Love Feast Notes Diagram

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 Love feast

1 good

Centrality of Jesus

2 Love feast

O.K . Centrality of Love Feast

3 bad