The hermeneutic developed in New Covenant theology greatly limits the affordable eschatological options for the student of the word of God. This is due primarily to the identification and understanding of both the Israel of God and the covenants. Clearly, every eschatological system in existence today, among professed Christians, has developed from a clear presupposition regarding the covenants and Israel. How one identifies these two components of Old Testament revelation consequently determines his view of future events. Certainly those who defend their faith and their eschatological view would want to claim their view is not a result of presuppositions and systems, yet, reality admit that even the most careful exegete has established presuppositions and a systematized understanding of the development of redemptive history. The reality of the matter is that theologians have made certain decisions before addressing the issue of eschatology, and those decisions govern a theologian’s view of things to come.
Thus, no student of the scriptures possesses an eschatological view that is free of such establishments and presuppositions. Noting this, one can expect New Covenant theology to equally affirm an eschatological view that is in accordance with his view of Israel and the covenants. As any theological system is intricately linked with a dominant eschatology, New Covenant theology in turn greatly limits the affordable eschatological options for the student. This in no way denies that variations do exist within theological systems, permitting a broad spectrum of embraced eschatological views. Such permission, however, is generally at the sake of cohesion and logical reason, for, as it has been stated, how a particular system of theology defines ‘Israel’ and redemptive history will drastically effect logical conclusions in regard to eschatological options. Three specific presuppositions of New Covenant theology establish a clear hermeneutic for constituting a New Covenant view of eschatology: first, the relationship between the testaments; second, the identification of the two advents of our Lord; and third, the centrality of Christ’s first advent in New Covenant theology. We shall examine each in part.
Eschatology: Promise and Fulfillment (Relationship between the covenants)
New Covenant theology emphasizes a biblical hermeneutic termed "promise-fulfillment." In this phrase the two testaments of Scripture are assigned specific guidelines to direct one's understanding of the text. Redemptive history follows these assigned divisions: the previous era and the latter days. The Old Testament, with its day of promise and anticipation, looks for the new age, these latter days, whereas the New Testament is the fulfillment of the old. The sum of the Old Testament scriptures is viewed in the light of repeated promises of God from start to finish of all that the New Testament addresses. Thus, the New Testament primarily appeals to the realization of all that was promised. What might we say comprises a compendium statement of all God promised? The gospel is such a compendium, or, as the apostle Paul would comprise the grand theme of all of God’s work, the will of God is bound up in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Every event, every act of God and providence, in the previous age, was a precursory and anticipatory step anticipating the first advent of our Lord. Thus the promise-fulfillment hermeneutic is nothing more than that taught of our Lord on the road to Emmaus, where, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk 24). The scriptures at length address the promises of Messiah, the coming of Christ Jesus, and His establishment as Lord. Every theological system identifies a certain level of fulfillment of Old Testament types and prophecies in Christ’s first advent. However, the degree to which each system applies the importance of that advent has a marked effect upon their view of the nature of the current age and the eschatalogical events yet awaited. In New Covenant theology there is a heightened emphasis upon the first advent of Christ. This emphasis produces an impasse for those seeking to carry forward typological components of the old covenant to the days following the ascension of Jesus Christ. The impasse is the end to all anticipatory elements of all revelation that precede the coming of Christ.
There is a distinct finality to the Old Covenant in New Covenant theology. Days, times, seasons, peoples, practices, and customs that had a significant role in the Old Testament, which were typological and anticipatory in nature, no longer have validity in our day. In New Covenant theology, the exclusive emphasis of all prophetic writing of the Old Covenant era is related to the first advent of our Lord. The terminal end of the Old Covenant and all of its shadows and types are found in His appearance and shall neither be reconstructed nor reconstituted. When the sun rises, shadows disappear. With the coming of Christ the shadow cast by his towering figure in anticipatory revelation are now eclipsed by the reality of his presence. All of the external benefits afforded the nation of Israel in the previous age have been replaced and cannot be rebuilt. It would be counterproductive and contrary to the labor of God to reconstruct what has been torn down. The Tabernacle and temple have been realized in this day, first in the incarnate Son of God, and second in the church. The priesthood and all its service and sacrifice has also met with its designed goal in the priestly labor of our Savior. The covenant community of the nation of Israel has served its purpose, and these purposes are finished and realized in Christ, the cornerstone of the church. God need no longer veil and hide in mystery those things Christ has accomplished; they are done. To reconstruct elements of the past age, or to seek meaning to the anticipatory text beyond the coming of Christ, does a great disservice to the accomplished merits of Christ.
