A Response to Glenn Edmiston’s Review of “From Torah To Telos”

Review of Don K. Preston’s The End of the Law
By Glenn Edmiston
A Response to A Review
By Don K. Preston
My friend Glenn Edmiston has written a review of my book The End of the Law: From Torah to Telos, in which he takes issue with my position that the Law of Moses did not pass away until AD 70.

Edmiston takes the view that “The fulfillment of Torah and the end of the Old Covenant (covenant given by God to Moses and then then living Israelites and their physical descendants) occurred at the Cross. Edmiston’s position is that of Kurt Simmons, that he affirmed in our written debate. Be sure to get a copy of that debate now in book form: The End of the Law: At the Cross or AD 70.

Glenn begins by posing two questions: “What were the Jews doing wrong by continuing to follow the Law of Moses? (Until AD 70, DKP) His second question is: “Why did God wipe them out with the Roman army if they were still bound to follow the Law.”  He then affirms Preston requires them to have been following two masters, both the Law and the New Covenant.” More on that later.

Glenn’s questions are understandable, but, only superficially significant, and miss some critical points. I will not try to cover all of the issues involved. However, William Bell and I will be discussing Glenn’s article on Two Guys and the Bible, on Fulfilled Radio each Tuesday evening at 6 PM central time. Our first program is in the archive, so be sure to check it out.

Here is a brief snippet of what William and I discussed last night, in response to Glenn’s article. There is much, much more that we discussed, so be sure to listen to the entire program.

In our first program we discussed the following issues in response to Glenn’s questions:
A.) The Jews were bound to keep Torah until it brought them to Christ (Galatians 3:24f).
B.) The Jews could not be led to Christ unless and until they had heard the gospel (Romans 10).
C.) The gospel to offer the New Covenant to the Jews was not preached to them before the Cross, but, was to be, and was preached into all the world prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matthew 24:14).
D.) An age is identified by its law. The Jews (and Jesus) tied the destruction of the temple to the “end of the age.” The disciples asked for a sign of the end of the age.
E.) The preaching of the gospel into all the world was a sign of the end-the end of the age that the disciples asked about. Since there can be no “age” without a law or covenant identifying that age, and since the destruction of the temple– the symbol of the Mosaic Law– was not destroyed until AD 70, then the age did end until then. And this is prima facie proof that the Law, which identified that temple and age, did not end until AD 70.

Now, Glenn takes the view that the end of the Law, and thus, then end of the age, was at the Cross. But again, this simply cannot be. The sign of the end of the age– the end of the Old Covenant age– was the preaching of the gospel into all the world. It is indisputably true that the Old Covenant age did not end at the Cross therefore, since the gospel was not preached into all the world as a sign of the Cross!

William and I also discussed John the Baptizer as Elijah, who was to come announcing the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for violating Torah. We noted that if the Law of Moses ended at the Cross, then John’s message was never fulfilled! This is some great stuff that you don’t want to miss!

We discussed a lot of other issues related to Glenn’s two questions so, go to www.FulfilledRadio.com, and listen to our program. You will enjoy it! And, be sure to listen next week to Two Guys and the Bible, as we continue our review of Glenn Edmiston’s review of my book,