(1) You are relying on "the vast majority of authorities," not the Word of God, to prove that 1
Cor. is referring to a "love feast." The apostle Paul did not say, nor did he indicate that it was a
love feast. Let me emphasize emphatically that to establish one's doctrine solely by lexicons and
commentaries is a very grave evil as shown by the following passages:
"Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4).
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8).
"...That we should not longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive..." (Eph. 4:14; see also Gal. 1:6-9; Matt. 7:15; 15:9; 2 John 9; Titus 1:13-14).
Catholics claim that we can only understand the Bible by means of the Catholic Church, the
Infallible interpreter of the Bible. If true, it means the Catholic Church is superior to the Bible. To
argue that we must understand the Word of God by the so-called scholars, makes the scholars
superior to the Bible.
(2) You didn't give quotes from "the vast majority of authorities" to prove that they say such. You
simply expect us to take your word for it. I have attached a long list of quotes which show that
the vast majority of authorities, including some of the very ones you listed, teach the very
opposite of what you are trying to teach. Please bear in mind that I am not quoting those works to
prove my position. I quote them to show that what you are saying about the scholars is not true.
It would be interesting to examine all the "authorities" to see what they teach on the purpose of
baptism. If we must take what the "vast majority of authorities" teach on one thing, why not other
things?
(3) Your own words, as well as some of the so-called authorities you quoted, say that the meal of
1 Cor. 11 was a meal eaten before and/or lead into the Lord's Supper. Thus, by your own
admission, that which occurred in 1 Cor. 11 is not what you propose to do. Would you propose a
meal before or along with the Lord Supper? According to the so-called "authorities," the love
feasts must be eaten in the following manner.
Eaten before/with the Lord's Supper.
J.C. Lambert, ISBE, p. 70
Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of N.T. Theology, Vol. 2, 1986, p. 547
Religious Knowledge, Baker, 1955, p. 18
With Fish and Various Vegetables.
James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Charles Scribner & Sons, p. 556
Must Only Eat with Elders.
Hyppolytus in Early Christians Speak, by Everett Ferguson, ACU Press, 1987, p. 130
Followed by Washing of Hands, Lighting of Lamps and Chanting.
Tertullian, Ibid, p. 130
The unbaptized were not allowed to eat at the same table.
Everett Ferguson, Ibid., p. 134
An exorcism is pronounced in order to deliver it from the sphere of demons.
Everett Ferguson, Ibid., p. 134).
Much more research needs to be done regarding the above list. The point I'm making, however,
is: "If you are seeking to prove the love feasts by the so-called authorities, you must take ALL
that they say on it." In other words, if you are using them to establish that it was a love feast, you
must also use them regarding what they say the love feast was.
(4) As we have emphasized before, "love feasts" are not authorized in the Scriptures because we
do not have information on any of the following.
1. Who are to provide the "love feasts" - the rich, the church collectively, individually?
2. Of what did the "love feasts" consist?
3. How often were the "love feasts" observed?
4. Where were the "love feasts" to be observed?
You said regarding verse 22, "Paul is addressing, and reproving, the self-indulgers-not the whole
church-when he says, 'Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?' This is obvious because
he identifies them as the ones who were 'despising the church of God and shaming those who had
nothing.' And he was reminding them that the main purpose of the love feast was not filling their
bellies-satisfying hunger." Please consider the following:
(1) You assume the very thing you need to prove, that verse 22 (and other verses in 1 Cor. 11) is
referring to a love feast. To assume something and then assert it, is no way to prove anything. The
inspired writer neither says nor indicates that it is a love feast. Not only have you assumed that it
is a love feast, you have also assumed that it is the kind of love feast you think it is.
(2) One simple question refutes all that you said regarding verse 22; namely, "Would not Paul's
rebuke apply to any who are guilty?" Paul did not say, "Do you self-indulgers not have houses to
eat and drink in?" He did not say, "Do you rich brethren not have houses to eat and drink in?"
However, this is the very thing you are trying to make the verse mean. Paul's rebuke would apply
to all who were guilty whether rich or poor.
