What do Preterists Believe About the Lord's Supper?

By David Green

“Continuation Preterism” vs. "Cessationist Preterism"
Also "AD70 Dispensationalism"

"the New Testament Church entered the spiritual Promised Land in A.D. 70"

[Note: not all views stated are Green's ; however, all views stated are Hyper Preterism]
 

QUESTION 75: What do preterists believe about the Lord's Supper? Do they still practice it today, or do they think it was abolished in A.D. 70?
 

ANSWER: Preterists are divided on this issue, although it seems that most preterists today hold to the continuation of the Lord's Supper. Below are the seven primary “Continuation-Versus-Cessation” arguments that are being discussed among preterists. (The first four are Cessation arguments with Continuation responses, and the last three are Continuation arguments with Cessation responses.)
 

1. “Until He Comes”
 

Cessation argument: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” (I Cor. 11:26) The Lord came in A.D. 70. This means the Church is not commanded to proclaim the Lord's death by means of “the Lord's Supper” after A.D. 70.
 

Continuation response: The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.
 

2. “Until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”
 

Cessation argument: “For I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 22:16) The Lord's Supper was an unfulfilled ritual and sign. It foreshadowed “Christ in you.” Therefore it was “fulfilled” when Christ made His Dwelling in the Church in A.D. 70. (Jn. 14:23; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19; Rev. 3:20; 21:2-3) Now we dine with Him in the Kingdom, and no longer through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance.
 

Continuation response: “Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.
 

3. “Until that Day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom”
 

Cessation argument: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that Day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16-18) We dine with Christ in a “new” way today, that is, in the New Covenant way. He partakes of the "new wine" of the Kingdom (“the Vine”) with us, not in the old covenant way, as He did in the "transition era"; not through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance, but in a non-ceremonial, spiritual way. The Last Days symbol of "Christ in you" ("the Lord's Supper") was made "new" (Rev. 21:5) by the A.D.-70 fulfillment of "Christ in you."

Continuation response: Since A.D. 70, Christ takes the Lord's Supper with us in a “new” way, i.e., with “new” meaning. The Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance, but it is a celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.

4. Manna

The Manna that the Israelites ate and the drink that they drank in the wilderness represented the Lord's body and blood. (Jn. 6:31-56; I Cor. 10:3-4)  The Lord's Supper also represented the Lord's body and blood.  When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the representative food and the representative drink ceased.  Likewise, when the New Testament Church entered the spiritual Promised Land in A.D. 70, the representative food and drink ("the Lord's Supper") ceased.

Continuation response: The manna and the Lord's Supper are not likened to each other in Scripture. They are contrasted. In Jn. 6:31-56, the manna is contrasted with the Lord's Supper, i.e., with Christ's “flesh and blood.” The manna was temporary. The Lord's Supper (His “flesh and blood”) is an eternal New Covenant ordinance. Likewise in I Cor. 10:3-4, the manna and the water in the wilderness were temporary, but the Lord's Supper (of which Paul speaks in the same chapter) is eternal.

5. Passover

Continuation argument: The Israelites took the Passover while they awaited their redemption in Egypt. Then after they entered the Promised Land, they continued to observe the Passover throughout the entire old covenant age. The Lord's Supper is the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. The New Covenant Church took the Lord's Supper while it awaited its redemption from the old covenant age. (Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30) Then after the Church entered the (spiritual) Promised Land (in A.D. 70), it was to continue taking the Lord's Supper throughout the entire New Covenant Age. Just like the Passover, the Lord's Supper is an age long Covenant-ordinance.

Cessation response: "The Lord's Supper" was not the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. "The Lord's Supper" was the Passover. (Lk. 22:15-16) It was a continuation of and a redefinition of the Passover for the Last Days Church. Because "the Lord's Supper" was itself the Passover, "the Lord's Supper" was fulfilled at the same time the Passover was fulfilled: In A.D. 70. Christ Himself in us is the Fulfillment / Antitype of the Passover (I Cor. 5:7-8) and of "the Lord's Supper." (Lk. 22:16)

6. Given to Gentiles

Continuation argument: The Lord's Supper was given to Gentile believers. This proves that it was not an “old covenant ritual.” It is therefore a New Covenant ordinance and is to be observed forever.

