the idiom with the expression “and eaten” [geusamenos (aorist participle, nominative masculine singular): “to take food, to eat, to take nourishment” (Vine).] The absence of the qualifying expressions, as found in Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:11, significantly demonstrate Luke’s intention of using the idiom differently from the preceding occurrences in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7. Whereas, in Paul’s concluding statement in 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread,” he uses the verb esthÍeete [subjunctive present active – 2^nd person plural from esthiō, “to eat” (Gingrich)], which indicates an eating of the emblematic bread along with drinking the emblematic “cup” – no other food is included. The lexical evidence illustrates the variation of meaning that can be found among the uses of the figure of speech- “to break bread,” and without question, at times it refers specifically to the Lord’s Supper. However, the attempt to scripturally justify an incorporation of a common physical meal with the Lord’s Supper in either text bears no definitive scriptural weight and is tenuous at best. Again, when Jesus instituted His own Lord’s Supper He did so at the setting of the Passover, which was no ordinary, common meal, but was in fact a very specified meal consisting of items outlined in the law given to Moses. However, Jesus did not intend for His future church to carry on the Passover, or even to change the Passover into an agapé meal – nowhere does the New Testament necessarily imply such an action – not even Jude 12!

THE DAY THE LORD’S SUPPER WAS OBSERVED

The day and the frequency of which the Lord’s Supper is to be observed are of utmost importance. Since the major purpose of this treatise is to analyze the Lord’s Supper and early agapé feasts, I shall only make a few brief observations as it relates to the specific day in which the Lord’s Supper was observed during the apostolic era.

There can be no denying the significance of the “first day of the week” as it was clearly emphasized in the New Testament canon:

1. Jesus was resurrected on “the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9).

2. Christianity was inaugurated and the church was established in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, which always fell on the first day of the week. (Acts 2:1-47; cf., Leviticus 23:15-16)

3. Paul stayed on in Troas for an entire week that he might be able to assemble “on the first day of the week” in order “to break bread” with the disciples (Acts 20:27).

4. Paul commanded the brethren in Galatia and Corinth to financially contribute “on the first day of every week” (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

5. The vast majority of commentators believe that John’s use of the “Lord’s Day” [kuriakeÉ heemÉra] in Revelation 1:10 refers specifically to the first day of the week – the day following the Sabbath. (Henry, Clarke, Jamieson, Faussett & Brown, Zerr, Barnes, Barclay, Hendriksen, McGuiggan, Hailey, Lenski, Morris (Tyndale), Wycliffe, Robertson, Vincent, the UBS Translator – to mention a few). Moreover, it is interesting to note that “Lord’s” [Kuriakos – translated as a possessive] is found only here and in 1 Corinthians 11:20 where it is attached to “Supper” [KuriakÓn deÍpnon]. The Greek has it as an adjective whereas we must employ it as a genitive (possessive), that is, something peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ (Lenski). “It properly means ‘pertaining to the Lord’” (Barnes). Is it a coincidence that the “Lord’s Supper” was observed on the “Lord’s Day”?