(3) Please notice that Paul did not correct a so-called love feast. In other words, he did not say,
"What! Have you not love feasts to eat and drink in?" Or, "You rich need to stop shaming the
poor and share your meals with all." Or, "Have you not fellowship halls and church kitchens to eat
and drink in?" Or, "If anyone is hunger, let him wait until after the services and assemble together
at that time to satisfy his hunger." Instead, Paul specifically and emphatically told them the place
for satisfying their hunger.
You said, "Yet, once again, as I have just shown, Paul does not order the end of their love feasts
as he reproves them. Rather, he orders them to share with one another in the love feasts,
repenting of their selfish, condescending attitudes towards their brethren." Again, please notice
the following:
(1) You continue to use the term "love feast" as though one existed. Thus, you keep assuming the
very thing you need to prove.
(2) The fact that "Paul does not order the end of their love feasts" does not prove that a "love
feast" existed. To state a negative, doesn't prove a positive. For example, Paul does not order an
end to instrumental music in worship, baptizing babies, etc.
(3) For arguments sake, let's assume that it was the kind of meal you say it was. Certainly, Paul
ordered an end to their corrupted meal, when he said, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and
drink in? (applies to all who have houses, DR) Or do you despise the church of God? (applies to
all who despise the church of God, DR) and shame those who have nothing (applies to all who
shame those who have nothing, DR)." "But if anyone (applies to all rich or poor, DR) is hungry,
let him eat at home..." Definitely, Paul did not "order them to share their love feast" as you claim.
Regarding verses 29-31, you stated,
"Therefore, when they were partaking of the Lord's Supper, having despised and disregarded their poor brethren as they had in the love feasts, they were eating the Lord's Supper unworthily (vs. 27)-and were, thus, 'guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.'"
"Also, 'judging ourselves'-that is, properly regarding one another-would correct what they had been failing to do, as they had been 'despising the church of God.' By properly discerning or judging one another, they would stop despising/disregarding one another. And thus, they would be able to partake of the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner, no longer eating and drinking judgment to themselves."
(1) I believe you misunderstand what is to be discerned or judged in these verses. It is not that we
should judge others as you claim, but we should judge concerning the Lord. In other words, we
need to think about what the emblems represent-the atonement sacrifice of Christ. In the original
Greek, the word order of verse 31 is, "For if we ourselves would judge, we would not be judged."
Thus, the judging is not toward others but within ourselves. We must rightly discern within
ourselves as we partake of the Lord's Supper.
(2) Regarding your above statements, let me ask a very important question here. "In which meal
had they despised their poor brethren?" It seems to me that you have in your above statements
defeated your own argumentation. It seems to me that you should say, "And thus, they would be
able to partake of the love feast in a worthy manner" but instead, you said, "And thus, they would
be able to partake of the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner." If properly partaking the Lord
Supper involves "judging ourselves," "not despising the church of God," "not
despising/disregarding one another" etc., as you claim from verses 27-31, also properly partaking
of the Lord's Supper involves "not despising the church of God," "not despising/disregarding one
another" etc., in verse 22. Thus, your own argument annihilates your love feasts.
Concerning verse 33, you said, "I realize that you and other brethren have contended that Paul is
just saying they are to 'wait' to partake of the Lord's Supper, not the love feast. But in so
interpreting this verse, you are ignoring the context." Let me ask, "Who is actually ignoring the
context here?" I beseech you to please let the Holy Spirit reveal what is involved in the context.
"Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk." (Vs. 20-21).
"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.'" (Vs. 23-24).
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (Vs. 26-29).
You said, "And, I might add, all the authorities I listed earlier explain verse 33 just as I have
here." Actually, very few of the authorities you mentioned say anything at all regarding verse 33.
Definitely, many scholars other than the ones you listed do not agree with your interpretation of
the verse. Even if all of them did, what would it prove? We will not be judged in the last day by a
single word they have written.
May God be with you, as well as me, in the study and application of His Word.
Brotherly,
David J. Riggs