Perspectives

How does Preterism view the ordinances of Baptism and The Lord's Supper?

Response by:

Soon after studies in eschatology have led a Bible student to accept the Preterist view, the question arises: “What about the observance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Are these ordinances to be practiced today in view of the Parousia having taken place in AD 70?” This question has perplexed many Preterists and therefore we find equally sincere students on both sides of the issue. I hope this article will help to put to rest some of the confusion surrounding these important matters.

I write from the Reformed Preterist viewpoint. This means I accept as biblically correct as much of the theology reaffirmed by the Protestant Reformation as the additional insights granted to me by the Lord as a Preterist will allow. All Preterists need a strong anchor in sound covenant theology as a guard against erroneous and spurious teachings.

This article assumes that the Lord God, when proclaiming the Old Covenant to Abraham, imposed the rite of circumcision. In addition, when God delivered the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage through Moses, He established the celebration of the Passover. Both of these signs were identified with the Old Covenant and continued as long as it was in force, terminating in AD 70 as the writer of Hebrews predicted (Heb 8:13).

Therefore, Paul, when equating circumcision with baptism in Col. 2:11-12, seemed to be showing that the latter replaces the former with the arrival of the New Covenant. Our Lord Himself at the Last Supper institutes the Communion service, with His disciples understanding this sacrament to be a replacement of the Old Covenant Passover rite.

So both New Covenant ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, had their roots in the Old Covenant signs of circumcision and the Passover. As long as the Old Covenant remained, circumcision and the Passover remained. Since virtually all Preterists believe that the Bible teaches that the New Covenant will never end, it is therefore very logical to assume that the signs and seals of that same New Covenant would always remain.

The ongoing and continuous nature of the New Covenant is one of the strongest arguments in support of the ongoing and continuous signs and seals attached to that covenant. Both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted during the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ or soon after. Since both relate to a covenant that would continue in force forever, would the signs and seals of that covenant be limited to only a very brief period from approximately AD 33 to AD 70? How much more reasonable to simply conclude that the covenant signs and seals should be coexistent with the time frame embraced by the covenant which they represent. To suggest otherwise only places the burden of denial upon the shoulders of those who oppose it, a difficult task indeed.

The passage in I Cor. 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes,” has caused some Preterists to discontinue both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, since Jesus did come a second time in AD 70. However, this argument ignores the all-important interpretative principle of audience relevance.

Paul was writing to the Christians in Corinth in that first century and directing them to follow a clearly defined practice until a clearly defined event would take place. His words were not written to Christians living beyond that first century. This observation is extremely important in the support of the continuing sacrament viewpoint.

We find, therefore, that these believers obeyed Paul’s words and did continue to observe the sacraments until the moment they were caught up into the heavenly realm at the Parousia of AD 70, as taught in I Thess. 4:13-18 (ref. John 14:2-3). These believers had no further need to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (or practice Baptism) since they beheld Jesus face to face in glory! They were then inhabitants of Heaven, not of the earth.

Christians living today, in this 21^st century, are not yet in Heaven. Only when believers today are called home at the time of their physical death should their individual observance of the sacraments cease. In the meantime, from one generation to the next, we should continue to “do this in remembrance of Me.”

The covenant signs were given to minister to the frail and weak faith of all God’s children in all ages, commensurate with the covenant administration that they would then be under. The sacraments are a means of grace, intended to strengthen Christ’s church as we battle against remaining sin in our lives. We dare not discard what God has taught us to be important. We continue to need the initiatory rite of Baptism as we unite with a local church body and all that this symbolizes, and we continue to need the strength provided only by sitting at the Lord’s Supper with Him, a practice latent with the deepest of theological meaning. This is especially true for Preterists who are able to recognize the accomplished fulfillment of all that had been written!

God is gracious; He knows our shortcomings; He loves us with an everlasting love. He has placed us in a sinful world that needs the “everlasting Gospel” (Rev. 14:6) that is administered through His “everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). We continue to need the means of grace and the strengthening power that God has provided for His people as we live for Him in our covenant communities. May all of us as Preterist Christians be careful to show our love for Him by keeping His commandments and observing His appointed church sacraments.

Kurt Simmons

An unfortunate teaching has surfaced in Preterist circles which states that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have become obsolete and may be disregarded. Apparently, the thinking is that Jesus’ coming in AD 70 somehow obviates the need to observe these commandments. This thinking is mistaken.

The Lord left two ordinances or “sacraments” for his church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or Communion. We tend to avoid the term “sacrament” because of its association with the Catholic Church. But the term is perfectly scriptural. Scripturally speaking, a sacrament is a rite by which the believer obtains divine grace or favor. It is not a work of merit, but an act of obedience born of faith. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper both fit the definition of a sacrament.

In baptism the repentant believer receives remission of sins (Acts 2:38), his sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), is received into Christ (Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27), and is granted forgiveness of sins (Col. 2:11-13). Those that obeyed Peter’s commandment to repent and be baptized were added to the church: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:38, 41, 47). Since the church is “the saved”, and one is added into the church by baptism, it is not difficult to understand how Peter could say, “baptism doth also now save us” (I Pet. 3:21). Mark’s gospel proclaims, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Baptism is an essential element of the rebirth by water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:3, 5). Baptism was the identifying mark of those entering the kingdom (Matt. 21:31, 32; Lk. 7:30). No one this side of the cross enters the kingdom of God without it. Jesus’ parting instruction to his disciples was to keep up the work begun by John the Immerser by preaching among earth’s peoples the message of repentance and baptism in his name (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 16; Lk. 24:47). And so they did. The book of Acts has ten examples of conversion; baptism was an essential part in each case. (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 13; 8:36-38; 10:48; 16:15; 16:33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16) Ten is a perfect number (for example, see E. W. Bullinger’s, Number in Scripture). Could it be the Lord is telling us something here? Given the integral part of baptism in the gospel, it seems incredulous that anyone could argue it has somehow lost its efficacy in AD 70.