Cessation response: The Lord's Supper was a “transition ritual,” just like the revelatory gifts (tongues and prophecy) were “transition gifts” that were given to both Jews and gentiles, until the gifts were fulfilled and done away in A.D. 70. “The Lord's Supper” was likewise a sign to the Jews, to "proclaim the Lord's death” in all nations until He came and destroyed the hand-made, old covenant temple. (I Cor. 11:26)

7. Signs and Seals

Continuation argument: God always gave "signs and seals" with His covenants. This is the pattern of Scripture. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14; Rom. 4:11) Under the New Covenant, we now have two "signs and seals": Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Cessation response: The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The "sign" of that covenant (circumcision) was fulfilled and replaced with spiritual circumcision (i.e., "the circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11), not with "the Lord's Supper" and ritual baptism. Christ Himself came to dwell in us in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of all the "signs" and of all the fleshly ordinances. (including "the Lord's Supper") He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is a covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more "signs."

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

Date:

05 Aug 2002

Time:

12:50:15

Comments

The only question seems to be whether or not the Lord's Supper was the Passover. If so, then it makes perfect sense why Paul referred to a terminus to the event at the coming of the Lord.. And what other terminus could he be referring to except that great terminus that awaited that generation??

Date:

05 Aug 2002

Time:

21:00:50

Comments

Looks obvious to me cessation has more solid biblical support.

Date:

05 Aug 2002

Time:

21:12:27

Remote User:

Comments

Amen. If David Green has accurately represented the primary bases for continuation, then continuation is on highly dubious exegetical ground.

Date:

05 Aug 2002

Time:

23:33:38

Comments

Continuation has a legitimate response to #1, but in light of #'s 2-7, even #1 goes to the cessation side! Cessation 7. Continuation 0.

Date:

06 Aug 2002

Time:

03:23:46

Remote User:

Comments

It seems once you start down the road of truth (preterism), you will eventually have to give up all your old truditions. Why is it so hard to just worship in Spirit and Truth?

Date:

06 Aug 2002

Time:

14:23:58

Comments

Without ever discussing the this issue with anyone, I determined that "Lord's Supper" was not something I needed to practice as I had been taught, and therefore did not apply as it had been presented to me. I came to this conclusion purely by my own study and leading of the Spirit. I thought I must be crazy and dared not mention it to anyone. Now that I see others have come to the same conclusion, I think we maybe are all being lead by the same Spirit. Do any of you ever question by what Spirit are we being lead? While I feel that I am right, I don't ever feel that not capable of being wrong. When I start droping tradition, it's hard, and I get fought at every turn. Am I alone?

Date:

06 Aug 2002

Time:

19:15:38

Remote User:

Comments

Excellent! The Lord's Supper (the Passover) was the last days church's "Manna" "until" the Parousia, at which time the Lord's Supper was "fulfilled" and made "new" in the Kingdom. Which means, "Christ Himself came to dwell in us in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of ...'the Lord's Supper.' He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is a covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more 'signs.'" Solid! Keep up the good work.

Date:

07 Aug 2002

Time:

11:42:16

Comments

Is there anyone out there who thinks that these "continuation arguments," taken as a whole, really have any biblical weight?? The only way that are convincing is if we assume they are true!

