Featured AD 66 – Definitive Date of Preterism

I am posting this thread in response to a question from Lodic concerning AD 66 as the date of the Parousia. This was posted in a Preterist FB group consisting mostly of Preterists, Full and Partial, who believe the Lord returned in AD 70 - which date I now see as 4 years too late.

I did a lot of research on this topic. I realize that this article is definitely not preaching to the choir, since Preterists are few and far between here, but I hope that there still is something here that might be of interest.

The post is in three parts. I hate that formatting is lost here, and that now some of the words run together in this repaste. But still readable, I think.

------------------
If you talk with most of us preterists about their beliefs fairly soon the date AD 70 will come up. It is almost like shorthand for the whole theology. It is, we are told, the date of the resurrection, the realization of the New Heaven and the New Earth. It is, we are also told, the definitive end of the Old Covenant. The destruction of the Temple demonstrated also the irrevocable passing away of the whole Jewish dispensation, their very means of worship.

But is any of this true?

Lets start with the verse that is used most often to prove the above assertion, Hebrews 9:8-9:

"the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience” NKJV

This is perhaps the main go-to passage for those preterists who posit the grand covenantal change precisely at AD 70, the Old Covenant ending at this time. But there is a basic error here in their application of this Hebrews passage, especially verse 8. Many translations of the phrase about the "standing" ("while the first tabernacle was yet standing" KJV2) gives the impression that a physical standing is meant - which is not true. The phrase is better translated “while the first tabernacle
has standing" – that is, while it still had validity.
Almost every single translation follows the KJV. But Young's Literal Translation, thankfully, accounts for a word in the original that the other versions ignored – ἐχούσης – from ἔχω, which means “to have”.

Here is the Greek of Hebrews 9:8:


τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσηςστάσιν,

There is a great difference between the Tabernacle “standing” and the Tabernacles “having a standing”. But the latter is the actual intent of the passage. The meaning is that as long as the Tabernacle (the Temple) had a legitimacy then the New Covenant could not be brought in.

When did this happen? At Calvary – not decades later. We learn this, among other places, in the very passage before us, Hebrews 9:11-12:
“11. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” NKJV

By looking more carefully at these two verses we can answer several important questions.
1. Christ “entered the Most Holy Place once for all”
2. He did this by means of “His own blood”
3. He “obtained eternal redemption”.

When did all this happen? It did not happen at AD 70. It happened at the Cross.
This is why – and when – the Tabernacle (and Temple) no longer had a standing, was no longer valid in the eyes of God.
This is when two great changes happened:
1. The Old Covenant ended– completely.
2. The New Covenant commenced– effectively.

The proof of this timing is in Matthew 5:18:
“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
This explicitly proves that the Old Covenant was totally in force until a point in time - the Cross. And then it had totally passed away.

This is the precise moment when we had the grand change in Covenants.
AD 70 has nothing to do with this.
A closer look at Matthew 5:17-18

17“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

This means that all 613 commandments in the Law were still in force. However, 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.
The New Covenant is what was established at the Cross, where Christ abolished the Old Covenant through His death. The end of the Old Covenant was signaled by, among other things, the temple veil torn, top to bottom. The New Covenant was demonstrated by the giving of the Holy Spirit. Christ told His disciples, "This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood.", Luke 22:20.

 

Part 2


If the Lawreally didcontinue until AD 70 the Jews as well as Christian Jews would still have been obligated to follow every one of those 613 commandments. Paul would have been in error in Galatians, not Peter, for speaking against the Law. He would have been the one that Christ described as “least in the Kingdom of Heaven”, Matt. 5:19.

The passing away of the Old Covenant happened at the same time asthe beginning of the New Covenant.

When and How was the Law abolished? To answer the first question is to answer the second as well.

Paul wrote to the Ephesians that Christ "abolished in His fleshthe enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances...", Eph. 2:15.

Whenwas this? Clearly "in the days of His flesh", Hebrews 5:7. So this abolishing of the Law happened at the Cross, not decades later.

How, then, can anyoneteach that Christians – let alone inspired Apostles! - are obligated to obey something that our Savior died to abolish? To believe or teach this is, in the words of Paul, to make yourself a transgressor, building up what Christ had already torn down! Gal. 2,18, Eph, 2:13-15.

Heb. 9:15-17 pinpoints for us when the New Covenant took effect.

“15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.”

Covenants, like wills, only take effect at the death of the one making it. The death of Christ immediately made the New Covenant available. What possible reason would there be to have the preciously bought benefit delayed, kept from those for whom He died, for four decades??

