BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM
It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
The Lord's Supper -- Is it Still Required?
By Richard K. McPherson
Is it still necessary after 70 AD?
This topic is discussed among Preterits, today. Some say that this and baptism are still required and other say that it is not. So, who is right and who is wrong? This article is not to say one is right and the other is wrong, but to let the scripture speak for itself. If you feel that I am taking a scripture out of context, please tell me.
Let us start in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. While quoting this text, I will be adding the Greek meaning to certain words. I hope this will make the text easier to understand.
“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, (“church” being people NOT the building) there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. Not doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed took bread, and broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance (call to mind or a memorial) of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim (declare) the Lord’s death until he comes. (leaving one place and going to another) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will guilty of sinning against (liable for) the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine (test or prove) himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing (to distinguish) the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would no come under judgment. (pass judgment on or condemn) When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together (assemble) to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment…..”
In this text, it appears that the church in Corinth was having a full course meal along with the “Lord’s Supper”. Some were eating and getting drunk, while other were not eating at all and going hungry. In addition, in this text it is saying that the Lord’s Supper is to be viewed as a memorial of Jesus’ death on the cross. If we are still to partake of the Lord’s Supper and we partake it in an “unworthy manner” what judgment are we under? Is the judgment that Paul is talking about the 70 AD judgment or a future judgment? How are we partaking the Lord’s Supper and where is the scripture to prove it? The scriptures clearly teach that the bread means his body (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 10:17) and his body is the church (Colossians 1:24) and the “cup”, ”fruit of the vine”, his blood”, which means the New Covenant. In 70 AD, the New Covenant was fully completed. The first century Christians was looking forward for the New Covenant through the blood of Christ and was told to remember it.
In Matthew’s account, the disciples came to Jesus and asked Him, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”(26:17) It is from here that man has comes up with the phase “The Lord’s Supper”. This phase is never used in the Bible, but is taught as fact.
Matthew 26:27-28 puts it this way.
“….Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Luke 22:14 and 18 puts it this way. “….I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until if finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Verse 18: “For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Verse 20: “…This cup is the new covenant in my blood…”
According to the context, Jesus will not eat what? The Passover, until when? 70 AD, at the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. Notice it is still talking about the Passover not the Lord’s Supper. Why would Jesus remember his own death, burial, and resurrection?
I would like to pose some questions, here.
When was “until that day”? - 70 AD
Who was Jesus taking to in this text? - His disciples
When did the “Father’s kingdom” come? - 70 AD (1 Corinthians 15:24)
When did the “new covenant” come? - 70 AD
If the blood is the “Covenant” or in the other gospels, the “New Covenant” and the first century Christians were looking forward for that New Covenant, then yes the meaning of the supper would make sense. If Christ has not come then we will still are living under the Old Covenant and still looking forward for a New Covenant. (Hebrews 8:13, 10:8-9) The supper would still be just like the first century Christians. The forgiveness of sin did not happen until Jesus’ return. (Hebrews 9:23-28, Luke 21:28, Revelation 10:7) We are under the New Covenant, today. Everything has been fulfilled.
Now let us define something here. What do these words or phases mean, for example: In Acts 2:42, its says,
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
Also in Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.” After Eutychus fell into a deep sleep, fell out a three-story building, and was pronounce dead. Paul raised him back to life, verse 10. “Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate…”
Cecil Hook wrote in Free in Christ about this text. “We use this text to prove that the Lord’s Supper it be taken on Sunday’s, (We call this the Lord’s day for some reason, like Monday and the other are not the Lord’s Day, emph. RKM), BUT we assume that this “breaking of bread” is the Communion rather than a love feast or fellowship meal. Although there is no proof of it, we will grant that it was the Communion for argument’s sake. If they met to commune, it does not indicate that they had been doing so previously or that they continued to do so the next week and thereafter. There is no indication that this was done except on that particular weekend. This is the only time the breaking of bread is mentioned in the connection with the first day of the week!
There is no clear example of the Lord’s Supper ever being eaten on the first day of the week. At Toras, it they met according to Roman (and our) manner of reckoning time, they met to eat it on our Sunday night, but did not partake until Monday morning, because of Paul’s long discourse. If they followed the Jewish calendar, they met to partake of it on our Saturday night. Would we be right in participation on Saturday night or Monday morning.”
What is “the breaking of bread”?
