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) https://donkpreston.com/when-did-the-law-of-moses-end-a-discussion/

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.

https://donkpreston.com/guest-article-dr-dallas-burdette-on-colossians-214f/

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?????