One might ask why the day on which the New Testament church partook of the Lord’s Supper is relevant to this discussion. The question takes us yet one more time to Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts” [ESV]. If “breaking bread” in this passage refers to an agapé feast with its correlation to the Lord’s Supper, as some contend, then it serves as a precedent for the church to observe the Lord’s Supper on a daily basis. The editors of the Living Bible may have made their paraphrase of this verse based on this assumption: “They worshiped together regularly at the Temple each day, met in small groups for Communion, and shared their meals with great joy and thankfulness…” There are far too many liberties in this paraphrase. Why was the word “Communion” used, particularly with a capital “C”? First, in the Greek text the word koinonÍa (fellowship or communion) is not found in the sentence, as it is in verse 42. This is not translative, but interpretive. Second, Luke indicates the “day by day” life of the first congregation in Jerusalem. The phrases “day by day” and “house to house” are distributive; te…te (“and”…”and” – an enclitic weak connective particle; coordinating conjunction), which correlates the first two participles (“attending” or “continuing” and “breaking”). The believers both visited the Temple and broke bread house by house on a daily basis. The daily visits to the Temple were made for the purpose of participation in the Temple worship, as we see Peter and John doing in Acts 3:1. Its spacious colonnades and hallsem afforded them room for their own assemblies. The Jewish believers’ forced separation from the Temple generally occurred gradually and naturally. Obviously, in time the disciples of Jesus would not be welcome in the Jewish temple, especially to stress the teachings of Jesus. Wherever there was a Christian home its residents partook of their food “in exultation of heart,” with high delight in the grace vouchsafed them, and in “simplicity or singleness of heart,” rejoicing in the one thing that filled their hearts with much joy (Lenski). The conclusion that “breaking bread” in verse 46 refers to the Lord’s Supper is supported neither grammatically nor contextually. It does emphasize, however, how important it was for the local Jerusalem disciples to share their daily meals with the other Jewish disciples that were far away from their homes. It is an excellent example of loving hospitality, something that should be stressed and practiced today (see Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; 1 Peter 4:8-9), which is an act of sincere agapé.

As to the frequency of the observance of the Lord’s Supper, in the minds of many this is more difficult to establish and is thereby more difficult to bind doctrinally. Let me suggest that the observance of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week is the only conclusion that makes sense!

The validity of the weekly participation in the memorial known as the Lord’s Supper and the validity of the weekly assembly on the first day of the week known as the Lord’s Day stands or falls together. The arguments for the one are as strong and valid, or as weak and invalid, as the arguments for the other. I believe this sheds a whole new light on the whole issue, and the issue is one of consistency. To insist on the weekly assembly of the saints for preaching, prayer, fellowship, the giving of money and the singing of praises but not for the observing the Lord’s Supper demonstrates one’s inconsistency in one’s method of Bible interpretation. If not all, then almost all religious denominations see the need to assemble for worship every Sunday, to praise God in music and prayer and to fill the collection plates with money, and yet most of them will usually reduce the Lord’s Supper to a monthly or even a more infrequent observance such as semi-annually or annually. How inconsistent! (Yancey)

Here’s what’s interesting. As noted above, the “first day of the week” (Sunday) has great significance in New Testament theology: the day of the Lord’s resurrection, the establishment of the church, the day the financial offering was to be taken, and certainly the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Is frequency ever implied when it comes to the Lord’s Supper? Listen to the apostle Paul again in 1 Corinthians 11:26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” The one thing we can necessarily infer by Paul’s statement is the fact that the Corinthian Christians were expected to partake of this memorial more than once in their lifetime. The expression, “as often as,” comes from a relative adverb, hōsakis, which implies some kind of frequency – not a mere singular event, as seen in the word hapax that implies a singular event requiring no repetition, as found in Hebrews 9:28: “so Christ was sacrificed once [hapax] to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” [NIV]. Even with the very first members of the church in Acts 2, Luke records, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” [verse 42 – NAU]. Hōsakis, on the other hand, very much indicates a repetition in some particular matter. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice one time for all time [“once” – hapax], but Christians remember that sacrifice frequently [“as often as” – hōsakis]. In the life of a Christian, a one-time observance will not do.

The simple truth is, if it is not necessary (binding) for the Lord’s church to observe the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, then it is not necessary (binding) for the church to even assemble every Sunday, unless one believes the church must only meet “every first day of the week” to take up the collection (1 Corinthians 16:2 – NASB, NAU, NIV, RSV, NLT – which translate kata mian sabbatou as “first day of every week,” or as the NLT & TLB: “every Lord’s Day” – and as the TEV reads, “Every Sunday”).

By way of illustration, think about the fourth commandment under the Old Law, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). The Israelites were told to work six days, “but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 5:14). They understood that every Sabbath was to be so observed, nothing less than every Sabbath every week! When the Sabbath came faithful Jews observed it. Similarly, Christians assembled together on the “first day of the week” and they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). One of the primary purposes of this weekly assembly is to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and in doing this “often,” Christians continue “to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). When the first day of the week comes faithful Christians assemble and remember the sacrificial death of Jesus.

