I recently listened to a podcast series with Kim Burgess called “Covenant Hermeneutics and Biblical Eschatology”. In this podcast series, he attempted to persuade his audience of full preterism theology built on a so-called “Covenant Hermeneutic”. It can be found here.
Initial Reservations
As open minded as I always attempt to be, I must apologize for having several reservations right up front. As a full preterist, Burgess openly rejects one of the most historic beliefs of the Christian church – the physical resurrection at the end of the age. Irenaeus of Lyons (~180AD) elaborates very early on regarding this belief:
“For us, therefore, it remains that the flesh be nourished for its own destined end; since, as I have shown, God will vivify it, and raise it up again from the dead, that He may manifest to His creature His power, and may increase it to the glory of God the Father.” – Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 9, Section 3.
Years later, this belief was inscribed into the infamous Apostles’ Creed, which affirms, “I believe … in the resurrection of the body”. The historic backing of this doctrine, which I believe is firmly rooted in scriptural evidence, is hard to simply set aside.
Second, Burgess admits to building an eisegetical system. He claims that people should avoid wrestling with individual texts, but rather accept the hermeneutic first (based on a few verses in Hebrews 8) and then apply it to all other texts.
Finally, his hermeneutic resembles hinduistic idealism. It suggests that when God spoke to Israel, He wasn’t speaking of a future literal reality, but of illusions that veil the real future reality. Such a precedent could make believers question the promises and prophecies God has given us in the New Testament as well (e.g. heaven, hell, indwelling Spirit, salvation, redemption, etc). All of these truths could mean something entirely different than what we are being told literally; and we wouldn’t know until the next age comes, along with a new hermeneutic. That shakes the entire foundation of special revelation, its meaning, and its reliability.
A New Hermeneutic, or a False Dichotomy?
Burgess’s entire premise revolves around an alleged change in the Biblical “hermeneutic” from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant; an Old Testament literal hermeneutic, relating to Israel’s temporal covenant, which has been replaced by a New Testament allegorical hermeneutic, relating to the spiritual Israel’s spiritual covenant in Christ. This hermeneutic is allegedly described in Hebrews 8.
However, I’m not sure that I see such a demand for a hermeneutic change in Hebrews 8. This passage simply contrasts Israel’s earthly tabernacle with its heavenly pattern to demonstrate Jesus’ superior ministry in the New Covenant. The tabernacle served as a copy and shadow of heavenly realities. Jesus’ ministry, as the High Priest in the New Covenant, is far superior, fulfilling the heavenly pattern and establishing a better covenant with superior promises. However, these dual earthly and heavenly realities existed in both testaments. The Israelites’ reliance on the Mosaic Ceremonial Law for righteousness merely veiled the realities that were already available to them in Christ. Hebrews makes it clear that the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin. Only the anticipated New Covenant could do so, even if before its formal inauguration!
Accordingly, there is no change in hermeneutic, but a reminder by the author of Hebrews that the Jeremiah 31 New Covenant gives better access to these heavenly realities; a covenant that was already prophesied to Israel in their language, in their context, in a way that could be both anticipated and fulfilled literally. This covenant included promises that were both material and spiritual in nature; restoration to a beautified land (Jer 31:33), peace and safety on all sides (Isa 11:6), and Gentile nations flocking thereto (Isa 2:1-4); but also forgiveness (Jer 31:34b), a knowledge of God (31:34a), the outpouring (Isa 44:3) and indwelling of God’s Spirit, and a renewed, obedient heart (Ezek 36:26-27). The Jews of Jesus’ time were expected to know these spiritual aspects. After speaking of spiritual rebirth by the Holy Spirit, Jesus told Nicodemus, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (Jn 3:10). Nicodemus was not expected to have access to a mystical hermeneutic to understand.
Burgess claims that the presence of spiritual symbols in the New Testament supports his new hermeneutic – e.g. the church as the temple (1 Cor 3:16), circumcision without hands (Col 2:11), and the church belonging to the heavenly Zion (Heb 12:22). However, the Old Testament conveyed similar truths in similar ways. While Psalm 114:2 speaks of Judah as God’s sanctuary, Isaiah 57:15 speaks of Him dwelling both in Heaven and with those of a contrite heart. Deuteronomy 10:16, 36, and Jeremiah 4:4 all emphasize circumcision of the heart over that of the flesh. Regarding the heavenly Mount Zion, the Old Testament already conveyed such a dual enthronement of God, both in His heavenly temple (Ps 11:4, Isa 66:1), and earthly temple (Ps 99:1). Therefore the presence of spiritual “symbols” in the New Testament in no way warrants a hermeneutic change.