Objections Considered

1. How can the Law have passed away at the Cross when Hebrews tells us, decades later, it was still in the process of fading away?
2. How can the New Covenant already have come if Christ, speaking of a time just before the Parousia, that their redemption was still “drawing near”?
3. If the Law had passed away at the Cross why did Paul obey the Law when he returned to Jerusalem, Acts 21:20 – 26.

4. How can the Covenant have come already if Hebrews 9:8-9states it cannot come as long as the Tabernacle is still standing? (This was already answered at the beginning of the previous article, but I put it here for the sake of completeness. See also the comments of various commentators on this supposed problem in the notes below).

Responses to Objections 1-3

1."Why in Hebrews 8:13would Paul describe the law as "vanishing" rather than being ended?"

We must consider the context, which is a quotation from Jeremiah. It is not, specifically, that Paul is describing the Old Covenant as vanishing at the time that Paul was writing. Rather, he was enlarging on the writing of Jeremiah, not describing the current situation.

I think many of the commentators are helpful here, even though most are futurists. Ellicot, for instance, writes:

"(13) In that he saith . . .—Rather, In saying “new” He hath made the first old: now that which groweth old and is failing for age is nigh unto vanishing away. The very language of the prophet contains a declaration of the speedy dissolution of the former covenant. If “nigh unto vanishing” at the time when Jeremiah wrote, well might it now be believed to have passed away."

The “vanishing” of the Old Covenant had only to do with the physical instruments of the Old Covenant, the Temple, the deprecated rites. They no longer had effect on the faithful, nor spiritual validity in the eyes of God. The Old Covenant, the Law, can no longer lord it over the believer, though it was still, for a short ehile, physically present.

A good illustration of this reality is found in John 8, the woman accused of adultery. The accusers, the Jews, were all ready to stone her according to their law. But when Jesus wrote on the ground, and when He said, “Whoever is without sin can cast the first stone” their power was already gone at that point. They left her, starting with the oldest.

This is a good way to think of the Law at this time. Still physically present but, thanks to Jesus Christ, utterly powerless over those who come to Him.

2. How can the New Covenant have arrived at the Cross if, decades later, “redemption” was still “drawing near”. The two things, New Covenant and redemption, are not synonymous. Doing a study of the occurrences of “covenant” (or similar words or phrases) will show that this was very much a present possession of saints in the period between the Cross and Parousia. For one, we have Romans 11:27

“For this my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

Did the saints of that interim period have their sins taken away? Certainly. They were in the New Covenant. Also Galatians 4:24-26. The saints, if they were not in the “Jerusalem which is above” covenant, must still be under the covenant of “Mount Sinai.” One or the other.

3. Why did Paul sometimes still follow the Law, as in Acts 21:20 – 26?

First of all Paul did not "obey the Law". He, rightly or wrongly, became as a Jew to the Jews. At any rate I would rather place the explicit words of Christ over the actions of His apostles. Consider that nowhere do we have a record of God commanding Paulto do this. And consider the immediate consequence. Not what he had planned, probably.

Paul had written tothe Galatians that"if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law", Gal 5:18? After writing thathow could Paul himselfobey the Law?

For that matter, the choosing of Matthias was not necessarily the plan of God, seeing that Paul fit the position better.

If we have a clear record that Peter -and somewhat advanced already in his ministry – was at fault (Galatians 2:14) is it a stretch that Paul might also at times been in err in some action (not inspired teaching)?

 

Part 3

Timeline of Events



In order to make the case for an AD 66 rapture it will be helpful to map out the major events that have a bearing on this topic. For the sake of brevity, these are only a few of the most important events. More in-depth discussion and chronology of the years surrounding the Parousia can be found in the links below.



AD 62 Book of Revelation finished



AD 63 Book of Hebrews finished



AD 63 Possible time of flight to Pella, Christians having been warned from the two previous books and the earlier prophecy of Christ.(Rev. 18:4, Heb. 13:13-14,



AD 64 Beginning of the Neronic persecution



AD 66 the Abomination of Desolation. Sacrifices cease.



AD 66 May – Passover. Appearance of Christ in the sky



AD 66 June – Pentecost. Rapture. Temple priests hear a great noise, voices saying “Let us remove hence!” Apparitions.



AD 66 The Abomination of desolation



AD 66 August, Jewish War begins



AD 70 Jerusalem falls, the Temple is destroyed



AD 71 Fortress Machaerus falls to the Romans



AD 72 Fortress Herodium fall to the Romans



AD 73 Fortress Masada falls to the Romans, effective end of the First Jewish War



Josephus attests to these tremendous events:



“Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost [June 66 AD], as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us remove hence.’”[Wars 6.299 (6.5.3)]



An interesting comment from Ed Stevens:



“Note that Josephus gives us the exact day and hour when this event occurred (on the day of Pentecost at the hour of the evening sacrifices), where it occurred (in the Jerusalem Temple), and who witnessed it (the officiating priests). The Jewish priests testified about what they felt and heard in the Temple at night on Pentecost in the year AD 66, at the very time when the Zealot war with Rome was about to begin.