Furthermore, the argument that suggests that the Lord’s Supper can be observed arbitrarily at the desire of the church is reductio ad absurdum. Consider, if there is no binding biblical requirement to observe the Lord’s Supper on a specifically established time frame and it has been left to the discretion of the church, then it would be acceptable to do so once a month, as many denominations do. However, by that same subjective criteria it would then follow that once a year would also be satisfactory, as well as once a decade, or even once in a lifetime. If not, why not? The position that supports such a proposition is reduced to an absurdity in that its logical conclusion is the approval of an once-in-a-lifetime observance of the most important memorial of all time. Again, the Scriptures are abundantly clear that the early Christians observed the Lord’s Supper regularly (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:26).

THE HISTORICITY OF THE “AGAPÉ FEAST”

Our first analysis shall be exclusively biblical as we explore the lexical usage of the phrase “love feasts,” which is found only in Jude, verse 12: “These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots” (NKJV). The Greek word agÁpais [a)ga/pai$] has been translated as “love feasts” in most English translations of the Bible because of the verbal phrasing in which it sits: hoútoí eisin hoi en taís agápais humoón spiládes suneuoochoúmenoi aphóboos heautoús poimaínontes [ou!toi/ ei)sin oi( e)n tai=$ a)ga/pai$ u(mw=n spila/de$ suneuwxou/menoi a)fo/bw$ e(autou\$ poimai/nonte$] = “These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear…” Interestingly, agápais is simply a cognate form of the well-known word agapé [a)ga/ph], which is normally translated as “love.” Agápais is in the dative case, making it the indirect object of the sentence, and is a feminine plural noun. The verse would make little to no sense if it was translated, “These are spots in your love(s).” Agápais becomes idiomatic because it is attached to the verbal phrase, “while they feast” [suneuoochoúmenoi], hence “love feasts.” Suneuoochoúmenoi is also found in 2 Peter 2:13, which is a similar warning: “They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you [suneuoochoúmenoi].” While no form of agapé is found in the 2 Peter passage, the admonitions found within Jude and 2 Peter 2 are obviously parallel. However, in Jude 12, the idiomatic nature of agápais is so apparent that Gingrich morphologically describes the word as “a common meal of the Christian church,” and cites 2 Peter 2:13 as well. The word is definitely linked to an activity in which Christian brethren were engaged in the eating or feasting of a meal, but does not in itself indicate the observance of the Lord’s Supper, which is a conclusion assumed by numerous commentators based on their reading of various post-biblical writers, including the Ante-Nicene library. (We will consider those sources immediately after this section.)

The purpose of the little epistle of Jude was to identify and expose the false teachers that had permeated the Christian community at large and to articulate the certainty of their pending judgment. There is nothing in the context to conclusively prove what kind of feasts these were. Some have suggested that the expression refers to the type of feasts that Jesus recommended in Luke 14:12-14: “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Davison). Perhaps. Christians meeting together in the spirit of love and common faith as they shared their physical meals is most definitely an act of agapé. It would have been easy for the false teachers to use these opportunities to advance their insidious doctrines. However, to cite Jude 12 as an approved apostolic example for incorporating a “love feast” with the Lord’s Supper is not only an assumption, but ignores Paul’s express forbiddance: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Corinthians 11:22), and, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment” (1 Corinthians 11:34). Where within the texts (Jude 12 or 2 Peter 2:13) is the Lord’s Supper to be absolutely assumed?

The Post-Biblical Sources

As mentioned earlier, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia contains a rather lengthy section on the Agapé and its possible relationship to the Lord’s Supper. Its conclusions are based primarily on the writings of the Didache, which is also called the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” It was possibly written as early as 65 A.D., but more likely around the turn of the century. It is supposed to be what the twelve apostles taught to the Gentiles concerning life and death, church order, fasting, baptism, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, etc. There is debate as to its authenticity. The work is cited by Eusebius who lived from 260-341 and Athanasius 293-373. It was referenced by Origen who lived from 185-254. In the Didache, 16:2-3 is quoted in the Epistle of Barnabbas in 4:9, or vice versa.The Epistle of Barnabbas was written in 130-131 A.D. (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: http://carm.org/christianity/miscellaneous-topics/didache).