Date:

08 Aug 2002

Time:

05:03:24

Remote User:

Comments

Bro David: In love I submit you still have a Terminal Eschatology and differ in hermeneutics none whatsoever from the hyper-dispensationalist. It's over! Jesus has established his Kingdom, Death has been defeated, Satan has been destroyed, the Law no longer holds men in fear of death and the world is not going to end. What purpose is baptism, the lord's supper? Jesus has been proven to be the Messiah (baptism's purpose)and the Jesus has proven he could return (70A.D.) and the lord's supper has served its purpose. Are we still bound to the traditions and teachings of men? Bob usmc1div@earthlink.net P. S. We can't have our cake and eat it too. As Paul my goal is to arrive at my resurrection (death)alhough Bro. Paul came a little short of it, he is still probably satisfied with his current state.

Date:

10 Aug 2002

Time:

02:22:52

Comments

Regarding Continuation argument #5: How could "the Lord's Supper" be a fulfillment / antitype if "the Lord's Supper" itself had yet to be fulfilled? (Lk. 22:16)

Date:

11 Aug 2002

Time:

07:39:47

Remote User:

Comments

It appears that tradition is a stronghold indeed. The entire preterist position rests upon faith that scripture is accurate - that Jesus did come again, the resurrection of the dead did occur, the White Throne Judgment happened, etc. Simply put, Jesus spoke of things "spiritual" - a kingdom not of this world - a kingdom not of observation. However, we still seem to require a "sign"; An observable ritual or something to "prove" we are followers of the faith. If a preterist believes these practices have ceased, they are usually accused of being a "hyper" preterist, as if they believe in "too much" fulfillment. My question is, how much fulfillment has Jesus accomplished? How much transition period do we drag along with us? The NT teaches the building of a SPIRITUAL house through SPIRITUAL rebirth, worship, and sacrifices. Where is the emphasis on continued carnal ordinances? I guess Jesus made a "continuance" statement when He asked if He would find faith on the earth when He "come"!

Date:

12 Aug 2002

Time:

01:05:33

Comments

PREVIOUS COMMENT: ".....I guess Jesus made a 'continuance' statement when He asked if He would find faith on the earth when He 'come'!" QUESTION: I understood the rest of your comment, but how does Lk. 18:8 imply cessation?

Date:

12 Aug 2002

Time:

11:18:27

Remote User:

Comments

The ritual of communion was created when the Lord Jesus substituted wine for the blood of the Atonement and bread for the body of the Scapegoat. Since the promise of the New Covenant was to complete the Old Covenant and bring the Messiah's kinsmen into the New Jerusalem, then I submit that any "continuation" of New Covenant rituals is post-millenialism and not preterism. The Apostles and prophets addressed the Houses of Judah and Ephraim when they spoke of the restoration of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God has always been the People and the Nation. Their hope was to be reconciled to God and redeemed; that their debt to the Law would be paid by the blood of the Messiah. No one wrote to or about pagans, which is what we would be to Peter and Paul.

Date:

12 Aug 2002

Time:

13:04:07

Comments

In the previous comment, someone said that we would be "pagans" to Peter and Paul because we are not "the Messiah's kinsmen," of "the Houses of Judah and Ephraim." RESPONSE: Cessation is perfectly biblical without using any "Christian Identity" arguments. The promise was not only to physical Abrahamites. The promise was to all who believe: "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a Light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isa. 49:6)

Date:

14 Aug 2002

Time:

21:07:04

Remote User:

