In my post “The heart of preterism” I summarized the view that Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension stood as the completion of the “Old Testament” covenant in the context of a suzerain treaty, opening the door for a new covenant to be established between God and his chosen elect, signed by the Holy Spirit indwelt in our hearts.
Yet the sharp nature of this break has always seemed at odds with the discussion of the perpetuity of spiritual faithfulness from Abraham to the current saints in Romans, Hebrews et al. This view was driven home in my recent reading of the parable of the vineyard owner (Luke 20:9-19, HCSB):
Then He began to tell the people this parable:
A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a slave to the farmers so that they might give him some fruit from the vineyard. But the farmers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent yet another slave, but they beat that one too, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And he sent yet a third, but they wounded this one too and threw him out.
Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What should I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.”
But when the tenant farmers saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, “This is the heir. Let’s kill him, so the inheritance will be ours!” So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those farmers and give the vineyard to others.
But when they heard this they said, “No – never!” But He looked at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of this Scripture:”
The stone that the builders rejected- this has become the cornerstone? Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and if it falls on anyone, it will grind him to powder!
Then the scribes and the chief priests looked for a way to get their hands on Him that very hour, because they knew He had told this parable against them, but they feared the people.
What needs to be underlined is what is constant and what is passing. The constants are the vineyard owner and the vineyard itself. The farmers, slaves and beloved son all exist in relationship to the owner or to the vineyard. I think it’s relatively clear that the vineyard owner is God himself, the three slaves are OT prophets and the beloved son is Jesus Christ, but what is the vineyard?
There are two possibilities that strike me: Creation itself or the covenant established between God and Abraham and renewed in successive generations. I want to discuss the latter interpretation.
The vineyard is a constant. It exists through each act of violence done in the name of its care. It will persist even when its caretakers are destroyed. If the vineyard is the covenant of faith established between God and his elect, then we see that the covenant was not completed or destroyed by Christ on the cross, but that it was given to new caretakers: Christ in heaven, the Church on earth. The fruits of the vineyard are the covenant people, both Jew and Christian, who live in the faith of the covenant.
“I am God Almighty. Live in My presence and be devout†. I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you greatly.” (Genesis 17:1-2, HCSB)
†Or “Walk before me faithfully and be blameless.” (TNIV)
Therefore, perhaps we shouldn’t look at AD 70 as the punishment of an entire covenant, the vineyard, but as focused on the destruction of the vineyard farmers. And who are they? The Jewish leaders entrusted with keeping God’s law and covenant. God is not punishing the entire Jewish people, but striking a blow to their head, the “brood of vipers”, the children of the Devil (John 8:44):
I will put hostility between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. (Genesis 3:15, HCSB)
The cornerstone was rolled away from the tomb and fell upon the scribes and chief priests who had thrown Jesus out of the vineyard and killed him. The temple was torn to the ground and ground into powder by Roman armies. Yet God’s covenant of faithfulness remains intact and he has now given care to the Church to harvest the fruit as the hands and feet of Christ reigning in heaven.
One covenant, one people living in faithfulness from and for all time.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that there can be a fundamental change between the Old and New Covenants with there still being some sense of unity between the two as well, due to the over-arching covenant of grace. This is why Paul can look at Abraham and say “yeah, he was saved by faith,” because justification by faith is a tenet not just of the new covenant, or of the old covenant, but of the covenant of grace which contains the administrations of both Old and New Covenants.
Bearing this in mind, I tend to view 70 a.d. as both the covenantal punishment for rejecting the Messiah, and thus breaking the covenant, as well as the exclamation point that the old covenant has been replaced by the new, because Jesus has sat at the right hand of God (Dan 7).
So I think the punishment was focused on the leaders because “[n]ot many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3.1) and because we see in Matthew 23 that Christ blasts the Jewish leaders for leading the Jewish people astray. At the same time, the punishment was for all who broke the covenant by rejecting their Messiah, just as in the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities were a punishment of all or most.
Full Disclosure: I believe in covenant theology, also I’m very tired, so I don’t even know if any of this made sense.
Thanks for the feedback, Bryan, and for the explanation of how the Old and New Covenants related to the covenant of grace.
I keep meaning to find a decent primer on covenant theology and read more. Kim Riddlebarger recommends “God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology” by Michael Horton. Do you have any recommendations that I might consider?
As I mentioned previously, I find this partial preterist view quite interesting and it seems to make sense to me so far. The story about the vineyard fits but as I read on into v.19, which says: “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them.”–that is, the chief priests and scribes, or the Jewish people with whom God made the covenant? Was Jesus only condemning the chief priest/scribes?