The following information is excerpted from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article entitled AGAPÉ written by J.C. Lambert:

“2. Origin of the Agape: So far as the Jerusalem community was concerned, the common meal appears to have sprung out of the koinonia or communion that characterized the first days of the Christian church (compare Acts 1:14; 2:1 etc.). The religious meals familiar to Jews– the Passover being the great type– would make it natural. [sic] In Jerusalem to give expression by means of table fellowship to the sense of brotherhood, and the community of goods practised by the infant church (2:44; 4:32) would readily take the particular form of a common table at which the wants of the poor were supplied out of the abundance of the rich (6:1ff). The presence of the Agape in the Greek church of Corinth was no doubt due to the initiative of Paul, who would hand on the observances associated with the Lord’s Supper just as he had received them from the earlier disciples; but participation in a social meal would commend itself very easily to men familiar with the common meals that formed a regular part of the procedure at meetings of those religious clubs and associations which were so numerous at that time throughout the Greek-Roman world.

“3. Relation to the Eucharist: In the opinion of the great majority of scholars the Agape was a meal at which not only bread and wine but all kinds of viands were used, a meal which had the double purpose of satisfying hunger and thirst and giving expression to the sense of Christian brotherhood. At the end of this feast, bread and wine were taken according to the Lord’s command, and after thanksgiving to God were eaten and drunk in remembrance of Christ and as a special means of communion with the Lord Himself and through Him with one another. The Agape was thus related to the Eucharist as Christ’s last Passover to the Christian rite which He grafted upon it. It preceded and led up to the Eucharist, and was quite distinct from it. In opposition to this view it has been strongly urged by some modern critical scholars that in the apostolic age the Lord’s Supper was not distinguished from the Agape, but that the Agape itself from beginning to end was the Lord’s Supper which was held in memory of Jesus. It seems fatal to such an idea, however, that while Paul makes it quite evident that bread and wine were the only elements of the memorial rite instituted by Jesus (1 Cor. 11:23-29), the abuses which had come to prevail at the social gatherings of the Corinthian church would have been impossible in the case of a meal consisting only of bread and wine (compare verses 21, 33 f). [sic] Moreover, unless the Eucharist in the apostolic age had been discriminated from the common meal, it would be difficult to explain how at a later period the two could be found diverging from each other so completely.

“4. Separation from the Eucharist: In the Didache (cir 100 A.D.) there is no sign as yet of any separation. The direction that the second Eucharistic prayer should be offered “after being filled” (x. 1) appears to imply that a regular meal had immediately preceded the observance of the sacrament. In the Ignatian Epistles (cir 110 A.D.) the Lord’s Supper and the Agape are still found in combination (Ad Smyrn viii. 2). It has sometimes been assumed that Pliny’s letter to Trajan (cir 112 A.D.) proves that the separation had already taken place, for he speaks of two meetings of the Christians in Bithynia, one before the dawn at which they bound themselves by a “sacramentum” or oath to do no kind of crime, and another at a later hour when they partook of food of an ordinary and harmless character (Ep x. 96). But as the word “sacramentum” cannot be taken here as necessarily or even probably referring to the Lord’s Supper, the evidence of this passage is of little weight. When we come to Justin Martyr (cir 150 A.D.) we find that in his account of church worship he does not mention the Agape at all, but speaks of the Eucharist as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayers and exhortation (Apol, lxvii); so that by his time the separation must have taken place. Tertullian (cir 200 A.D.) testifies to the continued existence of the Agape (Apol, 39), but shows clearly that in the church of the West the Eucharist was no longer associated with it (De Corona, 3). In the East the connection appears to have been longer maintained (see Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 102 ff), but by and by the severance became universal; and though the Agape continued for long to maintain itself as a social function of the church, it gradually passed out of existence or was preserved only as a feast of charity for the poor.

