[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[GENTRY] Twelfth, hyper-preterism has serious negative implications for ecclesiastical labor. Is the Great Commission delimited to the pre-A.D. 70 era, due to the interpretation of "the end" by hyper-preterists (Matt. 28:20)? Is the Lord's Supper superfluous today, having been fulfilled in Christ's (alleged) Second Advent in A.D. 70 (1 Cor. 11:26)?

Twelfth – Gentry brings up two more issues here in regard to the implications of the preterist view for the Great Commission and the Lord’s Supper. I have to admit a little surprise at Gentry bringing up the objection about the Great Commission after he did such a great job explaining the apostolic fulfillment of Matt. 24:14 in the period leading up to AD 70. Notice what he has said in regard to Matthew 24:14 –

In verse 14, we read: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” The word “world” (oikumene) often stands for the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; 24:15). The phrase “all the nations,” is epexegetical, referring to those nations that were subsumed under the imperial authority of Rome. The world to which the “gospel of the kingdom was preached” was provided a witness: “the gospel which has come to you, as it has also in all the world.... [T]he gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:6, 23; cf. Acts 2:5; Rom. 1:8; 10:18). [HSHD, pp. 344f, italics and ellipses are Gentry’s]

No full preterist could have said it better! Notice the Greek phraseology in Matt. 28:18-20’s account of the Great Commission, and compare the exact same language found in Matt. 24:3, 14 (“all the nations” and “the end of the age”). Are these coincidences or aberrations from the same writer (Matthew) quoting the same speaker (Jesus)? Did Jesus speak of two different evangelization processes terminated by two different “ends of the ages”? What does it mean to us today if the Great Commission was fulfilled in that period before AD 70? Does it mean we should no longer be seeking to spread the kingdom and share the good news about its arrival, and the healing for the nations that is now freely available? Absolutely not. Many of Jesus’ parables talk about the spread of the kingdom after its small beginnings in that generation (cf. Dan. 2:34,35; Mt. 13:31-35; etc.). It had only just begun. They were to teach faithful men who would teach others. But the “Great” Commission (just like the “Great” Tribulation) was a special time of inspired apostolic activity that will never be duplicated. You don’t lay the foundation of an eternal house but once. The Holy Spirit worked in and through the apostles via the charismata to reveal and proclaim the gospel in order to build the church before that generation ended. They accomplished that mission. We are living proof that they fulfilled the Great Commission. If they had not accomplished it, the Gates of Hades would have devoured the Church before it was established. Their preaching bound Satan and plundered his stronghold and used the stones of his fortress to build up the kingdom. Christ has overcome. The kingdom is here. We no longer proclaim the good news that the kingdom is about to come. We now celebrate its arrival and share its healing leaves (the Word of God) with the nations. We are the light of the world. We should not hide our lamp under a peck measure. Evangelism goes on, but with a fulfilled victorious message about a Kingdom Now, not a Kingdom About To Come.

The Lord’s Supper – It is easy to see why some thought the observance should have ceased at AD 70 if Christ returned then, based on 1 Cor. 11:26, but, a quick glance at the Gospel parallels which record the institution of the Lord’s Supper should be enough to dispel that notion. (see Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; and Lk. 22:16-18) Note carefully that Jesus promised to eat this supper with the disciples again after the kingdom had arrived, and to observe it in His memory in the mean time. Apostle Paul received his information directly from the Spirit, and I'm sure it was confirmed by the other apostles as being in harmony with what they had heard our Lord teach at the Last Supper.

The observance of the supper now is not a solemn remembrance of Him in anxious longing for His return, but a victory celebration with Him at His table in His kingdom. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Whether still alive or physically dead we live together with Him, reign with Him, eat and drink with Him, and commune with Him. Isn’t that what many of the songs in our hymnals and the liturgy in our prayer books are teaching? Do we really believe it? He is present with us. He will never leave us, so He will never need to come back again. He is here. The Lord's festive meal has so much more joy and meaning now, since it has been “fulfilled in the kingdom.”

Observance of the Lord’s Supper wasn’t supposed to cease at the parousia. The original Passover was instituted as Israel was leaving Egypt. They only observed it one other time during the 40-year wilderness wandering (the first anniversary after the exodus). After Israel entered the promised land under Joshua 40 years later, they resumed its observance. But it had new meaning. It was no longer just a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt. It had become a celebration of their victory over the Canaanites and inheritance of the promised land. This was a change of meaning, but not a cessation of observance. Does Jesus ever hint that the Supper would continue beyond AD 70 with a new meaning like the Passover did? Paul states he is repeating Christ's direct revelation to him about the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23). Had Jesus ever taught anything like this during His earthly ministry? What about Matt. 26:29 and its parallels (Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16,18)?

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26:29)

"Truly I say to you, I shall never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25)

"...for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." (Luke 22:16-18) (emphasis added)

In view of these three verses, it is no wonder the early church longed for Christ's return so they could eat and drink with Him at His table in the kingdom. They observed the Lord's Supper in memory of Him while He was away, waiting "until He comes" to eat it in a new way with Him in the kingdom. This also implies a continued existence of life on earth in the physical realm after He returns to eat it with them in His ongoing kingdom. Jesus does not indicate the end of the world would occur then. We no longer observe communion in memory of Him in His absence. We observe it in His honor, at His table, in His kingdom! It has a new fulfilled meaning. Just as the Passover was still observed after the Israelites entered the promised land, so we still observe the Lord's Supper after we have entered into the real promised land (the spiritual eternal kingdom). In both cases the observance took on new meaning. Before AD 70 the Lord's Supper was a commemoration of His death and our deliverance from the bondage of sin. After AD 70 it became a glorious feast and celebration of our inheritance in the real promised land (the spiritual kingdom – the New Heaven and Earth – the New Creation – the New Jerusalem). The word “until” in 1 Cor. 11:26 does imply a change in the meaning of the observance, but not a cessation of observance.

The Apostle Paul was not saying that at Christ's return communion would cease to be observed. He was simply saying they were doing it in memory of Him as a proclamation of the significance of Christ's Passover sacrifice until He returned to proclaim that significance Himself. Christ's return in the clouds of judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 was certainly a clear and unmistakable proclamation of what His death meant. He came as the executioner of covenant wrath (like the Death Angel in Egypt) and fulfilled the rest of the Passover imagery that was not already fulfilled by His first coming and death on the cross as our Passover sacrifice. The saints from AD 30-70 observed the communion as a liberation from slavery (proclaiming the death of the first-born). The saints after AD 70 now celebrate it as not only a reminder of our deliverance from Egyptian bondage, but as a celebration of taking possession of the promised land. The kingdom was taken away from the (Caananite) Jews at AD 70, and given to a nation producing the fruit of it (the church). The Lord's Supper has even more meaning and purpose now than it ever did. It is a feast in the kingdom at the table of the King, and the feast goes on continuously. Our observance of the Lord’s Supper is a visible covenant symbol of the continual communion we have with Him in His kingdom.

The Lord's Supper was meant to continue beyond AD 70. The passages which discuss its institution by Christ state emphatically they were to eat it in memory of Him while He was away. Then, when He returned, He would eat it with them again with fulfilled meaning in the kingdom. I will paraphrase 1 Cor. 11:26 so you can see how I approach it:

Jesus basically said, “Use this matzos and red Passover wine to remember and represent my broken body and spilled blood (until I return to eat it with you in celebration at my feast table in the real promised land of the kingdom).” Then Paul says, “So, whenever you observe this feast now, in this period of waiting for His return, you are proclaiming the significance of Jesus' death, until He returns and manifests His victory personally and celebrates it with us again in His kingdom.”