In addition, the universal moral law does not follow Burgess’s dichotomy. It has always been spiritual. The majority of the spiritual truths Jesus conveyed in the Sermon on the Mount originated in the Old Testament; the sinfulness of hatred (Lev 19:17, Zech 7:10), lust (Job 31:1), coveting (Ex 20:17), and oppression of the poor (Lev 25:35-37, Prov 14:31, 19:17, Isa 58:6-7).
Finally, God’s underlying covenant with His people does not have a dichotomous nature. The fact that Israel had an outward civil and ceremonial law introduced by Moses did not abrogate the underlying spiritual nature of the covenant made with Abraham – i.e. the gospel which was beforehand preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8). While the New Testament does emphasize replacement in a couple passages – e.g. Hebrews 8, 2 Corinthians 3 – these passages reference the New Covenant’s superiority over the pharisaical reliance on the Mosaic Ceremonial Law for righteousness. Such comparisons do not imply the abandonment of the original Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17), or its promises to restore, forgive, and indwell a remnant who faithfully attach themselves to it – As Abraham did (Gen 15:6,22:16-18). The Abrahamic covenant has always been associated with the faithful seed of Abraham, not merely the physical. Per the Romans 11 narrative, especially v25-32, God intends to expand this number of faithful Israelites to be part of that true Abrahamic community, along with the grafted Gentiles.
Accordingly, the New Testament era is not a parallel interpretive realm that sits on top of the physical Old Testament prophecies, but rather an era of progressive fulfillment of those literal prophecies as they were originally stated. The “land” promises were not replaced by the “world”. God always promised Israel that His glory will cover the whole earth (Isa 2:2-4, Ps 22:27-28, Dan 7:13-14, Zech 9:9-10), and that nations like Egypt and Assyria will become His people (Isaiah 19:25). Neither were the seed promises replaced with “spiritual seed” promises. God always called Israel to be spiritual Israel – to circumcise their hearts (Jer 4:4); to love God with their heart, mind, soul, and strength (Deut 6:1-6); to truly repent with their hearts rather than trust in the blood of bulls and goats (Ps 51:17, Hos 6:6); to trust God and be accredited with righteousness (Gen 15:6, Ps 32:1). There is never a replacement of Israel, but always a crisis that identifies the true faithful Israel within the largely apostate national Israel (Isa 10:20-22, Jer 23:3, Rom 9:6). In the New Testament, the primary change is that the Gentiles, as a whole, are grafted into the Abrahamic “root” (Rom 11). This new seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29) has now joined the family of Abraham, which already includes “spiritual Israel”, or the faithful Israelites within national Israel (Rom 2:28-29, 9:6); But the Gentiles have not become “Israel”. At the same time, the crises of the early church formation, the departure of Christian Jews from Judaism, and the destruction of the temple demonstrated the “cutting off” of many Jews that were fake branches, which were never supposed to remain in the covenant in the first place. Romans 11 describes, not a replacement, but an inclusion of Gentiles into the already-stated spiritual blessings of Abraham.
Consistent Literal Fulfillment of Prophecies
I see four primary categories of prophecies in the Old Testament: (1) Those prophesied and fulfilled in the Old Testament – e.g. the prophecy of Israel’s bondage in Egypt; (2) Those prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in both the Old Testament (near) and the New Testament (far) – e.g. the virgin birth prophecy; (3) Those prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled only in the New Testament – e.g. the birth of the Christ in Bethlehem; (4) Those prophesied in the Old Testament and not yet fulfilled – e.g. Israel’s restoration. In order to interpret #4 as allegorical, one would have to demonstrate a consistent allegorical application of the New Testament fulfillments of categories #2 and #3. However, this is not the case. Consider the following examples:
Isaiah 7:14 (ESV): “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
This prophecy was initially fulfilled in the near term when a young woman (often translated as “virgin”) gave birth to a son during Isaiah’s time. However, this prophecy also points to a far-reaching fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ, where the deeper spiritual significance of “God with us” is realized.
Isaiah 9:6-7 (ESV): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.”
This prophecy had a near-term fulfillment in the birth of a future king during Isaiah’s time. However, it also finds its ultimate fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ, who is considered the Prince of Peace and the fulfillment of the messianic role described.
Micah 5:2 (ESV): “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”
This prophecy was fulfilled in the near term when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is both literal and also points to the eternal nature of the Messiah.
Zechariah 9:9-10 (ESV): “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey.”
This prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, known as the Triumphal Entry. It has a literal fulfillment, but it also symbolizes Jesus as the King of Peace.