The same is true regarding the Lord’s Supper. Paul said that the Lord’s Supper is a participation in the body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 10:16, 17). Therefore, we share in the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice each time we partake. Observing the Lord’s Supper is a serious responsibility. More than merely a memorial is involved; the Lord’s Supper is something that can be desecrated. Failing to approach the Lord’s Table with discernment caused some at Corinth to come under judgment by God, even to the point of striking some with sickness and death (I Cor. 11:27-30). Paul’s statement, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:26), does not imply that observance was to cease at the eschaton (the coming of Christ). Rather, Paul is merely saying the reason for the wrath that would be poured out on the Jews and Romans was being reenacted each Lord’s Day when they gathered around his table (Cf. Heb. 10:25-29). Far from ceasing at Christ’s coming, Jesus said that he would partake of it “anew” with us in his kingdom (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16, 18). The kingdom is the church; the terms are used interchangeably (Cf. Matt. 16:18, 19; Heb. 12:23, 28). The apostolic church observed the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:17ff; 16:2). We are charged to keep the traditions set in the church by Christ and the apostles (I Cor. 11:2; II Thess. 2:15).

Abandoning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is a precarious position to take. “This persuasion cometh not from him that calleth you” (Gal. 5:8).

David Green

Preterists are divided on this issue, although it seems that most preterists today hold to the continuation of the Lord’s Supper. Others, like me, hold to a cessation position. The following are eight arguments why I hold to that position.

1. “Until”

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 AD 70. This means that after that time, the Church was no longer commanded to proclaim the Lord’s death by means of “the Lord’s Supper.” The Greek word used for “until” in I Cor. 11:26 usually (though not always) implies a cessation or end. And whenever the word is connected with the word “fulfilled,” it always implies a cessation. (Matt. 2:14,15; Lk. 1:20; 21:24; Matt. 5:17 & Heb. 9:10; I Cor. 11:26 & Lk. 22:16; Rev. 6:11. The Lord’s Supper was to be observed “until” (I Cor. 11:26) it was “fulfilled” (Lk. 22:16) and made “new” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25) in the Kingdom of God in AD 70.

2. “Fulfilled”

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 sign/type. It was an eschatological rite that typified “Christ in you.” It was a kind of foretaste of the Fellowship of Christ. Therefore it was “fulfilled” (filled full, completed) when Christ made His Dwelling in the universal Church in AD 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) Since that day, all the saints, living and dead, dine with Him in the Kingdom, and no longer have need of the symbolic, flesh-ordinance that was imposed only “until” it was “fulfilled” and made “new” in AD 70.

3. “New”

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) The Lord’s Supper was made “new” in AD 70. The Greek word for “new” is the adjective kainos, and it modifies “it” (fruit/wine). In eschatological contexts, kainos describes something that is new in kind, and that is different than/other than that which, in comparison, is old or outdated. Thus the rite was going to be fulfilled and changed in the Kingdom of God. It was made “new” in the Parousia in the same sense that Jerusalem was made “new,” and in the same sense that the heaven and the earth were made “new”: it “passed away” and was “fulfilled” in that which it typified, which was the “new” (kainos) bread and wine (the universal fellowship of Christ) in the Kingdom of God. (Matt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37-39)

4. “Foods, Drinks and Baptisms”

. . .They relate only to foods and drinks and various baptisms, even ordinances of the flesh imposed until a time of reformation. (Heb. 9:10) This verse speaks of the flesh-ordinances of the Levitical temple-system. Though neither the Lord’s Supper nor Christian Baptism were Levitical ordinances (strictly speaking), the principle laid down in Heb. 9:10 applies to both of them. Because the Lord’s Supper (food and drink) and Christian Baptism were ordinances for the flesh (i.e., ceremonial rites), they were, like the Levitical flesh-ordinances, imposed only until the time of reformation in AD 70. God did not replace old flesh-ordinances with new flesh-ordinances. Rather, He “fulfilled” all the flesh-ordinances (including the two eschatological ordinances) and made them “new.” They were imposed only “until” they were realized in the heavenly glories they typified.

5. 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 Church entered the spiritual Promised Land in AD 70, the representative food and drink (the rite of “the Lord’s Supper”) ceased.

6. Passover

“The Lord’s Supper” could not have been the fulfillment/antitype of the Passover, because the Passover was not fulfilled until AD 70. (Lk. 22:15,16) Paul taught that the Passover would be fulfilled through non-ceremonial means, i.e., by means of sincerity and truth: Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the [Passover] feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Cor. 5:6)

7. Gentiles

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 with in AD 70. “The Lord’s Supper” was a sign of covenant-confirmation given to the Jew-Gentile Church in anticipation of the impending New Covenant world. It was also 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)

8. Sign and Seal

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 and among all the saints in AD 70 in fulfillment of all the “signs” and of all the flesh-ordinances (including “the Lord’s Supper”). He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is the covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more God-imposed covenant-signs.

(Due to space limitations, we could not print David’s article on Baptism. It is available on his web site.)

Top of Page