“5. Reasons for the Separation: Various influences appear to have cooperated in this direction. Trajan’s enforcement of the old law against clubs may have had something to do with it (compare Pliny as above), but a stronger influence probably came from the rise of a popular suspicion that the evening meals of the church were scenes of licentious revelry and even of crime. The actual abuses which already meet us in the apostolic age (1 Cor. 11:20ff; Jude verse 12), and which would tend to multiply as the church grew in numbers and came into closer contact with the heathen world, might suggest the advisability of separating the two observances. But the strongest influence of all would come from the growth of the ceremonial and sacerdotal spirit by which Christ’s simple institution was slowly turned into a mysterious priestly sacrifice. To Christ Himself it had seemed natural and fitting to institute the Supper at the close of a social meal. But when this memorial Supper had been transformed into a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary by the action of the ministering priest, the ascetic idea became natural that the Eucharist ought to be received fasting, and that it would be sacrilegious to link it on to the observances of an ordinary social meal” (J.C. Lambert; I.S.B.E., Vol. I, page 70).

Lambert readily admits that many of the conclusions stated in the article are the “opinions” of the great majority of scholars. What I find troubling is that “the great majority of scholars” base their conclusions on post-biblical writings rather than the biblical text itself. However, not all first, second and third century non-canonical writers believed that an agapé feast was to be connected to the Lord’s Supper.

• In Justin Martyr’s description of the Lord’s Supper in First Apology, chapters 65-67, no mention is made of a love feast (ca. 150 A.D.).

• Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8, mentions the two, but separately. Little information is provided in the context. The love feast he mentions could be another name for the Lord’s Supper, or it could be something different.

• Clement of Alexandria (153 – ca. 200), in the Instructor Book I, chapter 1, opposes calling a sumptuous feast an “agapé.” In fact, he makes reference to Luke 14:12-13 as the proper way to have an agapé.

• According to Tertullian (145-220), the agapé was a supper to benefit the needy (Apology, chapter 39). He mentions that the meal was begun and ended by prayer and that hymns were sung, but it is not stated when or where the meal was eaten.

• In the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book II, Sec. IV, chapter 28 (ca. 375-380), the love feast is something which an individual Christian might hold in his own home for the benefit of poor widows. (Davison)

“Commentators are not agreed about the meaning of this word” [agápais]. “Some think Jude is speaking of the ancient love suppers, which Tertullian hath described, Apolog. C. 39. and which do not seem to have been accompanied with the eucharist. – Others think they were those suppers which at first Christians ate previous to their eating the Lord’s Supper, and of which St. Paul hath spoken, 1 Cor. xi. 21. But being afterwards perverted to the purposes of carnal love by the ungodly teachers, 2 Pet. ii. 14, [sic] they were in time disused. The love suppers which Tertullian describes, were continued in the church to the middle of the fourth century, when they were prohibited to be kept in the churches. – As Benson observes, ‘they were called love-feasts or suppers, because the richer Christians brought in a variety of provisions to feed the poor, the fatherless, the widows, and strangers, and ate with them to shew their love to them” (Macknight).

As one commentator noted in his exegesis of Jude 12, “The love feast was more than a symbol in the early church. It was a hearty meal whose cost was partly defrayed by the church. It demonstrated the family spirit of equality and community of goods (cf. Acts 4:34-35). For many humble members of the church it was their best meal of the week. Gluttony and clannishness contradicted the whole spirit of such occasions (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-21). These qualities made the errorists blemishes on love feasts” (Albert Barnett, The Interpreter’s Bible).

Brother W.W. (Bill) Casio wrote an extensive treatise entitled, “The Feast on the Mountain,” in which he highlights numerous biblical accounts that deal with food and meals in both the Old and New Testaments. His contention is that the Bible emphasizes the “table” meal for many of the significant events surrounding God’s people in their fellowship with God and with one another. While it is a valuable source of information regarding the dozens of examples of meal-centered events, I find many of brother Casio’s conclusions subjectively forced, especially his conclusion that Jesus asked His disciples to remember Him at a “meal table,” by which he means the incorporation of an actual full physical meal immediately followed by the sharing of the bread and the fruit of the vine, and contends that the Lord’s Supper was originally referred to as the agapé. Please note the following:

“…He asked to be remembered at a meal table, at supper.