The “breaking of bread” is generally associated with the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the context to indicate that this activity is the Lord’s Supper. The expression breaking of bread is also an idiom for a common meal. In fact, in Acts 2:46-47, one reads: Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people”. If the “breaking of bread’ refers to the Lord’s Supper, then they observed the communion a daily basis, not just on Sundays.
Which of these nine examples of details concerning the so call “Lord’s Supper” are binding? It was eaten:
1. at night
3. in midweek
4. during another meal
5. with no women present
6. one loaf
7. of unleavened bread
8. one cup
9. of Passover wine which could not have been fresh grape juice at that season.
Which exemplified details are binding and which are not? If God means what he says and He says what he means, then by examples and with the right attitude the Lord’s Supper should be kept. The first century Christians had hope by looking for salvation and the resurrection, after 70 AD we have assurance and everything has been fulfilled.
Is there a difference between the “Lord’s supper” and “supper of the Lamb”? Are there two different types of suppers being taught in the Bible?
Turn to Revelation 19:6-9:
“’…. Hallelujah!! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come and his bride has make herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” Then the angel said to me, “Write, Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’….”
Also in verse 17: “And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, Come, gather together for the great supper of God,…”
What is this “supper of the Lamb” or “supper of God”? In 19:6-9 it is talking about a wedding supper. To me the first thing that comes to mind in Matthew 25:1-13.
“At that time the kingdom of heaven (kingdom of God, both are the same) will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and when out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming and thy all became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight, the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ The all the virgins’ woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil’ our lamps are going out.’ ‘No’, they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both you and us. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in and with him to the wedding banquet (or supper). “Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us! “But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you,’ “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.”
This sounds much like Matthew 24:36,42-44, All it talking about 70 AD.
What did the “Passover” mean to the Jews? In Exodus 12, it describes the requirements, when to eat it, how to eat it and it also describes what the Passover meant. It was also called “Feast of Unleavened Bread, verse 17. The Jews were told to get the “Passover lamb”, slaughter it and take its blood and put it on the top and both sides of the doorframe, verse 21-22. In 13:3, it tells us that the children of Israel were to “Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of slavery…” Also in 13:14-16). They were to do this ordinance at the appointed time year after year, verse 10.
Jesus is described as the “Passover Lamb” in 1 Corinthians 5:7. His blood was on the top of the cross, because of the thorns on his head and the blood from his back and his blood from his feet. There was blood on both sides, his hands. The first century people were told how to eat it (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25), when to eat it and why eat it.
Look at the chart below:
Physical slavery---------Egypt------------unspotted lamb-----------year after year
Spiritual Slavery----------Sin--------------unspotted lamb-----------year after year
This stopped completely before the fall of Judaism when the sacrifices ceased. Hebrews 7-10 tells us that what the priest had to do year after year for sin.
Physical slavery---------Egypt------------unspotted lamb-----------year after year
This “Passover:” meal was still being preformed in the first century.
Spiritual slavery--------the law -------------Jesus Christ-----------Until He Comes
The “Lord’s Supper” was not necessary after the fall of Judaism. The Bible says that Jesus paid the price for sin once for all. (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 10:2,10, 7:27)
Read the section on sin and the law in my article “Does Satan Exist Today?” for more information.
I myself believe that the so call “Lord’s Supper” in not necessary today. I have seen that even in the Preterist camp there are some who down right refuse to be consistent with scripture. At the same time, I am not saying that the people who still partake the “Lord’s Supper” are wrong. It is because of our freedom in Christ we can disagree on this topic. We must not misuse our freedom. This comment could be said about baptism also. (I also believe that baptism in not necessary after 70 AD. That article is on the way.) This article is just food for thought. I believe that a person can go too far with Preterism and I do not believe I have. Some believe that it is ok to have more that one wife after 70AD in which I disagree with. I try to hold God in the “Highest Honor” and His word is truth.
(903) 633-2189 Copyrighted 2002
Other articles include: Is Jesus Yahweh, God Almighty? , Why the “Church” is not the Kingdom, Under the New Convent, What is Worship? , Does Satan Exist Today?, Baptism, Is It Still Necessary?, Beliefs that have consequences. E-mail or call if you would like to ask any questions.
What do YOU think ?