Comments

There is an unfortunate tendency to create what I call, "one-liner theology;" basing a system of belief on verses lifted out of their context. Isaiah 49:5-6 And now says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and My God is my strength), He says, "It is too small a thing that you should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make you a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth (land)." Making His servant a "light of the nations" so that His salvation might reach to the "end of the earth (land)" shows me that His intent was to be a light -- a beacon which would draw His People (Isreal) to Him. In other words, those who dwelt within the foreign lands would be guided by His light back to their own Land. I think that the earlier reference in Isaiah to the light is applicable: Isaiah 9:2 The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. Isaiah speaks to the ingathering of Israel further in the context of Chapter 49, as well. For instance: Isaiah 49:14-15 But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me." Can a woman forget her nursing child and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. So, those who lived in "the dark land" (the exiles) would be remembered by the Lord God. Isaiah 49:22 Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will lift up My hand to the nations and set up My standard to the peoples ; and they will bring your sons in bosom, and your daughters will be carried on shoulders." Once again it is Israel that will be brought forth from out of the nations -- not the nations themselves -- and returned to their own land. Those nations who had oppressed the People would suffer for what they had done: Isaiah 49:25 Surely, thus says the LORD, "Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, and the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; for I will contend with the one who contends with you, and I will save your sons." And the result? Isaiah 49:26 "I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh, and they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweetwine; and all flesh will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." "Your Savior" is not contextually linked with the nations, but with the Twelve Tribes. In my opinion, the context doesn't support the view that Isaiah 49 is speaking of the Gentiles as being gathered together with Israel. The usage of the designation, "Jacob" for those whom He was to gather shows me that He is not distinguishing between Judah and Israel, but is speaking of the entire corporate entity -- His People.

Date:

15 Aug 2002

Time:

07:32:48

Remote User:

Comments

REGARDING THE PREVIOUS COMMENT: In Isa. 49:6, "the tribes of Jacob" and the scattered "preserved ones of Israel" are CONTRASTED WITH "THE NATIONS." This fact is so undeniable that only "Christian Identity" White Supremacists have the gall to so rebelliously deny it. ("Israel" is also contrasted with "the nations" or "the gentiles" in other post-exilic prophets and in the New Testament.) Yes, of course the prophets predicted the reunion of God's scattered nation, but what the "Christian Identity" wall builders (Eph. 2:14) resist so hatefully is the spiritual fulfillment of that prophecy in the body of the Savior. Specifically, THE GATHERING AND UNION OF ALL MANKIND THROUGH FAITH IN THE GOSPEL. The anti-cross, "Christian Identity" blasphemers abhor the thought of it, but even negros are sons of Abraham through faith in Jesus.

Date:

15 Aug 2002

Time:

08:50:29

Remote User:

Comments

LOL! What nonsense. Christian Identity are as much the idiots as the appropriaters of Jacob's Promise are. The Promise to Abraham was that he would inherit the Land, not the planet. Read Genesis, you'll see what the extent of the Land was. The Jews were given the Land and it was because of the contract made with Abraham. Since the contract with Moses would not allow the uncircumcised into the Kingdom, the Messiah's mission reverted to one that had been previously ratified so that the scattered tribes of Israel would qualify (compare with the resurrection of Ezra -- Ezra commanded all mixed progeny to be banished, especially the uncircumcised). The Wild Olives and the Natural Olives were the Two Groups who were to be made into One Body. Neither of the Trees was pagan, but represented the fulfillment of Jer. 31:31. If the previous comments are any indication of the scholarship among covenantal theologians, then the movement hasn't got a chance. So, all I have to do is remain patient.

Date:

16 Aug 2002

Time:

00:00:29

Comments

The previous comment is a curious collection of non sequiturs.

Date:

16 Aug 2002

Time:

06:58:44

Remote User:

Comments

There will always be those who are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Those with ears to hear will hear. The rest I couldn't care less about.

Date:

18 Nov 2002

Time:

05:56:18

Comments

Dear Bethren: My opinion is that both the Lord's Supper and baptism are areas that pose no threat to the consistency of Preterism. If they are observed it poses no rejection of Fulfilled Eschatology so long as their meaning is made clear. I personally believe that both the Lord's Supper and Baptism ceased once the New Covenant was established, but if one choses the contrary I see no problem. We have no authority for (church) buildings, organs, pianos, choirs and an endless list of other practices that we variously observe. To me the salient and poignant point is that we are under the New Covenant, the universe will never be destroyed, Jesus returned AS HE PROMISED in 70 A.D. and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is our resurrection and glorious hope. I desire, as Paul, to be absent from the body and be present with the lord as I also share the wretchedness of the misery we experience in the BODY of this DEATH, but not the DEATH of this BODY. The death experience in this body is but our movement into the glory which Jesus Christ has prepared for us. Let us rejoice in those areas where we agree and give liberty to the brethren in areas that do not deny the relavatcy of the abiding power of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Bro. Bob Pelham, N. C. usmc1div@earthlink.net