Consequently, New covenant theology is incompatible with a view of a future for the national people of Israel or any external reconstruction of the emblems of the old age. For New Covenant theology emphasizes the end of external distinctions among the peoples of the earth. The remarkable aspect of the gospel, underlying every New Testament epistle, is the unity that has been established between all nations of the earth. Pentecost stands as a reversal to all that Babel left scattered and separated on the earth and marks a day of reunification. The new covenant era is marked by unity, oneness, and an end to all external divisions among men, primarily between Jew and Gentile. Faith now is the discriminating mark among all peoples on earth, even as it has been since the beginning for all the true Israel of God, hidden in the promise of God. Consider then how impetuous it is to even contemplate a coming day when God would again make distinctions among peoples based upon any external factor. No greater disservice could be done to Christ than to rebuild, reconstruct, or refashion any form of the Old Covenant that met with its end in Christ, including, the peculiar position held by the national people of Israel. This does not deny that the new Covenant bears resemblance to the Old Covenant. However, resemblance does not afford the exegete liberty to misconstrue the clear distinction of this age. To rebuild or reconstruct national Israel, its covenant, or any external type resembling its economy, would be tantamount to God acting contrary to all he has done leading up to this day. Thus the hermeneutic of promise-fulfillment greatly hinders any discussion of a future for the physical descendants of Jacob.
Eschatology: Understanding the Advents
Further, the New Testament is the New Covenant document, just as the Old Testament was the Old Covenant document. The Old Testament, as a covenant document, could be divided in this form: the Pentateuch, which parallels the gospels of the New Testament, as heralding and ratifying a covenant. Next in the Old Testament are the historical writings that broaden from nation to kingdom, exemplifying covenant living in obedience to God’s rule. The prophets in the Old Testament become nothing more than repetitious declarations of the Pentateuch to a covenant people, declared to be violators of their covenant. In the New Testament, The Book of Acts historically identifies and authenticates the onset of the kingdom of God and its expansion of the Lord’s reign (it is the church’s departure from Sinai). In the New Testament, the epistles stand as a grand corpus of legislation for the church, ever reminding Christians of their faithful covenant keeper and their reasonable service. The Old Covenant is marked out and delineated by two distinct events--redemption and messianic fulfillment. The New Covenant is marked out and hedged in by two distinct events--the first advent of Jesus marked by the work of redemption and atonement, and the second advent of our Lord, bringing His return in judgement and final deliverance.
Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant does not anticipate another covenant or advent of intended interval, it only anticipates a day of consummation. The Old Covenant had a day of consummation, consisting of judgment and deliverance. The New Covenant, in like form, has a promised day of consummation, consisting of judgment and deliverance. The day we live in, while a day of realization, is still marked by anticipation. The difference between the promises of the deliverance and judgment in the two comings of Christ, while they have correspondence, are remarkable, for the second return of Christ, unlike the first, is seen as a final consummation of this age and all ages, not as a prefatory event for another interval in God’s design. There are three historical ages: the era of promise, the era of already but not yet, and the era of completion. The accomplished purpose of Christ's first advent was to establish a covenant and to inaugurate a new day and rule. Christ's first advent did not anticipate another day of interlude, but it did anticipate a latter day of realization. The church is not an intermediate means to a purpose of God for the physical descendants of Abraham; rather, it is the terminal end to the physical descendants of Abraham. They served prefatorily to this age, and their purpose has passed. In the establishment of Christ’s covenant, then, He came to redeem, to deliver, and to establish in liberty a people for himself; He does this in reality, not in type.
We see this portrayed in the coming of Moses to Egypt and the subsequent establishment of national Israel. The strength of God led his people by the hand of a mediator out of bondage and established them as a people, peculiar and sanctified, to Himself. He established his law with them and ordered their lives as their peculiar provider. In like fashion, Christ has been the antitypical fulfillment of all the first exodus represented. Peter writes, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." He has established his law in the hearts of his people; he rules and leads them, and he has declared he shall bring them into a final and promised rest. It is interesting that Moses stayed with his people until they were ready to enter Canaan, but Joshua actually brought them into Canaan. Christ has not forsaken his people in this day, but He is with us, having poured out the Spirit from on high, and He shall return to usher us into glory. Christ is our Joshua, having preceded us to the Father, he shall deliver us into his promised rest. This is the tension of the already-but-not-yet concept of this present age, for the first advent of Christ was consummate, while also transitory. This reality of tension in this New Covenant day is demonstrated throughout the New Testament.
As Joshua led national Israel into the promised possession of a land, so shall Christ in His return. He shall not, however, lead us to an earthly city or earthly land, but to a heavenly place, for we read in John, Jesus said, "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (Jn 14: 2). Jesus has not gone to prepare us a place on earth, but in heaven. Thus the force of the word in I Thessalonians 4: 17, the Latin version, rapiemur, is to snatch away from this place. The bridegroom does not return in the Hebrew ceremony to live with the bride in her home, but takes her away forever to his own. Rebekkah did not send for Isaac, but Isaac sent for Rebekkah to come to his home. Ruth did not return to Moab with Boaz, but she dwelt in Boaz’s home. New Testament references omit reference to a physical Jerusalem or land; instead it is said to the church, "but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb 12: 22 – 23). Thus we are told in Hebrews 11: 10 – 11 of Abraham, "For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." The Christian’s hope is not for a restoration of earthly Jerusalem, of discrimination between national peoples, nor is it for a heaven here on earth begun in 70 AD, as the Preterists would have us believe; instead, the Christian hope is above, in the glorious heaven of our God.
