The Lord's Supper; Is it still necessary after A.D. 70?

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 judgement. (pass judgement 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 judgement…..”

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 judgement are we under? Is the judgement that
Paul is talking about the 70 AD judgement or a future judgement? 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

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

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” is 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.