I would read that as “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him that very hour, and [the scribes and the chief priests] feared the people; for [the people] understood that He spoke this parable against [the scribes and the chief priests].”
My understanding is that the leaders were condemned for leading the sheep, the people, astray. Compare Jesus’ “I am the good shepherd” with the prophecy against the shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel 34:1-10.
Hey, ElShaddai. This is the post you expected from Steve
It’s been a while since I’ve waxed eloquent on preterism, so please allow me.
That AD 70 was judgment not on the covenant system itself per se but on its corrupt leadership is a valid distinction, even from a full preterist standpoint. The Mosaic covenant was not abolished or judged in AD 70, but, as Jesus predicted, fulfilled.
But make no mistake: Scripture is clear that there have been more than one covenant from our perspective, although in some sense there was a heavenly type of which the Mosaic covenant was an inferior shadow of the real, of which we are partakers (Hebrews 8:5-6). The Mosaic covenant was inadequate for righteous living for the reasons Paul said it was in Romans 7; Hebrews 7:19 says, “So the previous commandment is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” This drawing near to God is the removal of the death of Adam, separation from God, which was only mitigated and covered provisionally under the Old Covenant, but which found its ultimate remedy with the Resurrection of the Dead to eternal life in the presence of God.
Also look closely at Hebrews 8:7-13:
Here we have the delivery date for the New Covenant which could not take full effect while the Old remained. AD 70 was the terminus of the Old Covenant, made manifest by God’s judgment on its administers, the religious leadership who had not shepherded the people well.
But if we take AD 70 as the end point for the Old Covenant, what are we to do with Hebrews 9:26-28, which describes Jesus’ completed work in incarnation appearance and the work that would be completed at His second coming?
When you factor in 1 Cor 15 and the abolition of death (again, read the alleviation of separation from God) at the Resurrection and the resulting unification of the faith (the two covenant peoples converge), the time line seems clear: Christ appeared once to make the sacrifice, His new covenant was about to appear, and He returned to purge the vineyard and give it to others, bringing salvation to those who were waiting for Him. It is only because of this that, from our perspective at least, we can say, “One covenant, one people living in faithfulness from and for all time.”
I should have saved this for a post on my own blog
And the hyperpreterists wonder why so many of them slip into universalism so easily.
The New Covenant only comes to those in Christ & the way the hyperpreterists portray it, that was a one time deal at the “convergence” of AD70.
Using the hyperpreterist rationale, they have no support to say anyone is still “dead in sin”. They have no grounds to say anyone needs to be “born again”. (and this is actually the teaching of many hyperpreterists). The only “consistent” hyperpreterists are the preterist unviersalists.
Heresy only begets more & more heresy. Every heresy in history has claimed to get their beliefs “only from the Bible” (anyone remember the Arian Heresy?) Don’t let these folks fool you.
Roderick,
) to insist that God will not reconcile all men unto Himself in the future. FPs say that the eschaton already occurred and to you that means we believe all humanity is saved. Futurists (partial and full) say that the eschaton is yet to occur – why would it not follow from your logic that you believe all humanity will be saved?
As for your argument that FPs have no support for saying anyone is still “dead in sin” and in need to be “born again”, I ask you how consistent is it for hypopreterists (
I believe that humanity is still fallen and thus still in need of a savior. God removed the curse by Christ – as Scripture teaches – and so it remains for us in the New Covenant, as in the Old, to be inducted into Christ’s Kingdom in order to appropriate God’s forgiveness. Although this salvation is open to more than Jews now, the reality is that there are those who do not appropriate this forgiveness and they are condemned. What’s inconsistent here?
Secondly, why do you not believe that the heresies held by non-FP’s trickle down and implicate all non-FP’s?
You have nothing approaching proof that there are more preterist universalists than there are futurist unitarians. As I have said before, the fact that some preterists believe incorrectly on certain matters is no more damning of preterism than it is damning for the whole Christian faith when any non-FP Christian holds false doctrine.
@Roderick: I’m not sure what in your comment was “on topic” to my post. I was trying to explore a different covenant relationship between OT/NT than I had presented in a previous post, not critique preterism of any form. I understand that you have a zeal for your perspective and background, and I respect that, but please try to stay on topic with the posts that you’re commenting in. Thank you!
@Steve: can you comment any on how FP stands with respect to a system like covenant theology that Bryan mentioned? That really is the topic of this post and I’d like to understand everyone’s different perspectives to that (especially since I’ve only understood it as a CT vs. Dispensationalism argument).
