Note, I have slightly edited what follows for sentence structure, grammar, emphasis, etc.. But I have not altered or changed the meaning of any of the argumentation.
Tom Riggle is a proponent of the AD 66 rapture, popularized by Edward Stevens. Of late, Riggle and I have engaged in a discussion about when the Law of Moses ended. Riggle insists that Matthew 5:17-18 “explicitly” (his term) says that the Law ended at the Cross. I have responded to his claims to demonstrate the eisegetic and anachronistic nature of his arguments.
Don K. Preston wrote:
“Tom Riggle says that the Old Law passed away at the cross, all 613 laws of the Tanakh: //all of these 613 commandments passed away at the Cross – at the same time. Together. This is what the text explicitly states. This passing away of the Law, the end of the Old Covenant, was demonstrated to the Jews by the torn veil. It did not happen when the physical temple was destroyed.//
Notice that Riggle says that this is taught “explicitly” in Matthew 5:17-18. Evidently, Mr. Riggle needs to consult a dictionary on the definition of “explicitly.” Miriam Webster Dictionary says that explicitly means: //clearly and without any vagueness or ambiguity.”
So, the question is, where in Matthew 5:17-18 does it clearly and without vagueness or ambiguity, state that /all of these 613 commandments passed away at the Cross – at the same time.//
The text says no such thing.
What the text does state, explicitly, is that not one jot or one tittle of the Law or the prophets would / could pass until it was ALL fulfilled. (not some, not even most). That is what the text explicitly says and teaches.
Thus, the probing question is, Were all 613 Commands of the Law of Moses fulfilled at the cross? The undeniable fact is that they were not.”
================
Riggle offered his answer (10-23-2025):
//Don, you need to consider the very words of Christ. You are so bent on skewing the plain reading that you just cannot see what is patently obvious to many others. You write a lot and so, I suppose, that it might the impression that you are saying a lot. But so much of your verbage is – to use your favorite terms – obfuscation and bloviation (I had to look up that second word. It fits you.).
But, really, you just whiz on by what Jesus actually said. Here is the passage:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” – Matt. 5:17-18
First, Jesus said what He did NOT come to do. But then, by reasonably extrapolating the “but to”, we can make a positive statement from this verse: I HAVE come to do something.
Agreed, so far?
If so, then we can see what He did come to do – FULFILL the Law and the Prophets.
Is this His first coming or His second (parousia)? Obviously His first.
HERE IS THE KEY – something that you seem to refuse to see – Christ linked the fulfilling of the Law and prophets with His FIRST coming, not the SECOND. He did not say, “I have come (this time) to die on the Cross and in my second coming I will fulfill the Law and the prophets”.
But that is exactly what your Jesus would need to have said! That is the Jesus of Covenant Eschatology.
This is all I have time for now. My prayer is that this plain explanation will open eyes. If not yours, then maybe on some of your followers who seem to hang on your every word.
I offered this as a response on 10:24-2025
I am not missing anything, but it sure seems that you are. When you say:
//HERE IS THE KEY – something that you seem to refuse to see – Christ linked the fulfilling of the Law and prophets with His FIRST coming, not the SECOND. He did not say, “I have come (this time) to die on the Cross and in my second coming I will fulfill the Law and the prophets”.//
Tell us, Tom Riggle, when Jesus said that in the destruction of Jerusalem “all things written must be fulfilled” was the fulfillment concerning HIM? Was HE not coming in judgment? After all, you admit that the final three feasts prophesied of AD 66! So were those events not concerning HIM, since He HIMSELF said that in that event:
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Was Jesus coming at that time? That is undeniable. Thus, this is Jesus coming to fulfill– AND TO FULFILL ALL THINGS!
Was that event not a sign about HIM- enthroned as King of kings? If the focus is not on Jesus fulfilling all those things, what is it focused on? You should take note how many times the “Son of Man” and “he” are mentioned in the text.
Was that event not his parousia?
Again, was he not coming in that event to fulfill all prophecy– Luke 21:22?
And let’s not forget that in Revelation 10:6-7, John was told that in the sounding of the 7th trump, the mystery of God foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled.
The seventh trump would sound to bring in the resurrection– which you and Edward E. Stevens anachronistically posit in AD 66– the kingdom, the judgment, the entrance into the MHP.
BTW, I am waiting for you to answer: (I had offered this in an earlier response to some of Riggle’s comments on Hebrews 9:6-1)).
There could be no entrance into the MHP until the end of the Law (Hebrews 9:6-10).
No entrance into the MHP until the Wrath of God finished (Revelation 11 & 15).
The Wrath of God finished in the destruction of Babylon– i.e. Jerusalem (Revelation 16:17-19).
Therefore, the end of the Law was not until the judgment of Jerusalem– in AD 70– NOT AD 66.
This is explicit.
Is Revelation 10:6-7 & 11:15-19 not about Jesus fulfilling those prophecies?
Your dichotomization between Jesus’ incarnation and his parousia in regard to the fulfillment of all things is untenable. Your exclusive focus on the incarnation short circuits the time of fulfillment. Scripture ‘explicitly” posits that time of the fulfillment of all things written in AD 70 (not in AD 66)! This completely falsifies your claim that Matthew 45:17-18 “explicitly” says that all things were fulfilled at the Cross. You are indeed guilty of eisegesis.
This explanation is plain and explicit.
