You are on page 1of 1

What do I really feel about the love feast issue? Maybe this will make more sense.

1) If the love feast we practice is not one of our own interpretation and we don’t do it independently
of Jesus that is good. It is a visible NEW TESTAMENT example. Should we practice it. Yes. Is the
meal irrevocably essential? I cannot give an emphatic yes. Does love feast = meal? Loosely,
perhaps. Precisely no. In much the same way the bread and the cup are physical representations
of great and essential spiritual truths, (the blood and body of Jesus, forgiveness of sin, etc) I
believe the meal is only a physical representaion of great and essential spiritual concepts (agape
love/vertical - horizontal love/mystical union of Jesus with His Body/spiritual nourishment and
nurturing of Jesus,etc) and only a part of what is meant by the term love feast. Webster’s
dictionary says that the love feast was a meal shared by early Christians when they gathered, that
symbolized brotherhood and affection for one another. Personally I think that Webster’s
definition provides a fine explanation for the physical portion of the love feast, but does not
explain the complete spiritual essence of the term.
2) If the love feast that we practice is slightly out of kilter, but Jesus is the primary reason we are
celebrating the lovefeast, that is adequate, but only because of God’s grace.
3) If Jesus is not the primary reason we are sharing the meal, it doesn’t matter whether we are
practicing a good simulation or bad simulation of the love feast; it may look like the love feast, but
has lost the vital essence

Centrality of Jesus 1

Love good

Centrality of Jesus 2

Love feast


of Love
Feast bad