The Lord's Supper

Is it still necessary after 70 AD?

By Richard K. McPherson

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 scriptures speak for itself. If you feel that I am taking scriptures 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, 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

2.                   upstairs

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:

 

OT Passover             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.

 

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

 

 

Let's look at this phrase "until He comes" in 1 Corinthians 11:26:

 

(ALT)  For as often as you* shall be eating this bread and drinking this cup, you* proclaim the death of the Lord, until He comes.

 

(ASV)  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.

 

(BBE)  For whenever you take the bread and the cup you give witness to the Lord's death till he comes.

 

(CEV)  The Lord meant that when you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you tell about his death until he comes.

 

(GNB)  This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

 

(ISV)  For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

 

(KJV+)  For¹⁰⁶³ as often as³⁷⁴⁰ ye eat^{2068, 302} this⁵¹²⁶ bread, ⁷⁴⁰ and²⁵³² drink^{4095, 302} this⁵¹²⁴ cup, ⁴²²¹ ye do show²⁶⁰⁵ the³⁵⁸⁸ Lord's²⁹⁶² death²²⁸⁸ till⁸⁹¹ he⁽³⁷³⁹⁾ come.²⁰⁶⁴

 

(LITV)  For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come.

 

(MKJV)  For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.

 

(YLT)  for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth--till he may come;

 

Albert Barns put it this way, “Till he come - Until he returns to judge the world. This demonstrates:

(1) That it was the steady belief of the primitive church that the Lord Jesus would return to judge the world; and,

(2) That it was designed that this ordinance should be perpetuated, and observed to the end of time. In every generation, therefore, and in every place where there are Christians, it is to be observed, until the Son of God shall return; and the necessity of its observance shall cease only when the whole body of the redeemed shall be permitted to see their Lord, and there shall be no need of those emblems to remind them of him, for all shall see him as he is.

 

(Comments RKM: When did Jesus return to judge the world?)

 

John Gills says this, “ye do show the Lord's death till he come; or rather, as it may be rendered in the imperative mood, as an exhortation, direction or command, "show ye the Lord's death till he come"; since everyone that eats and drinks at the Lord's table does not show forth his death, which is the great end to be answered by it; for the design of the institution of it is to declare that Christ died for the sins of his people: to represent him as crucified; to set forth the manner of his sufferings and death, by having his body wounded, bruised, and broken, and his blood shed; to express the blessings and benefits which come by his death, and his people's faith of interest in them; and to show their sense of gratitude, and declare their thankfulness for them; and all this, "till he come"; which shows the continuance of this ordinance, which is to last till Christ's second coming, where the carnal ordinances of the former dispensation were shaken and removed; and also the continuance of Gospel ministers to the end of the world, to administer it, and of churches to whom it is to be administered: this assures of the certainty of Christ's second coming; as it leads back to his coming in the flesh, suffering and dying in our stead, and thereby obtaining redemption for us; it leads forward to expect and believe he will come again, to put us into the full possession of the salvation he is the author of; when there will be no more occasion for this ordinance, nor any other, but all will cease, and God will be all in all. The apostle here refers to a custom used by the Jews in the night of the Passover, to show forth the reason of their practice, and that institution to their children; when either (u).

 

"the son asked the father, or if the son had not understanding (enough to ask), then the father taught him, saying, how different is this night from all other nights? for in all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but in this night only unleavened; in all other nights we eat the rest of herbs, but in this night bitter herbs; in all other nights we eat flesh roasted, broiled, and boiled, in this night only roasted; in all other nights we wash once, in this night twice; and as elsewhere (w) it is added, in all other nights we eat sitting or lying, in this night all of us lie; and according to the capacity of the child, the father teaches him,''

 

particularly he was to inform him what these several things showed forth, or declared (x); as that

 

"the Passover מגיד, "declared", or "showed forth", that the Lord passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt; the bitter herbs "showed forth", that the Egyptians made the lives of our fathers bitter in Egypt; and the unleavened bread "declared" that they were redeemed; and all these things are called הגדה, "the declaration", or showing forth:''

 

and there is a treatise called הגדה של פסח, "the showing forth of the Passover"; in which, besides the things mentioned, and many others, it is observed (y), that it was commanded the Jews לספר, "to declare" the going out of Egypt, and that everyone that diligently declares the going out of Egypt, is praiseworthy: now the apostle observes this end of the Lord's supper, to show forth his death, in opposition to the notion of the "judaizing" Christians at Corinth, who thought of nothing else but the showing forth of the Passover, and the declaration of that deliverance and redemption wrought for the people of Israel; whereas the true and only intent of it was to show forth the death of Christ, redemption by him, and the greatness of his love expressed therein, and which is to be continued till his second coming (Comments RKM: When was Jesus’ Second Coming? The Passover brought forth life, Jesus destroyed death and brought life in 70 AD. See article: Does Satan Exist Today); whereas the time was come when it should "be no more said, the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt", Jer_16:14.

 

(u) Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 4. Haggadah Shel. Pesach. p. 5. (w) Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 2. (x) Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora prec. aff. 41. (y) P. 5, 6. Ed. Rittangel. & Seder. Tephillot. Ed. Basil. fol. 243. 1.

 

 

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. 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.

 

Richard K. McPherson   

(903) 633-2189 Copyrighted 2002

 

Other articles include:  Is Jesus Yahweh, God Almighty? ,   Does Satan Exist Today?, Baptism-Is It Still Required?, If Christ Has Not Come E-mail or call if you would like to ask any questions.