Psalm 22 (ESV): This Messianic psalm includes specific details of suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. While it could have near-term applications to the psalmist’s experiences, it is often interpreted as a prophetic description of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
These prophecies demonstrate a pattern in which the immediate context and fulfillment are often in the near term, while the ultimate and deeper fulfillment is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the New Testament fulfillments retain the same basic elements as the original prophecy: People, locations, and types of events. Specific characters may change (e.g. David to Jesus), but the fulfillments do not take on an entirely new form with regard to location and event type. Prophecies are often fulfilled in the New Testament with a Literal Grammatical Historical hermeneutic. Therefore we should look for such a fulfillment of the prophecies in category #4 unless progressive revelation suggests an interrupted, delayed, or modified fulfillment (e.g. the abrogation of animal sacrifices in the future kingdom). Such modifications in timing and outworking may result from implied conditions in the original prophecy. It must be noted, however, that such contingency-based modifications do not affect the literal interpretation of the original prophecy. As a conditional prophecy, it was intended to be fulfilled in the precise manner that it was stated, given the satisfaction of the stated or implied condition(s). In my series, “Back to the Future”, I explore this concept in detail.
Other hermeneutical concerns
Burgess’s treatment of death in 1 Corinthians 15 has me scratching my head. First, he claims that the life being spoken of in 15:22 is spiritual life, not a physical resurrection. In doing so, he totally ignores Paul’s immediate context which is clearly tying Christ’s resurrection to the kind of resurrection we will have. Contrary to Burgess’s notion of the “spiritual body” (15:44), our future resurrected bodies will be just like the glorious body Jesus had when he rose from the dead.
Phil 3:21: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”
The same body that could miraculously appear behind locked doors (Jn 20:19) could also eat breakfast with His disciples (Jn 21:12-13). His body was a recognizable physical body, not just a spirit. He demonstrated this by inviting the disciples to touch and see his scars (Lk 24:39-40; Jn 20:26-28). 1 Corinthians 15:22 is not referring to our mere spiritual life with Christ in Heaven after we die, but to a tangible resurrection event that includes a bodily resurrection.
What’s ironic is, even Burgess agrees that 15:55 is referring to the literal fulfillment of the resurrection for Old Testament saints, allegedly occurring in Matthew 27:53, when many saints came out of the graves! Yet he doesn’t want to apply that reality to the church, because that was related to the abolishing of the Old Covenant era (old hermeneutic), not the application of the redemptive work of Christ to the church (new hermeneutic). Yet 1 Corinthians 15 is obviously about the latter! What a strange proposal forced by artificial categories.
In trying to divert our attention towards the Jewish fulfillment of the resurrection, Burgess claims that we need to understand “death” in 15:55 as the same death that the prophecy Hosea 13:14 intends to depict – death in Sheol. I’m fine with that. A simple study of the term Sheol will show that it is the Old Testament’s figurative depiction of the grave, as well as what followed in the afterlife. Christ defeated the grave, and one day our graves will be emptied. I don’t understand his point here.
Burgess’s attempt to limit the resurrection to Israel includes an allusion to Paul’s statement about the resurrection being called the “hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). However, this is a fallacious attempt. Weren’t salvation, forgiveness, blessing, redemption, and a myriad of other truths also given to Israel? Can these not also be the hope of the Gentiles who would be grafted into the covenant? If relating salvific truths to Israel restricts those things to Israel, then no salvific promises should extend beyond Israel. Yes, it is true that “salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:22), but this in no way limits its scope to the Jews. Paul is simply stressing the origins of hope of resurrection in the face of his legal predicament caused by Jews.
Overall, I find Burgess’s redemption “accomplished” (70AD) versus redemption “applied” (Church age) ideology to be quite forced. I’m not denying that there are both accomplishments and applications of prophesies. Pentecost may be an application of Joel 2, and John the Baptist’s ministry may be an application of the forerunner Elijah. However, Burgess artificially places some applications where fulfillments are present, and some fulfillments where applications are present. In doing so, he fails to permit the remaining “accomplishments” related to Israel’s future. 70AD didn’t accomplish everything promised to them.
Conclusion
Overall, I question the redemptive historical method’s overall consistency and coherence as an interpretive framework. This hermeneutic is unwarranted and confusing. It can lead to varying and sometimes conflicting interpretations of biblical texts, which undermines the goal of achieving a unified understanding of Scripture. I prefer the literal grammatical historical method, which offers greater interpretive consistency.
Paul warned of those who would attempt to diffuse the hope of the resurrection. His contemporaries, Hymenaeus and Philetus claimed “the resurrection already happened” (2 Tim 2:15-18). His response was that they were not “rightly handling the word of truth” (v15), and that they had “swerved from the truth” (v18).
The Middle Ground 