The Tangled Web of Covenant Creationism

That activity notifier in the upper right-hand corner of Facebook can be a blessing and a curse. haha. I don’t randomly visit “Full Preterist” pages on FB anymore and so the only way i know if a battle involving my name is going on (which seems to be common nowadays) is if a friend comments somewhere and i happen to be online and notice the update.

Looks like Jeff Vaughn has decided to pick another fight with Sam, after Sam linked to my testimony, Why I Left HyperPreterism. Jeff says:

Neither you nor Jason ever got Covenant Creation right. Are you still telling people that we believe Gen. 1 occurred at Sinai?

It was very tempting to join the group and go at it with Jeff, who seems to have a terrible memory or is intentionally deceitful, but i had to resist. I have learned a thousand times over that Jeff is always right and we are always wrong. Even when he admits he is wrong, he’ll backtrack once he thinks people have forgotten about it. There is no sense in wasting time with such a person. However, i would like to set the record straight for those that visit here and are witnessing that fiasco on FB.

In that testimony, i criticized Covenant Creationism as erroneously teaching that “Genesis 1 is no longer about creation. It’s about the formation of Israel as a nation.” This was the remark that led Jeff to say that i have never understood Covenant Creationism.

The fact is, i do understand correctly Jeff Vaughn (version 1.0) and the Covenant Creationism as articulated in his book and had noted a blatant contradiction between that book and a comment Jeff Vaughn (version 3.4) wrote on PlanetPreterist after the book was out. Here was his comment on PP: {emphasis mine}

My issue is not the gap, but the problems a physical creation of any sort causes with the interpretation of Revelation. Any sort of physical creation requires a physical fulfillment of Rev. 21:1.

What was created in Genesis 1, passed away and was recreated in Rev. 21. The old covenant passed away and was made new in Rev. 21. Therefore, the old covenant was created in Genesis 1.

So, does Covenant Creationism teach that “Genesis 1 is no longer about creation”? Yes. I clearly got that part right. As you can see, according to Jeff Vaughn (version 3.6), Genesis 1 cannot be about the physical creation because what was created in Genesis 1 passed away in ad70, and since the physical creation did not pass away in ad70, Genesis 1 is not about the physical creation.

But what about the formation-of-Israel-in-Genesis-1 part? Do i understand that part right? Jeff (version 4.5) says no. First off, please note that i have never claimed that the book taught this. Not once. As i will point out below with past comments, i clearly understood that the book states that Israel was formed at Sinai. The issue has not been that the book said two contrary things about when Israel was formed. The issue is following Jeff’s arguments as articulated in the book and outside of the book, to their logical implications. Secondly, it is probably true that i don’t understand their current position on this, nor do i care. I don’t think they even understand it. It changed every week. I simply don’t keep up with it anymore. It’s boring. I’d rather go outside and watch dog poop petrify. But that there has been a problem, is beyond dispute. To say that i have never got it right is patently absurd.

For starters, Norman Voss, who wrote the intro to Jeff’s book, said this on that same PP blog:

The Heavens and Earth of Genesis 1 creation is essentially an overview of Israel from its original creation until its final closure ending with the Sabbath rest of God.

How much clearer can that be? Genesis 1 is “an overview of Israel from its original creation.” I know, i know, someone is going to complain now…”yeah, that’s Norm. That isn’t Jeff.” Ok, then nevermind what that preface-writing Covenant Creationist said. Back to Jeff then.

On pg. 77 of Jeff’s book, which i have never read according to them, it states:

Just as the formation of Israel and giving of the Law was the metaphorical creation of “heaven and earth,” so the destruction of the Judaic society, the Law, the priesthood, and temple would be the passing away of Israel’s “heaven and earth.”

When we turn just a page back, we find this:

Isaiah uses prophetic poetry to recount the crossing of the Red Sea as Israel left Egypt. God placed his words in Israel’s mouth at Sinai with the giving of the law. Yet notice how the prophet alludes to Israel’s history as a creation of “heaven and earth.” Israel became God’s new creation at the time of the Exodus.”

Here they state in black and white that Israel “became” this new heaven and earth “at the time of the Exodus”. They then quote Don Preston in support:

“God gave His word to Israel to establish their world. Their world was spoken of here as the heaven and earth. This is confirmed when Jehovah says He gave the Word to Israel, not only to establish the heavens and earth but to make them His people. Isaiah places the establishing of the heavens and earth, and the entering into covenantal relationship as when God gave His law to Israel. This was at Sinai. Therefore, in the eyes of God and Israel, the heaven and earth were established at Sinai. Obviously not the physical creation, but the world of Israel.