For more in-depth discussion and demonstration that the Law did not end until AD 70, see my book Torah To Telos: The End of the Law
*****************************************************************************************************************
After I posted the exchange above Mr. Riggle posted to me and accused me of blocking his responses and comments– but I did no such thing. Nonetheless I am posting his response to my posting and then, my response.
Riggle posted on Sun, Oct 26, 2025 – 8:39 AM (20 hours ago)
A new comment on the post “When Did the Law of Moses End? A Discussion” is waiting for your approval (I approved his post on 10-27-2025, his accusation was misplaced)
When Did the Law of Moses End? A Discussion– Some Additional Dialogue Added (10-27-2025
Author: Tom Riggle (IP address: 47.27.3.212, syn-047-027-003-212.res.spectrum.com)
Email: gilgermot@gmail.com
URL: https://asterisktom.wordpress.com/
Comment:
I see that you did not add my further response. I will add it here.
Don K. Preston, this is like nailing jello to the wall, but I will try once more:
Was Christ in Matt. 5:17-18 referring also to AD 70?
If you say “Yes” then you have defined His coming as the entire period from 4 BC to AD 70 as ONE coming.
If you say “No” then you have two choices:
1. By “coming” Christ meant His future AD 70 (sic) appearing. or,
2. By “coming” He meant only His physical first appearing.
Number 1 is ruled out by the phrase “I have come”. He did not say “I will come to fulfill” … etc.
Number 2 is supported by the text.
It also shows that Christ’s first coming is when all was fulfilled.
I just want you to be honest with what THIS text says. It is, after all, my answer to what you had asked me over and over again.
Beside this text, there are 18 other passages that speak of Christ’s coming. These either have the phrase “I have come” (or some variation), “Christ/Jesus came”, or “He came”.
In all 18 of these passages the reference is clearly to His first coming (Incarnation-Ascension). How odd it would be, then, that the Matthew 5 “I have come” passage would refer to the extended period from 4 BC to AD 70. Yet – once all the bloviation is boiled down – this is what your scenario would require.
My Response 10-27-2025:
Tom, your post is a classic example of setting up false dilemma not to mention jumping to conclusions. You claim that since there are 18 examples of the language “I come” or variants, that this demands that all things in the law and the prophets had to be fulfilled in his incarnation. That is a massive assumption– and it violates the explicit additional comments by Jesus and the NT corpus.
Let’s look closer at Matthew 5:17-18– “Until heaven and earth passes, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.”
Now, Tom, do you believe that the Old Covenant heaven and earth passed away at the cross? If so, then what heaven and earth was Peter talking about passing at the parousia? And, what heaven and earth would pass as described in Revelation 20:10-12.
You cannot have the heaven and earth passing at the cross and then having it pass at the parousia! Yet, that is precisely what is demanded by your view.
Second, Jesus said “Not one jot or one tittle of the Law will pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.” Now, Jesus was using ellipsis. Ellipsis is using a shortened form of expression to simply repeat something else spoken of in longer form. To put it more formally an ellipsis is: The omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete.”
Well, in Matthew 5:17f Jesus said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy (ellipsis– the law or the prophets) but to fulfill (ellipsis– the law and the prophets. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth passes, not on jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law (ellipsis– or the prophets) until it is all (ellipsis- the law and the prophets) fulfilled.”
Thus, the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, all of it, of the law and the prophets had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away. You claim that this happened at the cross, but that is patently false! And you are on record as affirming this, since you claim and say that the final three feast days foretold the events of AD 66!
Okay, let’s try that, shall we?
The entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away.
But the last three Jewish feast days foretold the events of AD 66– says Tom Riggle.
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– passed away until AD 66.
But let’s look at the facts. I have already noted that we have two explicitly, emphatic texts that say that all prophecy would not be fulfilled until the judgment of Jerusalem– Luke 21:22 and Revelation 10:6-7. I presented these, but you simply dismissed them and said you wanted to focus on Matthew 5:17-18. Well, Tom, proper exegesis and hermeneutic is holistic, not isolationist or minimalist.
Since Jesus said, and Revelation says, that all prophecy would be fulfilled in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70, then your are, as I have stated, short circuiting the
Let’s put this another way:
The entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away.
The Old Testament foretold the coming of the Lord (his judgment parousia) and the resurrection and the end of the age.
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– passed away until Christ’s judgment parousia, the resurrection and the end of the age.
Tom, you do not believe that Christ’s judgment coming or the resurrection or the end of the age were all fulfilled at the cross– do you? No, because you say that the OT foretold AD 66!
Let me repeat and argument that I have presented repeatedly but which you continue to ignore or to just brush it aside saying let’s focus on just Matthew.
Jesus: not one jot or one tittle of the Law or the prophets could pass until it was ALL fulfilled.
Jesus said all things written would be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70–Luke 21:22 (not in AD 66!).
John likewise said that the mystery of God foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled in the sounding of the seventh trump (Revelation 10:6-7).
The judgment and the resurrection, as well as entrance into the Most Holy Place, would take place in the sounding of the seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:15-19) – This depicts the fulfillment of the final three feast days!!
But the sounding of the seventh trump was to be (was) at the destruction of the city “where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)– not in AD 66!
Therefore, the final three feasts of Israel were fulfilled – and thus, all prophecy fulfilled– at the sounding of the seventh trump at the destruction of the city “where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)– not in AD 66!
This means that the Law was NOT ALL FULFILLED AND IT WAS NOT REMOVED / NULLIFIED AT THE CROSS!