“The New Testament indicates that disciples of Christ did just that. They remembered Jesus at their table. They regularly came together to eat the Lord’s Supper. The early church “broke bread” together daily in his memory (Acts 2:42, 47). They later met on a weekly schedule to break bread (Acts 20:7). It seems probable that when the church “broke bread” they were at the Lord’s table eating the Lord’s Supper. The reference to the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 10:21 appears to be the table Jesus promised to partake of with his disciples in his kingdom (Luke 22:30). The Lord’s Supper was eaten at the Lord’s Table (1 Corinthians 11:23-26), which was the setting for remembering the life of Jesus. It was a supper, an evening meal (deipnon), a place of dramatic memories for Israel’s deliverance and their hopes, and a place to build memories of Jesus and to nurture hope for the future…Jesus was the topic of conversation at the meal and the center piece of the table.

“The Lord’s Supper was mentioned under another name in the New Testament. It was originally referred to as the agape, or love feast (Jude 12 & II Peter 2:13 [sic]). The ancient records of the early church describe the Lord’s Supper as a complete meal shared by the disciples in memory of Jesus. The meal combined the ingredients of fellowship through the sharing of food and doctrine at a common table. This simple act provided for the refreshing of the memory of Jesus. The Lord’s table was set in the environs of a meal for hungry people. Dishes of ordinary food were placed upon a common table and shared freely. The Lord’s Supper was just that, a supper. It was a supper held in honor and memory of Jesus Christ. It fed the poor and honored the lowly. The table included unleavened bread and the cup to remind the participants of his life and his death. They broke the bread and gave thanks at the outset of the supper and then drank the cup in remembrance of him during the supper. Their hearts easily slipped back to the occasions when Jesus held the bread in his hands, broke it and gave thanks. They basked in the sunny recollections of the many meals Jesus shared with the common people. Thoughts of the dark night before his death flooded in upon their souls. The bloody cross of Calvary effortlessly flashed across the panorama of their meditating minds when the cup was raised in his memory” (Casio, pp. 29-30).

Brother Casio makes the assumption that the primitive Jerusalem church “broke bread” daily to remember the death of Jesus, and that it was later (by the time of Acts 20:7) that church began to do so on a weekly basis. Was this “change” under the direction of the apostles? I believe his analysis of Acts 2:42-47 is seriously flawed, as dealt with it earlier. He says that it “was a supper, an evening meal (deipnon).” Deipnon is indeed a “chief meal (usually in the evening),” but is not limited to the evening, especially when used idiomatically, as it is in the expression the “Lord’s Supper.” Would brother Casio assert that the Lord’s Supper must be observed in the evening, say after sundown? No doubt the early Jewish disciples did not assemble until the evening, but why? The Sabbath day had been their day of rest and the first day of the week was a normal workday for them. They were accustomed of going to their jobs on this day. Coming together in the evening after a long day of work, they undoubtedly were hungry and may have very well shared the evening meal together, but was this a part of the Lord’s Supper? Sunday was not the new Christian Sabbath, a new day of rest, but they were taught that it was the day on which they were to assemble together and remember the death of Jesus. They were shown this apostolic example as early as Acts 2, and Paul did so with the Troas Christians (Acts 20:7).

Where in the New Testament is the Lord’s Supper called the agapé? It is an enormous assumption to suggest that Jude 12 is a reference to the Lord’s Supper! It cannot be unequivocally stated. Without question, it is identified as the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20), it is referred to as the “Lord’s Table” (1 Corinthians 10:21), it is called by the idiomatic expression “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42), and it is a “communion” of the body and blood of Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:16).

