"This generation"

I am NOT a dispy, but I do not agree with this statement made by Dr. Broadus. I posted what he wrote in context for the sake of academic honesty, not because I agree with him. I am what YOU call a "partial-preterist." I am a partial preterist because it is obvious to those of a sound and informed mind that much of the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. I am also a "partial-preterist" because, as Dr. Broadus wrote, to refer the closing passage in the Olivet discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem is “absurd and impossible.”

 

That has been my point throughout this thread. You join the ranks of the compromising, myth-telling, and willingly ignorant that Dr. Bob reffered to.

Perhaps at some point we can discuss at what point the Olivet Discourse becomes future and on what basis you make that claim.

 

Acts 1
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

HankD

 

The Olivet Discouse is located in Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13.

 

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

HankD

 

Oh, so thats how one is to divide the Olivet Discourse. I see it clearly now. I don't know how all the past theologians missed it. It proves we all can still learn.

 

Grasshopper, do you practice the ordinance of the Lord's supper?

 

Excellent question. Yes, when I happen to be at church on a sunday night when we observe it.
It is still an issue I have questions about. Below is an answer to your follow-up question you are about to ask. This was written by David Green and found it most helpful.

Preterists are divided on this issue, although it seems that most preterists today hold to the continuation of the Lord's Supper. Below are the eight primary "Continuation-Versus-Cessation" arguments that are being discussed among preterists. (The first five are Cessation arguments with Continuation responses, and the last three are Continuation arguments with Cessation responses.)


1. “Until”

Cessation argument: “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 A.D. 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 A.D. 70.

Continuation response: The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.


2. “Fulfilled”

Cessation argument: “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 A.D. 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 A.D. 70.

Continuation response: “Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.


3. “New”

Cessation argument: “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 A.D. 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)

Continuation response: Since A.D. 70, the Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance; it is a "new" celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.


4. "Foods, Drinks and Baptisms"
Cessation argument: "...They relate only to foods and drinks and various baptisms, even ordinances of the flesh imposed until a time of reformation." (Heb. 9:9,10) 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. 9:9,10 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 A.D. 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.

Continuation response: Heb. 9:9,10 refers only to the rites of the Levitical temple-system. It has no relevance to the Lord's Supper or to Christian baptism. Those two rites are not "ordinances of the flesh," they are New-Covenant ordinances.


5. Manna

Cessation argument: 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 A.D. 70, the representative food and drink (the rite of "the Lord's Supper") ceased.

Continuation response: The manna and the Lord's Supper are not likened to each other in Scripture. They are contrasted. In Jn. 6:31-56, the manna is contrasted with the Lord's Supper, i.e., with Christ's “flesh and blood.” The manna was temporary. The Lord's Supper (His “flesh and blood”) is an eternal New Covenant ordinance. Likewise in I Cor. 10:3-4, the manna and the water in the wilderness were temporary, but the Lord's Supper (of which Paul speaks in the same chapter) is eternal.


6. Passover

Continuation argument: The Israelites took the Passover while they awaited their redemption in Egypt. Then after they entered the Promised Land, they continued to observe the Passover throughout the entire old-covenant age. The Lord's Supper is the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. The New-Covenant Church took the Lord's Supper while it awaited its redemption from the old-covenant age. (Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30) Then after the Church entered the (spiritual) Promised Land (in A.D. 70), it was to continue taking the Lord's Supper throughout the entire New-Covenant Age. Just like the Passover, the Lord's Supper is an age-long Covenant-ordinance.

Cessation response: "The Lord's Supper" could not have been the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover, because the Passover was not "fulfilled" until A.D. 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

Continuation argument: The Lord's Supper was given to Gentile believers. This proves that it was not an “old covenant ritual.” It is therefore a New Covenant ordinance and is to be observed forever.

Cessation response: 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 in A.D. 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

Continuation argument: God always gave ritual "signs and seals" with His covenants. This is the pattern of Scripture. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14; Rom. 4:11) Under the New Covenant, we now have two "signs and seals": Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Cessation response: 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 A.D. 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.

 

They all missed it because Jesus said it was not for them to know.

Correct we will all see it very clearly after He returns.

HankD