You cannot isolate Matthew 5 from the rest of the NT testimony about when all things would be fulfilled, but that is PRECISELY WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO. And yet, you are on record admitting that all of the law and the prophets were not fulfilled until AD 66. That is a massive self contradiction and a contradiction of Scripture.
********************************************************************************************************
I responded to Tom about Colossiasn 2 and then, he responded to that, making a (MASSIVE ADMISSION) IN RESPONSE TO MY SHORTER RESPONSE– 10-27-2025
October 27, 2025 at 8:52 am
The claim that Colossians 2 says that the Law was nailed to the cross betrays an ignorance of the linguistics of the text, or a rejection of it.
Read carefully the attached article by Dr. Dallas Burdette, who has taught both Hebrew and Greek at the university level.
Reply
asterisktom’s avatar asterisktom says:
October 27, 2025 at 10:39 am
I see that you continue to block my responses on your website. At the same time, I have been allowing your comments here. Is that fair? What are you afraid of – that your followers might get other ideas?
And, yes, I read Burdette’s article. Most of it I agree with. We have been through this before. He is not saying what you seem to think he is saying. Also, his last paragraph would sound strange coming from you.
I never said that the the Law absolutely ended for everyone. Just for the saints – and that, after all, is who is being addressed in Matthew. For the unbelieving Jews the Law continued to be the grievous burden it always been, testifying against them, building up a spiritual rap sheet that would, unless they repented, one day thoroughly condemn them.
I then responded:
MrDonPreston’s avatar MrDonPreston says:
October 27, 2025 at 11:14 am
You have falsely accused me of blocking your posts on my website. I have done no such thing! I sometimes get notification of posts a bit later than when they were posted, and can only keep up with so many.
If you never said that that the Law absolutely ended for everyone at the cross, then you are changing your tune! You said that the law– all 613 commandments– passed away at the cross! But now, you are changing your tune and telling us that the Law continued in force for the unbelieving Jews! Well, AMEN And AMEN! So, why are you constantly condemning me, William and others for saying this very thing?????
I see that you did not add my further response. I will add it here.
Don K. Preston, this is like nailing jello to the wall, but I will try once more:
Was Christ in Matt. 5:17-18 referring also to AD 70?
If you say “Yes” then you have defined His coming as the entire period from 4 BC to AD 70 as ONE coming.
If you say “No” then you have two choices:
1. By “coming” Christ meant His future AD 70 (sic) appearing. or,
2. By “coming” He meant only His physical first appearing.
Number 1 is ruled out by the phrase “I have come”. He did not say “I will come to fulfill” … etc.
Number 2 is supported by the text.
It also shows that Christ’s first coming is when all was fulfilled.
I just want you to be honest with what THIS text says. It is, after all, my answer to what you had asked me over and over again.
Beside this text, there are 18 other passages that speak of Christ’s coming. These either have the phrase “I have come” (or some variation), “Christ/Jesus came”, or “He came”. In all 18 of these passages the reference is clearly to His first coming (Incarnation-Ascension). How odd it would be, then, that the Matthew 5 “I have come” passage would refer to the extended period from 4 BC to AD 70. Yet – once all the bloviation is boiled down – this is what your scenario would require.
Tom, your post is a classic example of setting up false dilemma not to mention jumping to conclusions. You claim that since there are 18 examples of the language “I come” or variants, that this demands that all things in the law and the prophets had to be fulfilled in his incarnation. That is a massive assumption– and it violates the explicit additional comments by Jesus and the NT corpus.
Let’s look closer at Matthew 5:17-18– “Until heaven and earth passes, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.”
Now, Tom, do you believe that the Old Covenant heaven and earth passed away at the cross? If so, then what heaven and earth was Peter talking about passing at the parousia? And, what heaven and earth would pass as described in Revelation 20:10-12.
You cannot have the heaven and earth passing at the cross and then having it pass at the parousia! Yet, that is precisely what is demanded by your view.
Second, Jesus said “Not one jot or one tittle of the Law will pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.” Now, Jesus was using ellipsis. Ellipsis is using a shortened form of expression to simply repeat something else spoken of in longer form. To put it more formally an ellipsis is: The omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete.”
Well, in Matthew 5:17f Jesus said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy (ellipsis– the law or the prophets) but to fulfill (ellipsis– the law and the prophets. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth passes, not on jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law (ellipsis– or the prophets) until it is all (ellipsis- the law and the prophets) fulfilled.”
Thus, the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, all of it, of the law and the prophets had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away. You claim that this happened at the cross, but that is patently false! And you are on record as affirming this, since you claim and say that the final three feast days foretold the events of AD 66!
Okay, let’s try that, shall we?
The entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away.
But the last three Jewish feast days foretold the events of AD 66– says Tom Riggle.
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– passed away until AD 66.
But let’s look at the facts. I have already noted that we have two explicitly, emphatic texts that say that all prophecy would not be fulfilled until the judgment of Jerusalem– Luke 21:22 and Revelation 10:6-7. I presented these, but you simply dismissed them and said you wanted to focus on Matthew 5:17-18. Well, Tom, proper exegesis and hermeneutic is holistic, not isolationist or minimalist.
Since Jesus said, and Revelation says, that all prophecy would be fulfilled in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70, then your are, as I have stated, short circuiting the
Let’s put this another way:
The entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away.