It is important to note here that the physical location (a home or a church building) is not the issue. The primitive church regularly met in the homes of brethren as they did not own “church buildings.” But regardless of where they physically met, when they “came together as a church,” they were required to do so as directed by apostolic authority. In the 1 Corinthians 11 text, Paul did not give specific instructions on how to conduct a “love feast,” but he certainly gave them simple instructions regarding the Lord Supper when he quoted Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper verbatim (verses 23-25). To “come together as the church” is another idiomatic expression that suggests a specific gathering together for the purpose of worship or some sort of collective work performed by the congregation as a whole (UBS Translator). Indeed, there are some activities that have no business being conducted in the assembled worship of the local church. This is precisely the instruction Paul gives to the errant Corinthian congregation.

Strangely enough, 1 Corinthians 11 is the very passage often used by numerous commentators to support their claim that the Lord’s Supper was eaten in connection with a regular meal in the assembly of the church. However, there is no mention of them having the Lord’s Supper before or after a meal. They were having a meal instead of the Lord’s Supper! Remember, Paul said to the Corinthians, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). Paul said what the Corinthians were doing was not even the Lord’s Supper. Neither could it justifiably be called a “love feast” because their unloving actions were condemned by Paul in no uncertain terms, not only the selfishness involved, but the very idea of having a meal for nourishment as a part of the assembled worship (Davison). And if some of the early congregations were incorporating an agapé feast with the Lord’s Supper, as numerous post-biblical sources conclude, Paul’s rebuke may very well be the inspired instruction that repudiates the practice. The assumed “fact” that some first century congregations may have incorporated a physical meal with the Lord’s Supper is not absolute authority for the practice, unless of course, we have extant an approved apostolic precedent, which we do not. In fact, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is the closest thing we have to such a practice, and it is summarily condemned.

It is also argued that since the Holy Spirit has Paul write, “In the same way He took the cup also after supper” (1 Corinthians 11:25 – emphasis mine, btw), that Paul indicates that Jesus connected the Lord’s Supper (the bread and fruit of the vine) with a full physical meal. I contend that the phrase “after supper” merely qualifies the time and circumstance in which Jesus instituted His memorial. Albert Barnes makes an interesting comment in reference to the phrase: “[When he had supped] That is, all this occurred after the observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore, be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed, an occasion of feasting. It was AFTER the supper, and was therefore to be observed in a distinct manner” (Barnes). Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree and astutely conclude: “[When he had supped]– Greek, ‘after the eating of supper;’ namely, the Passover preceding the Lord’s supper. So you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord’s supper” (PC Study Bible; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

THE APPLICATION OF AUTHORITY

The agapé feast theory relies too heavily upon the non-canonical writings, particularly the Didache. While there may be some value to this ancient writing, its actual teachings are often in conflict with the inspired Scriptures. Inspired men did not write it! Consider its teaching on the mode of baptism, as taken from Didache 7:1-7:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.

7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and

of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.

7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;

7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of

the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast,

and any others also who are able;

7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, the Didache reads in 9:10-12:

9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving,/p but they that

have been baptized into the name of the Lord;

9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:

9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

The use of “eucharist” in verse 9:10 and the phrase “that which is holy” in verse 9:12 seem to suggest that the bread and wine to be more than merely symbolic, a belief that led to the doctrine of transubstantiation and made the Lord’s Supper a “sacrament.”

The Christian Apologetics Society, a Roman Catholic organization, believes that the Didache should be included in the biblical canon: “Our immediate thought was, no, the Didache does not contradict Christian belief as it was written by 1st Century Christians and was widely circulated and used by the 1st Century Church. In fact, it wasn’t until the 4th Century that the Didache was formally and forever excluded from the canon of the scripture, not for being false, but for being a church manual. Personally, we would have liked the Didache to have been included in the Bible as it would have saved centuries of fussing over the mode of baptism and whether abortion is permissable” (http://christian-apologetics-society).