In Christ, we have been led by the hand of a mediator out of bondage and have been established as a people unto God. We are pilgrims sojourning, awaiting our bridegroom. Our day anticipates our being caught up and carried away. He shall return for a purpose: to gather, to judge, and to complete, but He shall not return a third time to bring us to earth, that we might endure a millenium more awaiting our hope. New Covenant theology looks for His return as a day of finality. We await our hope that we might go to be with Him in glory. We do not desire to see the Son of Man sit on earthly Jerusalem’s tarnished throne, or to dwell in a world yet subdued; instead, we long to see Him in heaven above. Thus, when He shall return, our journey shall be upward. Having met him in the clouds, we shall be taken to be forever with the Lord. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thess 4: 16 – 17). Here Paul notes the direction of the consummation of His coming: upward and away. This is the New Covenant saint’s blessed hope.
How then might we understand the two advents of our Savior as they relate to eschatology? The first advent of Jesus Christ accomplished all that the Old Covenant anticipated and hoped for in His coming. The Second Advent of our Lord shall be to consummate the anticipation of the New Covenant promises. New covenant promises are the judgment of the lost and final rest and salvation for the elect. A quick perusal of Matthew and the parables of the kingdom of heaven demonstrate that this age, the latter days, have two identifying marks: the coming of the Son of Man and His ascension, inaugurating the kingdom age, and the return of the Son of God to separate and then tread the winepress of the wrath of Almighty God. We can represent these two advents as scripture does with several metaphors: betrothal and wedding, humility and glory, atonement and judgment, beginning and end, inauguration of a kingdom and final establishment of a kingdom. Thus, when Jesus returns, it shall be in finality, not in further anticipation. Now let us discuss,
The Centrality of Christ’s First Advent
A great deal of eschatological teaching in our day has done a great disservice to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The primary emphasis of the gospel centers upon the glorious accomplishments of God in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Eschatology far too often takes the student’s eyes off Jesus and places them upon peripheral events beyond the cross. Preterism is a resurgent error in our day that leads to such trouble, for it replaces the centrality of the cross with the events of 70 AD, and if carried to its logical conclusion, has Christ returning in that day, which then becomes the day of New Covenant hope. Where this leaves the Christian wanting, though, is in reconciling a life of persecution and threat with the realities of promised rest given the church upon the Lord’s return. Thus Preterism diminishes our hope in making this day of tribulation and anticipation, equivalent to that day of final rest. Where Preterism does its greatest disservice, though, is in its effects upon the centrality of the cross to the gospel. There is a completion to the concourse of New Covenant events: the incarnation, the ministry of Jesus, His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and finally, Pentecost. Surely the events of 70 AD are important in a display of the external finality of the old age, yet, there is an even more important display of such finality in the body of Christ, the true temple of God, crucified, buried, and risen.
Further more, Premillennialism often replaces the centrality of the cross with world events and fanciful notions of coming earthly events, so that we are left watching nations, armies, and men, rather than watching for Jesus, His return, and our blessed hope. It leaves the Christians with questions of tribulation and of an eon beyond Christ’s return before the final end to evil. Hope is then doused again by anticipation of another intermediate age. Couple this with the special position afforded the physical descendents of Jacob and Abraham, and suddenly, the clear unity and distinct advantages of faith suffer at the hands of a people who are not as important as the physical people of Israel. Generally, Premillennialism leaves the church subservient to national Israel. Postmillennialism replaces the enduring, faithful, anticipatory nature of the church age with dreams of earthly dominion. Only Amillennialism, a system that defines the current age as one of promise-fulfillment, of realization and expectation, properly sets our sights upon the glories of Christ. It rightfully identifies this age as the kingdom age and the latter days as the final consummation of his regal glory. Our assurance is found in His first advent, and our hope is found in His second. This age of the church then is one in which the believer must endure, persevere, and suffer, as did our Lord. We are not to expect or to seek neither heaven on earth nor an earthly millennial age in the ages to come (other than the one we currently dwell in, where the world is set in contrast to the kingdom of God). This form of eschatology, New Covenant eschatology, keeps our attention off of this world as it sets the Christians’ eyes backward to all Jesus has done and forward, solely upon Him and His return. Having our eyes set upon Him, we strive to live in obedience to Him, longing for His return. Thus, rightly is the Christian taught to pray, ‘even so Lord Jesus, come quickly.’ How about simply: "Thus we rightly pray, "even so lord Jesus, come quickly."