The Old Testament foretold the coming of the Lord (his judgment parousia) and the resurrection and the end of the age.
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– passed away until Christ’s judgment parousia, the resurrection and the end of the age.
Tom, you do not believe that Christ’s judgment coming or the resurrection or the end of the age were all fulfilled at the cross– do you? No, because you say that the OT foretold AD 66!
Let me repeat and argument that I have presented repeatedly but which you continue to ignore or to just brush it aside saying let’s focus on just Matthew.
Jesus: not one jot or one tittle of the Law or the prophets could pass until it was ALL fulfilled.
Jesus said all things written would be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70–Luke 21:22 (not in AD 66!).
John likewise said that the mystery of God foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled in the sounding of the seventh trump (Revelation 10:6-7).
The judgment and the resurrection, as well as entrance into the Most Holy Place, would take place in the sounding of the seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:15-19) – This depicts the fulfillment of the final three feast days!!
But the sounding of the seventh trump was to be (was) at the destruction of the city “where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)– not in AD 66!
Therefore, the final three feasts of Israel were fulfilled – and thus, all prophecy fulfilled– at the sounding of the seventh trump at the destruction of the city “where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)– not in AD 66!
This means that the Law was NOT ALL FULFILLED AND IT WAS NOT REMOVED / NULLIFIED AT THE CROSS!
You cannot isolate Matthew 5 from the rest of the NT testimony about when all things would be fulfilled, but that is PRECISELY WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO. And yet, you are on record admitting that all of the law and the prophets were not fulfilled until AD 66. That is a massive self contradiction and a contradiction of Scripture.
There are so many wrong things here I hardly know where to begin. But I had already written a response here and it did not get posted. So I think I will pass.
You know and I know what you did, whatever else you tell your followers. Here is what I answered you on my WordPress site:
Oh please. You had a whole day. Don;t pretend otherwise.
And, no, I am not “changing my tune”. I am specifying to YOU what I have been saying for months now, that the Law no longer continued VALIDLY. You can see that in my earlier articles. If you can’t I will post one or two.
And, big no, you are not “saying the same thing”. You are saying that no one was forgiven until AD 70. No salvation until AD 70. Here are your very words:
“Until atonement was completed, ladies and gentlemen, there was no forgiveness. Until the atonement was consummated, ladies and gentlemen, there was no salvation.”
Essentially, Don, you teach that the Holy Spirit cannot work until the Law vacates the premises. Also, not everything was fulfilled for the Jews at AD 70. Masada and two other fortresses held out much longer, the final fall wasn;t until AD 73, if not even later.
I told you that I did not block you and I didn’t. You will not come on my website and accuse me of lying. If I was going to block you, I would block your slanderous post here. But if you slander me again, you will be blocked. For you to say “Oh, please, you had the whole day” implies that you know what my schedule is like, and it assumes that you are – or should be – the top priority in my correspondence. Both are arrogant, presumptuou assumptions, and wrong.
And yes, you assuredly ARE changing your tune and your position. You have adamantly affirmed that all 613 commandmants of Torah were removed at the cross. No qualifier given! In fact, you wrote:
//all of these 613 commandments passed away at the Cross – at the same time. Together. This is what the text explicitly states. This passing away of the Law, the end of the Old Covenant, was demonstrated to the Jews by the torn veil.//
So, here you are affirming that the Law was annulled- and that annulment was manifested to the Jews at that very time! But now you turn around and tell us that the unbelieving Jews remained under the Law! That is double speak and you know it. Tell us, Mr. Riggle, if the Law- all of it- passed away at the cross, how in the name of reason did that annulled law still apply to anyone??? That is the epitome of illogic.
I and others teach the truth that the Law was NOT nailed to the cross, but that it continued valid (stasin) and imposed until AD 70– when it all fulfilled.
Jesus said that all things written was to be fulfilled in AD 70. You are free to deny that if you wish.
Masada was a relatively minor skirmish compared to the War itself. Less than 1000 died there. Compared to the Jerusalem siege that pales in comparison.
And you are conveniently ignoring the entirety of my post in which I demonstrated that the Law did NOT end at the Cross– which you have now amazingly admitted.
I have proven you wrong on the Atonement plenty of times now. Salvation did not come until the parousia– Romans 11:26-27 / Ephesians 4:30. Atonement was never considered complete until the High Priest came out of the MHP to declare it complete. That is Hebrews 9:28.
“So, here you are affirming that the Law was annulled- and that annulment was manifested to the Jews at that very time! But now you turn around and tell us that the unbelieving Jews remained under the Law! That is double speak and you know it.”
Good grief. It is double application, not double-speak. The unbelieving Jews remained under the now-lethal Law
because they were – unbelieving. They insisted on living and dying with the “old wine”. There is a difference between being under the condemnation of the Law and being obedient to the valid Law. The latter ended at Calvary, the former continued for the unbelieving Jews. I have said this many times and you keep acting as if you found some great GOTCHA on me. No. Give it a break.
And I have not “amazingly admitted” that the Law did not end at the Cross. Maybe, amazingly, you actually started paying attention to what I have been writing: It continued only in condemnation for the unbelieving Jews. It benefited them nothing.
Masada, Machaerus, Herodium, and the thousands of Jews who were killed in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, and elsewhere add up to more than a “minor skirmish”. You disregard the prophecy from Dan. 9:26:
“… unto the end of the war desolations [plural] are determined.“
You are determined to make AD 70 the grand event. Contrary to Scripture, history, and logic.