Date:

05 Mar 2003

Time:

17:13:43

Comments

I have one question. What did the Apostle John and the early church do about the Lord's Supper after A.D. 70. As far as I know, there is no record of John stopping the practice of the Lord's Supper. All of these early church fathers that we quote as preterists, did they stop with the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper is the only way Jesus asked us to remember His death. He asked us to just do this one simple thing. It proclaims His death and sacrifice and our freedom of sin until He came and after! It does not loose that effect! He never said it would. As for the baptism stuff, that was great! There is only one path, a narrow one, that gets to Heaven (Matt 7:13,14). Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). We must, therefore, be in Christ, or clothed with Christ to make it to Heaven. The only way we put on Christ is through Baptism (Romans 6:1-14). It is the only way we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). If we are not baptized we cannot live a new life (Romans 6:4), we cannot be free from sin (Romans 6:6), and we cannot believe that we will live with Christ (Romans 6:8). Great Article! It answered a lot of my questions.

Date:

22 Sep 2003

Time:

20:14:47

Comments

Question (1). I would like to know if George Tarabolsi is talking about spiritual baptism or ritual baptism in the article which is posted in your archives? Question (2).Whether or not I agree or with the preterist position that says (yes) to the ceasation of the Lords supper, it seems to me that those who hold to this position could certainly use this to correct those who mistakenly believe that preterism started with a 1600's Jesuit conspiracy against Protestantism. Especially because the witty Jesuits certainly should have seen it coming that the Lord's coming in 1 Cor.11:26 would be interpreted according to the preterist view as fulfilled in 70AD, thus, no more need not only for the Lord's Supper but also no more need for THE MASS!, WHICH WAS AND IS THE CHIEF R.C. DOCTRINE! Do you agree? If not please explain why not! Thanx, Glenn Schmidt

Date:

15 Mar 2004

Time:

11:30:56

Comments

I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should be made void." Paul recognizes that baptism is not the saving grace, the gospel is the saving grace.

Date: 26 May 2006
Time: 13:30:28

Comments:

To Mr. Tarabolsi,
I too believe (waveringly) in baptism in Jesus Name to wash away sins. However, using types, when Isreal passed thru Jordan (which is a type of baptism) all that GENERATION ( 40 years and younger)passed thru the river. The jews never brought their children to "pass" thru the jordan again. Could this mean that after the transition from pentecost to 70 A.D. (that generation-35-40 years) that no longer is baptism needed. Just a thought, what are your thoughts?
Terry

Date: 04 Dec 2006
Time: 12:52:59

Comments:

Jesus' resurrected body still had the nail marks in his hands. His death is proclaimed even in his body of glory that ascended to heaven. If Jesus still proclaims his own death and rememberence of his sufferings(by leaving the nail marks)then should not we proclaim it as well?
When we preach the gospel do we not speak of the death of Christ? If we do then we are proclaiming his death. As long as the gospel is preached then Christ's death is being proclaimed and if his death is being proclaimed then we shall partake in that supper. The only way I can see the Lord's supper ceasing is if the death of Christ is no longer proclaimed or remembered.
Remember the nail marks that Jesus kept and try and tell me that he does not want his death proclaimed.

Date: 05 Dec 2009
Time: 13:33:02

Your Comments:

baptism can't saved. but Romans 10:9-13 and ACTS 16: 31 is clear. how is you will be on vacation "out country" use airline fly. gospel to ppls self unsaved. gospel witness to each people. then people want be salvation where water in a airplane. then hope God save until arriver on place and fast got water. but what happen attack! miss water duh. but Romans 10:9-13 is clear.