Regardless of the commentators, the post-biblical writers, the historians and any other non-inspired sources, when we focus our attention on the Bible exclusively and from it extract and contextually analyze every passage dealing with the Lord’s Supper and the agapé feasts, what definitive conclusions do we find? We do not find any substantive teachings or examples that support the agapé feast theory. The authority of God’s inspired Word must govern our understanding, not the conclusions of non-inspired resources.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT

On one hand, many of the proponents of the agapé feast theory are concluding that this was the approved practice of the early apostolic church, whereas the current way in which most local fellowships observe the Lord’s Supper by only serving unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine during the worship assembly on the first day of the week is the result of being influenced by the corruptions of the third century apostate church. The simple observance of the Lord’s Supper has even been sarcastically referred to as “the Lord’s Snack” (Bengard). If that is the case, then this must be a doctrinal matter that needs to be settled that we might “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among” us (1 Corinthians 1:10). On the other hand, however, when strong objections to the agapé feast approach have been made and the dissenters rightfully insist on clear, authoritative, biblical proof of the practice, the proponents claim they have the right to do so as a personal liberty in accordance with Romans 14. I must ask, which is it? Is it a doctrinal matter that the entire church is to practice, or is it a private matter that should never go so far as to divide the church? Which method is right? Do we have the right to offer an “extension” of the Lord’s Supper separate and apart from the assembly of the Lord’s church, even after we have already observed it as Christ’s one body? As important as the Lord’s Supper is, should it not be done in unity?

Conclusion:

In the minds of some, my work will have not gone far enough; and I must admit, it is not an exhaustive study (though it is longer than what I wanted), but I have sincerely tried to cover what I believe to be the essential points that need attention. To others, I suppose, it will be viewed as a superfluous effort that is totally unwarranted. I hope not (I have far too many hours invested in this). Notwithstanding, I have tried to the best of my ability to approach this study honestly and prayerfully. It hurts to know that brethren who at one time stood together side-by-side to serve and worship God are no longer doing so.

THE LORD’S SUPPER AND THE AGAPÉ FEAST

Brent T. Willey

Works Consulted

Arichea, Daniel, Hatton, Howard. United Bible Societies: A Translator’s Handbook. PC Study Bible. Version 2.1J CD ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 1998.

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Bengard, Bret. Pamphlet: The Lord’s Supper: A Table Fellowship. Susanville, CA, 2009.

Bengard, Dane. Class Material: The Complete Disciple (Three Parts: Shadows of the Past, Dinner with Jesus, Communion in the Early Church) Chester, CA, 2009.

Casio, W.W. Treatise: The Feast on the Mountain. Tacoma, WA, No Date.

Clarke, Adam. “Matthew-Revelation.” Clarke’s Commentary: The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Nashville, No Date.

Davison, Roy. Article from Christian Courier: What Are Love Feasts? (Originally published in The Old Paths), No Date.

Henry, Matthew. “Matthew-Revelation.” Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.

Jamieson, Robert, Fausset, A.R., Brown, David. PC Study Bible. Version 2.1J CD ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 1998.

Lambert, J.C. “Agape.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Lenski, R.C.H. “1 Corinthians” & “Jude.” The Interpretation of the Epistles of I & II Corinthians; The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966.

Lyons, Eric. Article from Christian Courier: “Breaking Bread” on the “First Day of the Week.” No Date.

Macknight, James. Apostolical Epistles with a Commentary, and Notes. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, No Date.

Mounce, William. The Analytical Lexicon to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Robertson, A.T. “Epistles of Paul” & “General Epistles and Revelation of John.” Words Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933.

Thayer, Joseph. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

United Bible Society Translator Handbook Series. PC Study Bible. Version 2.1J CD ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 1998.

Vincent, M.R. Word Studies in the New Testament. McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Co, No Date.

Vine, W.E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966.

Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1971.

Wycliffe, John. “Second Peter.” PC Study Bible. Version 2.1J CD ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 1998.

Yancey, Walt. Endangered Heritage: An Evaluation of Church of Christ Doctrine. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1987.

Zerr, E.M. “First Corinthians-Revelation.” Bible Commentary. Fairmont, Indiana: Cogdill Foundation, 1954.