LOVE-FEAST
LOVE-FEAST
17
' to know God ' is used as synonymous with ' loving God.' 'To know' is taken in such connexions in the pregnant sense which implies intimacy of acquaintance and the fellowship of affection. At the same time there is in this an indirect protest against the unethical intellectualisra of the false Gnosis (1 Jn 2«- ^ is. u 31. e 46. 7. 8. le 520).
Both the Gospel and the First Epistle emphasize the universalism of the love of God as demon- strated in the gift of Christ for the sin of 'the world.' In Jn 3^^ 'the world' (6 Kda/xos) seems to be rather qualitatively than quantitatively con- ceived ; the gieatness of God's love is seen in this, that He loves that which is sinful (cf. 1 Jn 2^). Both the Gospel and the Epistle also lay stress on the primacy of love in the character of God (1 Jn 48. icj_ That the universalism must not be under- stood as appropriating the love of God in its most pregnant sense to every man indiscriminately appears from such statements as Jn e^'-'*^-''* 13' IS*** j-js. 9. i2_ ^ predestinarian strand is traceable in St, John as well as in St. Paul. And that the clear statement about the primacy of love in God should not be construed to the exclusion of every other attribute or disposition in God appears plainly from the difference which both the Gospel and the Epistle make between God's and Christ's attitude to- wards the world and towards believers — a difference inconceivable were there in God no place for aught but love. The statement ' God is love ' means to affirm that into His love God puts His entire being, all the strength of His character. In the Apoca- lypse it is most vividly brought out that in God, besides love for His own, there is wrath for His enemies (cf. even ' the wrath of the Lamb ' [6^'^]), although it is to be noticed that the Apocalypse speaks as little as the Gospel and the Epistle of God's hatred towards His enemies. The latter term is reserved for the description of the attitude of the world towards God and Christ and believers. The hatred of the world explains the righteous wrath of God and believers against the world (Jn 3-0 V 15'8- =3- 24. 26 17U iiev 0%
Literature. — Schmidt, Handbuch der latefn. tind griech. Synonymik, 18S6, pp. 750-768 ; R. C. Trench, iV2' Synonyms^, 1901, pp. 41-44; J. A. H. Tittmann, de Si/nonvmis in iVT, 1829-32, pp. 50-55 ; H. Cremer, Bibl. - Theol. WOrterlnich der nentest. Grdcitdti, 1911^ s.v. ayairaa) ; Deissmann in ThLZ, 1912, cols. 522-523; E. Sartorius, The. Doctrine of the Divine Love, Eng. tr., 1SS4; G. Vos, 'The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God,' in Presb. and Ref. Review, xiii. [1902] 1-37 ; W. Liitgert, Die Liebe ira AT, 1905. GEEKHARDUS Vos.
LOYE-FEAST — The history of the Agapse or Love-Feasts of the Christian Church is beset with peculiar difficulties, and has given rise to grave differences of opinion among scholars. It has even been maintained by Batiffol * that they were absolutely non-existent in the Apostolic Age ; and, though this view has not found general ac- ceptance, it certainly deserves to be treated with respect. The name is indeed found only in the Epistle of Jude (v.12 ; cf. also 2 P 2i3), the date of which is quite uncertain ; and it is probable that in the earliest days the name was unknown. Still there is reason to believe that the common meals, which afterwards gained the name of Agapae, were held by Christians from the beginning. These common meals were an external expression of the sense of brotherhood which was characteristic of the primitive Christian churches, and they were no doubt suggested by similar institutions, which seem to have been common among both Jews and Gentiles. It is also probable that the recollection of the Last Supper of our Lord with His disciples was an additional cause of the holding of these meals.
1. In the Acts. — The Acts of the Apostles gives * £txtdes d'histoire et de theologie positive^, Paris, 1907.
US a picture of the life of the primitive Church at Jerusalem.* In Ac 2''- we read that the converts ' continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.' In v.'"' we read that 'day by day, con- tinuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart.' These passages are patient of an interpretation which excludes anything like an Agape. ' Breaking bread ' may refer only to the Eucharist ; and the reference to the taking of food may be merely an expression denoting their joyous manner of life. So it is understood by Batiffol.t But the view of Leclercq :J: seems more probable — that the breaking of bread was accompanied by a meal. For we know that that was the case at Corinth, and it is exceedingly probable that the communism of the Church at Jerusalem would involve common meals. Indeed, something of the kind seems to be indicated by Ac 6^ That this included the Eucharist there can be very little doubt, though it is unlikely that it was identical with the Euchar- ist. The 'breaking of the bread' is an unusual phrase, and as it seems clear that in Corinth the Eucharist took place during or at the end of a supper, so it probably did in Jerusalem. But the evidence is not sufficient to make any conclusion certain. In Ac 20"'" we read that at Troas on the first day of the week the Christians were gathered together to break bread. St. Paul spoke to them till midnight, broke bread and tasted it. Here the object of the meeting was the breaking of bread. And the whole context points to its having been a religious rite. There is no hint of a meal in the ordinary sense. The word yeva-d/xevos cer- tainly does not necessarily imply it. It is, how- ever, possible, though it seems unlikely, that such a meal took place.