I much prefer how David Curtis handled this subject. Rather than take an esoteric view of the scriptures, he used the original Greek meaning of the words, along with other proofs, to back up the fact that, although the Lord's Supper is not a requirement today, it is still something that we can do to honor Christ in the Church. I would urge anyone who reads this article to also read Mr. Curtis' article titled "Preterism and the Lord's Supper" also found on this P.A. site Ed Dulaney
Communion is just another ritual. People like rituals, it makes them feel comfortable. It has no meaning or merit for the modern era. But, like Richard points out, I couldn't care less if you want to stand on your head and whistle Yankee-Doodle is that's what floats yer boat. Who gets judged anymore for what they do? Who cares how we worship? What difference does it make whether I pray to Mary, or get dunked, or avoid dancing? Will that change my relationship with God the Father? I say speak in tongues, at least try to heal people, eat the bread, do anything that you think will honor God and it will. Steve Smith
Good article. It express my sentiments.
I think we must celebrate the Lord's Supper. He said he will not drink it again until he drinks it anew with us in the Kingdom. Well, this is the kingdom. If Christ has come as the preterists claim, then we are to drink with Christ. He never said that we should stop. He only said that he would not drink until...
Richard writes: First Century Physical slavery---------Egypt------------unspotted lamb-----------year after year This “Passover:” meal was still being preformed in the first century. Spiritual slavery--------the law -------------Jesus Christ-----------Until He Comes The "year after year" is apparently put forth as a comparison-type of the Lord's Supper being performed "Until He comes." Note the serious theological problem with this view. It presents the Lord's Supper as a re-sacrificing repeatedly until He comes just as the passover lamb was sacrificed "year after year." This badly misses the point of the Lord's Supper: it is not the sacrifice - it is the covenant memorial of the sacrifice. It is preminently the covenant meal of peace. Richard has confused the rite of the sacrifice with the eschatological result of the rite: to be at peace with God. The various bleeding sacrifices of the OT worship liturgy all typified and pointed forward to the death of Christ on the Cross. The covenant meals that followed the various bleeding sacrifices pointed to the future eschatalogical realization of the Kingdom with sinners once and for all gaining access to God's fellowship presence. The OT sacrificial meals typified that which was the goal not the means to the goal. The means were the sacrifices as types of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. The goal is that which never ends - fellowship and peace with God. See J.H. Kurtz, The Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament for a worthwhile treatment of the OT sacrificial rites. Christ was sacrificed once for sin as the writer to the Hebrews clearly tells us. The Lord's Supper is not and never was a repeating of the Sacrifice. That is the critical error of Romanism. Rather, the Lord's Supper is the eschatalogical realization of being at peace with God so as to sit with him at His table and enjoy his fellowship. While this rite was still forward looking before AD 70, it gained its true fulfilled significance with the Parousia and the realization of the Kingdom. Richard's view badly misses the nature of covenant. It reduces "covenant" down to a mere promise that has been fulfilled. Rather, the entire biblical witness demonstrates "covenant" as an all-encompassing historical relationship. The New Covenant is a relationship, and as a covenant, it has a fundamental essence to it that maintains continuity with that which is a covenant throughout Scripture. If one performs an inductive study of the Hebrew word "berit" throughout the OT, you will find various concepts that invariably arise within the context of covenant with some of those being the concepts of "shalom" (at peace with God) and "hesed" (loving kindness). The "berit" meal was an important part of the covenant ritual which embodied these concepts. When the Hebrews heard the word "covenant," it evoked a wealth of imagery and meaning such as the above as well as ethical requirements and authority structures. That the New Covenant is a "covenant" has been, I suggest, badly misunderstood by many current preterist writers. The tendency all too often is to build a reductionistic interpretation of the word and strip everything out of life and liturgy that doesn't comport with the stripped-down definition. JHK
Richard: What is your take on Baptism, the institutional 'church', shepherds who are supported beyond their needs (as Paul exhorted the Believers to do for Timothy and Titus, and the method of com-muncating the New Covenant to men today? This is a an apologetic and friendly inquiry? I am 68 years old, a retired 'baptist' shepherd and looking back I am researching our currently ecclesiastical methodology. I believe we are in the New Age, the New Heavens and New Earth and have no quarrel with anyone. "Inquring people want to know." Any help on theses, papers, books or WEB site that deal with applying Realized Eschatology to our constantly changing AGES!!! Bro. Bob Williams 2085 Old Highway U. S. 29 Pelham, N. C. 27311-8953 firstname.lastname@example.org
Excellant article! The full reality of Gods kingdom on earth and heaven has come.It is that reality that God wants us to live in and worship Him in.The true meaning of ''The lords supper''is what we partake of each and every day and that is the fullness of all new covenant blessings.God wants us to worship in spirit and truth.The reality is NOT physical but spiritual.The spiritual is unseen but very real and eternal.