Yes, it is double speak. You say that the Law– all of it- passed away at the cross. YET!
That annulled law foretold AD 66– according to you, meaning it was still valid until at least AD 66. That is an application of a law- the law- that had to be still valid and imposted untl AD 66.
And you now claim that the Jews “The unbelieving Jews remained under the now-lethal Law because they were – unbelieving. They insisted on living and dying with the “old wine”. There is a difference between being under the condemnation of the Law and being obedient to the valid Law.”
This is amazing! Tom, if the law was condemning them
then the Law was still standing and imposed!
and you even tacitly admit this by saying that all things concerning the Jews was not fulfilled until Masada! Well, according to Jesus, the Law and prophets could not pass until every jot and every tittle was fulfilled! So, once again, you contradict yourself and scripture.
“So, here you are affirming that the Law was annulled- and that annulment was manifested to the Jews at that very time! But now you turn around and tell us that the unbelieving Jews remained under the Law! That is double speak and you know it.”
Good grief. It is double application, not double-speak. The unbelieving Jews remained under the now-lethal Law because they were – unbelieving. They insisted on living and dying with the “old wine”. There is a difference between being under the condemnation of the Law and being obedient to the valid Law. The latter ended at Calvary, the former continued for the unbelieving Jews. I have said this many times and you keep acting as if you found some great GOTCHA on me. No. Give it a break.
And I have not “amazingly admitted” that the Law did not end at the Cross. Maybe, amazingly, you actually started paying attention to what I have been writing: It continued only in condemnation for the unbelieving Jews. It benefited them nothing.
Masada, Machaerus, Herodium, and the thousands of Jews who were killed in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, and elsewhere add up to more than a “minor skirmish”. You disregard the prophecy from Dan. 9:26:
“… unto the end of the war desolations [plural] are determined.“
You are determined to make AD 70 the grand event. Contrary to Scripture, history, and logic.
Unapprove |
|
| Edit | Spam | Trash
2025/10/28 at 9:08 am
Select comment
Don K Preston
donkpreston@gmail.com
24.119.26.218 In reply to Tom Riggle.
Yes, it is double speak. You say that the Law– all of it- passed away at the cross. YET!
That annulled law foretold AD 66– according to you, meaning it was still valid until at least AD 66. That is an application of a law- the law- that had to be still valid and imposted untl AD 66.
And you now claim that the Jews “The unbelieving Jews remained under the now-lethal Law because they were – unbelieving. They insisted on living and dying with the “old wine”. There is a difference between being under the condemnation of the Law and being obedient to the valid Law.”
This is amazing! Tom, if the law was condemning them then the Law was still standing and imposed!
A DEAD law has ZERO power to condemn! It is eminently illogical to say that the Jews were condemned by the law that had already passed away! If the law still continued to condemn them, upon what basis did it condemn them? Answer: Because they were disobedient to that law! The law could not condemn if the Law was DEAD, Tom!!
And you keep desperately trying to avoid the power of Luke 21:22, where even by your own admissions it is speaking about AD 70- “These be the days of vengeance in which all things written must be fulfilled.” Show me where Jesus extended that beyond the trodding down of Jerusalem.
As to Daniel 9:26, are you now going to tell us that Masada Machaerus, Herodium et. all, were included in the Seventy Week countdown?
The focus of Daniel 9 is explicit– ‘The people of the prince who shall come “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” and “the end thereof (the end of the Weeks and the city and sanctuary shall be with a flood…” Yet, here you are extending the Weeks beyond those delimiting events!
A DEAD law has ZERO power to condemn! It is eminently illogical to say that the Jews were condemned by the law that had already passed away! If the law still continued to condemn them, upon what basis did it condemn them? Answer: Because they were disobedient to that law! The law could not condemn if the Law was DEAD, Tom!!
And you keep desperately trying to avoid the power of Luke 21:22, where even by your own admissions it is speaking about AD 70- “These be the days of vengeance in which all things written must be fulfilled.” Show me where Jesus extended that beyond the trodding down of Jerusalem. And now, amazingly enough, you even tell us that not all things were fulfilled
As to Daniel 9:26, are you now going to tell us that Masada Machaerus, Herodium et. all, were included in the Seventy Week countdown?
The focus of Daniel 9 is explicit– ‘The people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” and “the end thereof (the end of the Weeks and the city and sanctuary shall be with a flood…” Yet, here you are extending the Weeks beyond those delimiting events!
I am super busy right now but I just have to comment on this last paragraph. No, Don, I am not extending the 70 Weeks past AD 70. The 70 Weeks ended decades earlier, when the Gospel went out to the Gentiles (Cornelius in Acts). The events afterward, though predicted, are well beyond the scope of the 70 Weeks. I have written this before – I know even to you at least once or twice.
You are so stuck on your AD 70 paradigm that you seem to have a hard time understanding other viewpoints. Your whole series of responses to me have so many misrepresentations of my view that I hardly know where to begin.
Maybe later I will tackle the most egregious ones.
And about the Law. Once again. The Law still had power over those who would not leave it. I have always said this. It’s like you refuse to understand what I am writing. Why should I write it again?
The Law ceased to be divinely valid at Calvary. From that time onward no one pleased God by following the Law. It was only a source of condemnation – especially for those who exposed to the Gospel.