My first understanding of “covenant theology” came with preterism. In fact, most preterists I’m aware of (but not all) hold to “covenant eschatology”, which is, as it sounds, based on covenant theology. Anything specific you’d like to ask about it?
Thank you ElShaddai for the gentle refocus. My zeal hopefully goes beyond simply refuting hyperpreterism. I’d like to comment specifically on the article but if you would allow a 1 sentence reply to Steve. It is rather ironic that an advocate for a position that is not supported by 2000 years of historic Christianity or the by the Bible as interpreted by that same historic Christianity would attempt to put a historic Christian on the defensive.
ElShaddai, as you know the old debate between Covenant Theology (the original theology of all Protestants) & Dispensationalism has morphed over the years. Many people don’t really know to what “systematic theology” they adhere…some don’t even care.
Simplified, for those who may not know even about CT & Dispensationalism — Dispensationalism basically advocates 7 or more “dispensations” or stages. These dispensations came about because they are more or less God’s backup plans when things didn’t go right. When Adam fell, when God had to wipe out the world via a flood, when the Jews supposedly didn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah. God had to have backup plans. Dispensationalism was not really born until the 1800s.
CT, though advanced greatly with the Reformers of the 16th century can be seen as far back as 150 AD with Justin Martyr. Basically CT advocates God has one plan (declared from the end to the beginning — Isa 46:10 That it is not a reactionary plan. God did not merely “foresee” the future, but has declared the end from the beginning. The covenant is really only one covenant manifested under progressive administrations – or more specifically when speaking of the Old Covenant & New Covenant, the Reformers would often use the phrase: “one covenant, under two administrations” (see: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_01.htm)
So, we can see that for instance the hyperpreterist interpretation you received by Steven (who admits his first understanding of “covenant theology” came only after he became a hyperpreterist) is a wrongheaded notion of what CT really is. This is another flaw of hyperpreterism — a misunderstanding of the concept of “covenant” — but let me stay focused as you requested.
CT in contrast to dispensationalism AND in agreement with your thoughts in this post see the continuity between the various manifestations of the covenant (with Adam, with Abraham, with Moses, with Jacob & so on) & the ultimate fulfillment with Christ.
Perhaps the most important verse to study in regards to covenant is Gal 3:16
Here is the refutation of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism believes the physical Jews changed God’s plan & thus God had to go to a plan B with the Church…that we’re in the “Church Age” now but in the future God will revert to plan A with the Jews…since dispensationalists will claim God has yet to fulfill His promises to “the seeds of Abraham”. We see Gal 3:16 clarifies HOW & through whom that promise HAS BEEN FULFILLED.
So then — a proper understanding of TRUE CT will refute both dispensationalism with its multiple backup plans AND it will refute things like hyperpreterism that falsely teach a complete disconnect with the OT in contrast to the NC. The OC & NC are one covenant under two administrations. Another phrase used by Reformers is “what was concealed in the old is revealed in the new”. They are interconnected & separating them or reading the new back into the old will merely mislead a person into systematic error.
–Roderick
There is nothing in my hypopreterist friend’s critique of my position that I did not already answer. I do not deny an overarching background to the covenant, and I affirm Roderick’s distinction of “the various manifestations of the covenant (with Adam, with Abraham, with Moses, with Jacob & so on) & the ultimate fulfillment with Christ.” This is what the (probably Alexandrian) author of Hebrews implies in Hebrews 8:5-6 (which I alluded to above). They were all types, types with a time limit, fulfilled and replaced with very real in Christ. The author of Hebrews challenges the phraseology of our Reformed brethren: “one covenant, under two administrations” seems a bit misleading when you take into account Hebrews 8:7-13, another passage I already quoted in its entirety above, (cf., as well, Hebrews 7:22; 9:15; 12:24; 13:20). Of course, this is an argument from Scripture rather than historic Christianity, so take it for what it’s worth
You can’t get around Hebrews, man. The annulment/replacement/fulfillment/expiration of the former Mosaic covenant and the introduction of a “new” or “better covenant” is absolutely irrefutable.
Of course the “old” was an incomplete manifestation of the “new” — that is why the old passed away & the new came to pass. There is no denial of that in historic Christianity. The new is a BETTER covenant, I’m not trying to refute that.
Historic Christian interpretation is an argument from BOTH historic Christianity AND Scripture — whereas hyperpreterism must ignore or distort history to be able to promote its error.