Enjoyed the article. Our church does not have a Lord's Supper - weekly or annually. Instead, as often as we partake of food & drink, we do in remembrance of Christ. It's a daily walk with Him. I look forward to your article about Baptism. That issue was resolved for me about 15 years ago thru prayer and reading His Word. Eph 4:4-6, I Cor 12:15 and I John 5 helped me. God spoke to me clearly thru these verses: Jesus has done it all for us and none of our works or rituals can save us or even pay tribute to His deeds...but they can be stumbling blocks to others. We can't forget our first love or be lukewarm in our worship of Him. Again, our walk is to be daily. Thankfully, however, our walk is a guided one...not an "anything goes" walk at all! He guides us with His Word and Spirit. The way is strait and narrow...not broad and obscure ~ His way, not ours or the world's! This is my sincere interpretation of scripture but out of respect for my brothers and sisters in Christ that observe the Lord's Supper, I'd like to say our pastor teaches that if a Christian is Baptized or observes the Lord's Supper with a heart intent on pleasing God, then he/she will likely be blessed by God. Most importantly, as Christians, we must follow 2 Tim 2:22-26. I feel your article adheres to that instruction and hope my comment does too! Thanks again for the article! Donna Quillin, Kingsport, TN email@example.com
The trouble with full preterists is that with everything fulfilled there is nothing to look forward too - except death - and our spirits going to be with the Lord. To me like 1 Cor.10 suggests all that has happened are admonitions and examples to us who are living and we can benefit from that which has been fulfilled. The Holy Spirit came but we need to keep being filled by yhe spirit. The comimg of Christ to punish Israel in 70 ad. does not contain His coming to reward His saints. So it was a second coming but who says that it was the final coming. He comes many times and in various ways., The Last Day of John 6 does not need to be the end of the last days or age. I have read some sermons by preterists and have not received blessing or help for the present - always harping on 70 ad - all is done. Baptism and Lord's supper are for the church to remind us of his great salvation and sacrifice aand to remind us of the glorious feast of heaven when we shall sit down with the Lamb and sing praises to Him. Full preterism leaves me empty........ LSharp1039@aol.com
Dear Brethren: The breaking of the single loaf and the drinking from a single bowl is not done today! What is the problem? I pastored Baptist churches (?) from 1964-1995 and I always had a problem with the Lord's Supper (?) when HE WASN'T present. Strange actions with the ultimate person not attending! By the same token do we not daily, as regenerated sinners we enjoy the indescribable benefits of His Body and His Blood every day. Who wants to literally "eat" His Body and "drink" His blood? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what are we thinking? Will Judas enjoy the Lord's Supper, which is never called the lord's supper, at any time??????? I am a conservative and a fundamental Believer, but puuleeze, we do have brains. [Maybe not! I've never taken mine out to examine it. Bro. Bob The Nutty Heretick (KJV) firstname.lastname@example.org USMC Korean Veteran : O Gung Ho! & Semper Fi
Richard: I'm just beginning to read preterist material - KiK, DeMar (for the second time), Bahnsen and Chilton - so I'm definitely a beginner. Here's my question: Does strict preterism have anything in common with strict dispensationalism? I ask because of what I perceive to be a lack of emphasis upon the law, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Thanks. Doug, A Dallas Grad Gone Bad. Email: SangsterNotDonne@aol.com
Jesus told His Disciples to do this in remembrance of Me. We look to the Lord's Supper, our Passover from the Old Covenant, to be symbolic of looking for His return. Instead, we do this to remember the wonderful redemption we have in Christ. Now, I do believe in taking the Lord's Supper, not to look, but to remember. It is patterned after the OT Passover, and that was taken in remembrance. We should take the NT Passover, to remember the Lord's completed work in us through Calvary.
The question still remains, however: Why did the early church fathers believe so strongly in baptism and the Eucharist? Why were these two sacraments in particular so important throughout the entire life of the Church that even Martin Luther admonished in a sermon that we should "swim in our baptism" to remember our identity as Christians? It is the later rise of neo-Gnosticism in our recent times that has led to an abandonment of the sacraments. i'm no Calvinist, but there is a good Calvinist work entitled _Against_The_Protestant_Gnostics_ which i would recommend to anyone seriously considering this fallacy. Just my opinion...
It is all about ones Attitude. We are to prepare ourselves prior to "eating any meal". As often as we do this we are nursing our body for the Lords sakes. Always say A BLESSING of THANKSGIVING before eating.
Date: 16 Feb 2006
Date: 20 Jan 2013
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996