Your heretical notion that salvation did not come until AD 70 is totally at odds with Scripture. Those under the Law up until that time did not get saved. Those already saved did not need salvation in the sense that you are teaching. If those saints survived to AD 66 (not AD 70) they were raptured.
So who is it, in your mind, that all of a sudden in AD 70 gets salvation and forgiveness?
I might come back to the rest of this but, judging by how you misconstrue what I have written before, I am not sure that it is the best use of my time and energy. Instead I should just continue my sermon prep and other writing. A good portion of the latter is trying to undo the damage that you are doing to the Full Preterist cause.
You just repeated your error, but did not touch a thing I said. To say that //The Law ceased to be divinely valid at Calvary. From that time onward no one pleased God by following the Law. It was only a source of condemnation – especially for those who exposed to the Gospel.// Is to affirm that the Law continued valid. When you say: //The Law still had power over those who would not leave it.// Anyone that can see through a ladder, as friend Roy Runyon likes to say, knows that A DEAD LAW HAS NO POWER OVER ANYONE, WHETHER OBEDIENT OR DISOBEDIENT!
Tell you what, Tom, provide for us an example from actual legal case law, in which a law that had been stricken from the books, annulled, abrogated, was, after its annullment, used to condemn someone, even put them in prison!! Give us a case! Frankly, I cannot believe that ANYONE would even think of making such an argument.
You cannot escape your problem by claiming that I am not representing you properly. A DEAD LAW CANNOT CONDEMN ANYONE, TOM RIGGLE! It is eminently illogical and nonsensical to say otherwise!
So, when you come back, make sure you address each and every one of my arguments. No side stepping. No smoke, no dust.
You are merely attempting to deflect attention away from you failure be talking once more about when salvation came. I have answered this repeatedly. Try reading Romans 11:26-27, and then YOU tell us who received salvation at that time. And who was to receive the redemption at the Day of the Lord that Paul said they had the guarantee of in Ephesians 1:12-13? Do not fail to answer.
AS to your claim that the 70 weeks ended long before AD 70. Daniel was told that the seventy weeks were determine don the people and the city. That textually means that the destruction of the city and the people belong to the seventy weeks. Your claim that the events of the Weeks were fulfilled no later than the conversion of Cornelius is a glaring example of anachronism.
Remember, don’t come back here and make another post that does not address my response to you latest.
You wrote:
You just repeated your error, but did not touch a thing I said. To say that //The Law ceased to be divinely valid at Calvary. From that time onward no one pleased God by following the Law. It was only a source of condemnation – especially for those who exposed to the Gospel.// Is to affirm that the Law continued valid. When you say: //The Law still had power over those who would not leave it.// Anyone that can see through a ladder, as friend Roy Runyon likes to say, knows that A DEAD LAW HAS NO POWER OVER ANYONE, WHETHER OBEDIENT OR DISOBEDIENT!
===================
My answer:
The Law that was dead to believers most certainly had power over those who insisted on following it. When I said “divinely valid” I meant God still pleased with it. And the answer for that is NO. He was “well-pleased in His Son.
The term “dead Law” is your term. I am very careful in my phrasing. To those who continued in the Law after the Gospel was presented it was, not a dead Law, but a killing Law, “The letter kills”, 2 Cor. 3:6
The Law still speaks to them to show and confirm them in their guilt, Rom. 3:19-20.
The Law brings wrath down on those who continue in it, Rom. 4:15.
The Law follows them to their grave, Rom. 7:1.
Those following the “Law are under a curse”, Gal. 3:10.
Even though the Law is not of faith, those who obeys it much continue in it, Gal. 3:12.
Plenty more verses could be adduced, but these are enough to show the Law is still active over the disobedient. It was not, as you put it, a “dead Law”.
So, once again, just who suddenly received forgiveness and salvation at AD 70? The redeemed don’t need it. The Law-followers won’t qualify for it. You never answered this question.
I have no idea why you asked that silly question about showing something from law books. If the verses above do not help I don’t know what else I can do to get past your cognitive roadblock.
==================
You wrote:
Try reading Romans 11:26-27, and then YOU tell us who received salvation at that time. And who was to receive the redemption at the Day of the Lord that Paul said they had the guarantee of in Ephesians 1:12-13? Do not fail to answer.
==================
My answer:
Maybe you should reread that “kinsmen according to the flesh” passage yourself, also adding the previous verse, as well as Rom. 2:28-29 and Gal. 6:16. There is something very major here that you are missing, most likely because you always interpret passages like these two through a corporate grid. Also, concerning Eph. 1, “redemption” has more than one meaning. This is basic Bible knowledge that first year Bible students know. Yet you give the impression of having no idea about the first definition.
===================
You wrote:
Daniel was told that the seventy weeks were determine don the people and the city. That textually means that the destruction of the city and the people belong to the seventy weeks.
====================
My answer:
“Textually means”? That is a nothing burger. Please. You ought to be straightforward and just say “I’m going to extrapolate here and include AD 70 as part of 70 weeks.”
We discussed this before. There is no way you can make the math work out so that you arrive at AD 70.
It is not “THE people”. It is “YOUR PEOPLE”. The people of God. The people Daniel was praying for. This is an immensely important detail that you whizzed right by, I guess because it was not serviceable for your thesis.
There is a great difference between Daniel’s people of God and the rebellious ones who are left to witness the final desolation and the fall of the city. The six promises of Daniel 9:24 are all fulfilled by the 30s AD. The things that happen afterward are the the consequences to those who continue on rebellion.
