The Covenant After 70 AD?
Proponents of the 70 AD doctrine claim that everything in association with the final coming of Christ happened in AD70 with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple marks a change in the gospel covenant. Let me illustrate this with the following verse of scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (NASU)
Did the covenant change in 70AD?
Paul instructed the Corinthian church to observe the Lord’s supper until He comes. If Jesus came in 70 AD the proponents of the 70 AD doctrine claim, the Corinthians, and all other Christians by extension, were to cease observing the Lord’s supper upon His coming. We have by consequence of this doctrine entered an age where God’s covenant has changed from what it was. A change of worship to God constitutes a change of covenant if you will. If Jesus came in 70 AD, we have another covenant period following the period of time that existed between the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem with this is, as a consequence of the 70 AD doctrine, all of the New Testament writings pertain to a covenant that would end in 70 AD with no instructions for how to serve God afterwards. The time between the cross and the destruction of the temple would therefore have a following covenant under which Christianity would exist with worship that was altered from the original.
In every instance in history, when the worship to God changed, so did the covenant. The first age would be the Patriarchal dispensation / age / period of time, where God dealt directly with individuals with a covenant specific to that age. Then we have the Mosaic covenant under which Levitical worship continued unchanged until the cross. Jesus’ death on the cross would then mark the time when there was a change of the law, (Hebrews 7:12 ; 9:15). And so the 70 AD advocates would, as a consequence of their doctrine, have a period of time between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the temple with a worship system unique to that time period. Moreover, another consequence of their doctrine is that all the instructions for living the Christian life available are specific to that period of time between the cross and the destruction of the temple. 70 D advocates are inserting a different covenant into the equation with their doctrine.
This poses an immediate problem with scriptures that explicitly state that the age under which they were living would be the last one. Each age or period of time had its own covenant.
1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” The NASB translates this as the last hour. However, the KJV translation of it as the “last time” is perfectly consistent with Hebrews 1:1-3 which states, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. “ and again in 1 Peter 1:20-21which states, “For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. “ (NASU)
It is a necessary consequence of the 70 AD doctrine that places a unique time period between the cross and the destruction of the temple in direct conflict with inspired writings that plainly teach us that there is not. If there exists a covenant age beyond the destruction of the temple, then all the inspired scriptures declaring them to be in the last age, or last time as it is written, cannot be true.
If there was a change of covenant, then how did it happen? How are we to worship under this different covenant? Clearly commemorating the Lord’s death is not a part of it. Other than that, we have no instructions whatsoever for how we are to meet the terms of this different covenant. God would not change the Christian covenant without providing the terms under which He has obligated Himself to meet its conditions.
Because of the implications of these statements regarding the ‘last time’ within the inspired text, the very fact that Christians exist and are worshipping God beyond 70 AD biblically proves the age after 70 AD is the same as the age before. There was therefore no actual covenant change that occurred in 70 AD and the doctrine cannot stand.