“This transfer of a large multitude from one place to another in the unseen realm seems to have been the resurrection of the dead and the change of the living saints, when they were caught up to be with Christ. This event occurred at Pentecost, fifty days after Passover. Notice also that it occurred at night, not during the daytime. That explains why no one noticed the snatching away of the living saints.” — page 221, “Final Decade”, Ed Stevens



“Let us Remove”, Ed Stevens, p. 10-11, 16, Fulfilled Magazine, Winter 2012 (free pdf.)



Correct application of one verse – those wonderful Aha! moments – often leads to other obscure passages finally being clear. On the other hand, misapplied Scripture almost always leads to other Bible passages brought in for mistaken confirmation. This has been the case with this all-important topic. It is so easily for any of us to give in to confirmation bias, seeing what we want to see from the biblical evidence.



Problems with AD 70 as the end of the Old Covenant



1 The Old Covenant requires obedience to all of the Law. But sacrifices ended in AD 66



2 It assumes the end of the Old Covenant to be during August and coinciding with the Feast of Trumpets, . But that feast was in the Fall, not Summer.



Facts favoring AD 66 for the beginning of the Parousia and for the Rapture.



1 The “Let us go hence” event happened at Pentecost of that year. The event matches with the time of the feast.



2 There are many passages that connect this climactic gathering of the saints (rapture) with wheat harvest. (See below)



Wheat and Harvest passages



Matt. 3:12 (Luke 3:17), Matt. 13:25-30, Matt. 13:39.

These passages all refer to the good harvest at the rapture. But we also have another harvest passage of the second sort, Rev. 14:14-20. This describes the bloody harvest of AD 70.



The Significance of the AD 70 destruction of temple and fall of Jerusalem



First, it was not the end of the Old Covenant. The sacrifices ceased 4 years before the destruction of the temple. The priests quit sacrificing in AD 66, not being able to continue because of all the fighting.



So – no sacrificing, no Law. No Law, no Old Covenant. The Abomination of Desolation had happened at that point. Whatever remaining faint semblance of Old Covenant practice evaporated then.



The destruction of the Temple four years later was, in effect, a mere demolition of a structure long since out of use or purpose. It was a demonstration and a sign to the unbelieving Jews, but no longer one that they could spiritually benefit from.

 

I gave a short answer to your post on the other thread. BTW concerning your interesting link, it is a common misconception that the First Jewish War ended in AD 70. It actually continued until AD 73 with the Fall of Masada (and two or three fortresses prior to that).

 

How do you know that it is pure speculation? Maybe you are projecting?

The timeline, most of it from Ed Stevens, was based on careful study of Acts, and elsewhere correlating events with cross-references, also using the lesser reliable Josephus and other secular historians.

 

Two things you need to know first: Audience relevance and apocalyptic language.

The "endtimes" are not the end of the whole world. It is the end of the Jewish Age. This was prophesied to them way back in the Pentateuch that their national apostasy would finally bring about divine judgment.

"And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days:” - Gen. 49:1

See also Deuteronomy 32.

The promise of no more pain and tears, etc. was realized by that generation of Christians who were raptured in AD 66. No rapture is in our future, but we will realize the same promise when we leave this life.

 

Good quotes. Whiston and Josephus, neither of them Christians (if I remeber correctly, the latter was a deist) but they give valuable insight. I probably should have rewritten my timeline portion concerning Pella. The more I studied it the more I found out. I was challenged on the the timing by a freind on one of my Preterist sites and I had to admit he was right. So I would have amended my article a bit to this:

A Note Concerning the Flight to Pella
There were actually three clear warnings to flee Jerusalem given. From John (Revelation) and Paul (Hebrews) and, much earlier, from the Lord (Luke 21). The one from Christ is the only one that specifically mentions armies surrounding Jerusalem. This warning from Him was the last warning. There may possibly have been more than one escape to Pella. The first escape (or escapes) were from those who did not need to see armies surrounding Jerusalem to quit the place. They had already recognized the doom of the city. (Reading Josephus on the mid 60s gives good background on this). The warning from Christ would have been the last chance. And there were probably very few that could take advantage of it.

I am still learning. I always appreciate the opportunity to fine tune or |GULP| backtrack my views.

I enjoyed looking through the older discussions on your link. Some of the same old tiresome rebuttals as well, eh?