Okay. I gave this my best shot for the time being. Please answer my question above.
“Who suddenly received forgiveness and salvation at AD 70? The redeemed don’t need it. The Law-followers won’t qualify for it.”
So, Riggle doubles down on affirming that the Law did not pass away at the cross! It remained the power to condemn: //The Law that was dead to believers most certainly had power over those who insisted on following it. When I said “divinely valid” I meant God still pleased with it. And the answer for that is NO. He was “well-pleased in His Son.// And you said: // I am very careful in my phrasing. To those who continued in the Law after the Gospel was presented it was, not a dead Law, but a killing Law.// And you added: //Plenty more verses could be adduced, but these are enough to show the Law is still active over the disobedient. It was not, as you put it, a “dead Law”.// And you said: //To those who continued in the Law after the Gospel was presented it was, not a dead Law, but a killing Law, “The letter kills”, 2 Cor. 3:6.//
This nothing but more double talk! If the Law remained valid, binding and powerful enough to condemn and kill, then WHO GAVE IT THAT POWER AND AUTHORITY, TOM RIGGLE??
I challenged you to show us an example of a law– any law– that continued to have the power to penalize, to condemn ANYONE FOR ANYTHING after it has been annulled. Your response:
//I have no idea why you asked that silly question about showing something from law books. If the verses above do not help I don’t know what else I can do to get past your cognitive roadblock.//
Tell us what is so silly about my question, Mr. Riggle? You claim that the Law was removed after the Cross- for the obedient– BUT NOT FOR THE DISOBEDIENT! Well, then you just surrendered your claim that the Law passed away completely at the cross. It only died a little bit! It only died half way!
Then, more smoke and dust. I cited Ephesians 1:– in whom we have received redemption, even the forgiveness of our sin” So how do you “answer”? You tell us: //Also, concerning Eph. 1, “redemption” has more than one meaning. This is basic Bible knowledge that first year Bible students know. Yet you give the impression of having no idea about the first definition.//
Well, Mr. Riggle, Paul explains what he means by redemption when he epexetetically defines his use of redemption; “EVEN the forgiveness of our sin.” So, tell us what redemption means in the text, Mr. Riggle!!! It was THAT redemption that was coming on the Day of Redemption! And that Day of Redemption is likewise the Day of the Lord’s second appearing “for salvation.”
Those in Romans 11, that were to receive forgiveness, were those who– when Paul wrote, were “enemies of the cross” (Romans 11:28) Is that how you are defining them by appealing to Romans 1, Mr. Riggle? Tell me that you are not doing that!!! Talk about obfuscation!!
Yes, we have discussed Daniel 9 and you are wrong. The seventy weeks did not end with the conversion of Cornelius!
Seventy weeks were determined to make the atonement and take away sin– when does Romans 11:26-27 say sin would be taken away?
Daniel 9 said the Weeks were determined to seal vision and prophecy– to fulfill all prophecy. When did Jesus (and John) say that all prophecy would be fulfilled? Luke 21:22 & Revelation 10:6-7– both of which posit the fulfillment of all prophecy in AD!
The Seventy Weeks were determined to bring in everlasting righteousness. Peter and John were still looking for the fulfillment of that world of everlasting righteousness in 2 Peter 3 and Revelation.
Thus, your claim: //The six promises of Daniel 9:24 are all fulfilled by the 30s AD. The things that happen afterward are the the (sic) consequences to those who continue on rebellion.//
In my book, Seal Vision and Prophecy I prove all of this very effectively.
Show this to us from the actual words and contact, Mr. Riggle! All you have done is make unfounded, unproven claims.
I am totally out of time.
“Tell us what is so silly about my question, Mr. Riggle? You claim that the Law was removed after the Cross- for the obedient– BUT NOT FOR THE DISOBEDIENT! Well, then you just surrendered your claim that the Law passed away completely at the cross. It only died a little bit! It only died half way!”
==================
It is so tiresome and time-consuming answering you, Don, when you show almost zero comprehension of what I write. Here, I will SHOUT it, since you seem to like ALLCAPS:
FOR THE SAINTS THE LAW DIED COMPLETELY – AT CALVARY
FOR THE UNBELIEVING JEWS THE LAW CONTINUED UNTIL THE END OF THEIR LIVES.
There was nothing “little bit” about it. That is just mockery ill-befitting of someone your age.
==================
“Then, more smoke and dust. I cited Ephesians 1:– in whom we have received redemption, even the forgiveness of our sin” So how do you “answer”? You tell us: //Also, concerning Eph. 1, “redemption” has more than one meaning. This is basic Bible knowledge that first year Bible students know. Yet you give the impression of having no idea about the first definition.//
Well, Mr. Riggle, Paul explains what he means by redemption when he epexetetically defines his use of redemption; “EVEN the forgiveness of our sin.” So, tell us what redemption means in the text, Mr. Riggle!!! It was THAT redemption that was coming on the Day of Redemption!”
==================
Indeed. Let’s look at the text. The redemption spoke of here is a present possession of the saints. Your saying that it was still coming is desparate stretching. By contrast, lets see what Paul says:
He bestowed His grace on us in the Beloved, vs. 6. This is from our being in Christ.
This grace also gives us “redemption through His blood” and “the forgiveness of sins”, vs. 7. Note the present tenses!
That makes your bold assertion of “no forgiveness” and “no salvation” to be quite the lie. But there’s more:
He “caused to abound” (aorist active for a past event but with continuing result) “wisdom and all insight” for the saints. These are all gifts of grace. So, contrary to your teaching elsewhere, grace was a present possession of those interim saints because, surely, God does not pour out so abundantly His grace on the unforgiven – which is what these Ephesians must have been in your wretched theology!
“Redemption through His blood”. When and how was this effected. According to you “the price was paid” (your very words) when the Son cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” And then, paradoxically, you posit redemption on your supposed “day of redemption – AD 70.
”
“You place it both before and after the actual event, the actual death of Christ on the Cross. Truly another gospel.
“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; From then on waiting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified.” – Heb. 10:12-14
When? “Had offered” – past event
What and Why? – one sacrifice (not two, separated by decades) “for sins forever”.
What more needed to be done at AD 70? That was only a divine demolition, God’s final visual aid to the Jews, showing that there covenant had been annuled.
Beautiful, powerful passage! But totally at odds with what you are promoting. But maybe you consider this topic of salvation at the Cross “diversionary” from your your main message of the Old Covenant feasts of the Jews.
Ask yourself, how many times does Paul, or any of the writers of the Epistles, mention the feasts? Three or four times. And never in a didactic sense, always neutral or even negative.
======================
“Riggle completely distorts the Day of Atonement typology of Hebrews 9 claiming that the “salvation” of 9:28 was not related to the Atonement at all! No, for Riggle, Stevens et.al.– it was physical deliverance from the Jewish War! This is eisegetic to the core.”
======================
It is a straw man to the core. And I think you know this, because I have told you time and again that the salvation of Heb. 9:28 had different facets (four, I think I listed). The physical rescue was one, but not the major one. This event was most certainly related to the Atonement (that is, reconciliation, propitiation) because those who had been redeemed through faith in the death of the Son on the Cross were the ones receiving this final aspect of salvation. The saving for these saints was the Rapture – another doctrine that you horribly misconstrue.
You did not show why my comment / question was silly. All you did was repeat your error.
You said that the Law ended for the disobedient when they died. Give book, chapter and verse for that. Jesus said that the Law would end when every jot and tittle was fulfilled– and that was in AD 70. But you continue to totally ignore this.
BTW, Jesus also said that the law would pass when heaven and earth passed. I presented the following and challenged you to answer– but of course– you refused:
Let’s look closer at Matthew 5:17-18– “Until heaven and earth passes, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.”
Now, Tom, do you believe that the Old Covenant heaven and earth passed away at the cross? If so, then what heaven and earth was Peter talking about passing at the parousia (2 Peter 3? And, what heaven and earth would pass as described in Revelation 20:10-12.
You cannot have the heaven and earth passing at the cross and then having it pass at the parousia! Yet, that is precisely what is demanded by your view.
Second, Jesus said “Not one jot or one tittle of the Law will pass from the Law until it is ALL fulfilled.” Now, Jesus was using ellipsis. Ellipsis is using a shortened form of expression to simply repeat something else spoken of in longer form. To put it more formally an ellipsis is: The omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete.”
Well, in Matthew 5:17f Jesus said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy (ellipsis– the law or the prophets) but to fulfill (ellipsis– the law and the prophets. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth passes, not on jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law (ellipsis– or the prophets) until it is all (ellipsis- the law and the prophets) fulfilled.”
Thus, the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, all of it, of the law and the prophets had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away. You claim that this happened at the cross, but that is patently false! And you are on record as affirming this, since you claim and say that the final three feast days foretold the events of AD 66!
The entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away.
But the last three Jewish feast days foretold the events of AD 66– says Tom Riggle. (Amazingly, Mr. Riggle ALSO argues that all three feast days were fulfilled at the Cross– Right, Mr. Riggle? Talk about anachronistic!
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the entirety of the Old Covenant corpus, ALL OF IT– the law and the prophets– passed away until AD 66.
As I have noted, you are really good at citing verses that speak of present realities but, when it comes to other passages, dealing with the same subjects and positing them in the imminent future, you redefine those same identical words, terms and phrases! This is glaringly obvious in regard to “redemption” in Ephesians.
You have to admit that it is forgiveness in v. 7. But then, YOU TOTALLY IGNORE the fact that in v. 12-13 Paul said that the Ephesians had the charismata as the guarantee of the COMING REDEMPTION, WHICH WOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE PAROUSIA. You do this although Paul NEVER changes the definition of redemption in the later verses! Now, since he defined redemption in 1:7 as forgiveness then the burden of proof lies squarely on you to prove that he changes that definition in 1:12-13 or 4:30. And of course, you have not and will not try– because you can’t prove that.
You ask what had to be done in AD 70. The answer is that Christ had to come out of the MHP to bring the salvation purchased by his sacrifice! That is what the text says. But what do you do? Once again, you simply change the definition of salvation from the contextual discussion of spiritual forgiveness and atonement, to now claim that it was reference to the rapture! What text do you offer? You don’t because you can’t.
And of course, we have here a change in position. Stevens — and I assume you– (correct me if I am wrong) have stated that the salvation of Hebrews 9:8 had NOTHING to do with the actual atonement but was deliverance from the Jewish War! Was that your position also? Do not fail to answer!
I have posted numerous arguments and facts and told you not to come back here on my site and call me a false teacher without addressing my arguments. Yet, you continue to ignore my arguments. That is not honorable. Answer my arguments directly and without obfuscation.