Now, i want you to read all of this very slowly. According to Jeff (version 1.0), when Israel was formed at Sinai, this “formation” was the “metaphorical creation of heaven and earth”, SO THAT what was destroyed in ad70 was “Israel’s ‘heaven and earth’”. Got that?

But follow it further…according to Jeff (version 3.4), what “passed away” in Re 21 was what “was created in Genesis 1″. Now, if what “passed away” was “Israel’s ‘heaven and earth’”, namely the “Judaic society, the Law, the priesthood, and temple”; and if what “passed away” was what was “created in Genesis 1″; then what was “created in Genesis 1″ per Jeff Vaughn’s reasoning?

“Israel’s ‘heaven and earth’”, namely the “Judaic society, the Law, the priesthood, and temple”

Hello?

Yet, Jeff wants to say that the covenantal world of Israel – Israel’s Heaven and Earth – was not created until Sinai. I pointed out this contradiction on SGP for a solid year, asking “Are we now to believe that Exodus 24 and Genesis 1 are referring to the same event?! Was Adam there at Sinai?” And i finally got a response from Jeff (version 4.3):

Thank-you Jason,

It looks like Tim and I need to work on that section. We wrote that while we were still arguing over what to do with Genesis 1. After Chapters 13-18 were finished, we needed to go back an apply what we learned in Chapters 1-12. We appear to have missed a spot.

Again, thanks. We will fix this part.

And there you have it. Jeff admitted the problem and claimed that he was going to “fix this part.” I clearly understood what the book was saying. So much so that when i pointed out that the book contradicted what Jeff was saying outside of the book, i got an apology from Jeff (version 3.432). Yet, here we are two years later with Jeff (version 4.5) claiming that i never “got Covenant Creation right”. So i guess the apology was fake or did he forget that? Some things never change.

The Covenant Creationists clearly have a dilemma on their hands…one that is created by their false presuppositions and is inherent within hyperpreterism itself.

Some of us having discovered the root cause of the dilemma, ditched the foundation and returned to sound Christian orthodoxy. Others choose to defend their unorthodox creedal box at all costs, no matter how convoluted their system gets and careless with their accusations they have to be.

sam

Very well done. Sorry to have involved ya….:) But, I have been going back our articles over the past year and a half….yeah, Sam and Jason “refuse” to deal with the issues….this one caught my eye, and Paul B. has been pretty gracious for letting me post stuff. I even joined fullpreterist.com. Oh, hey, here’s a new one Jason: First John was writtent to Gnostics and Judaizers, not Christians…..you can pick up your jaw from the floor now….
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg

Jason, nice.

Over on DID, where Jeff roams, I had a conversation about Genesis 1 “trees.” I said that besides the clear meaning of Genesis 1 being about the physical creation, I needed it to be about the physical creation so that when my grandkids ask me, “Who made the trees?” I can answer, “God did” and point to Genesis 1. What amazed (and shocked) me was the answers I got to this one simple statement.

First, Tami says that all I have to do is read Colossians 1 which says He made “all things visible and invisible” and I can know God made trees. She also makes a reference to the Nicene Creed. What the…?! And then she says all over the OT we can see God’s sovereignty over nature. So I can’t have Genesis 1:11-12 which clearly says God made the trees, but I have to wait 4000 years for Paul to write “visible and invisible” before anybody can know God made trees?! And then throw Nicene Creed at me? I threw it back about the future coming of Christ.

Second, John Scargy comes in and says that he reads fairy tales to his grandkids and they are able to discern what is true. By this, he means, kids can figure out God made trees without Genesis 1! He even calls me “dangerous” because I put my kids’ faith on the line by telling them the Bible teaches things it is not intended to (i.e. making Genesis 1 refer to physical trees when it clearly refers to covenantal ones). Now what makes this end funny is, like Tami, he throws ancient writings at me… Augustine and Calvin! Of course, I threw them back regarding the future coming of Christ and that they both taught Genesis 1 as the physical creation. I told him there was no scholar in 6000 years that thought otherwise.

Third, Norm comes in and emphasizes the symbology of “trees” in Genesis 1:11-12 because all of Genesis 1 is obviously Hebrew poetry. I remind him there are no scholars in 6000 years that thought that chapter was only symbolic.

Now get this. John Scargy then throws a James Jordan quote from Through New Eyes at me: “Similarly, if we approach the Bible with questions about botany, we find that the Bible discusses plants and trees in terms of how they symbolize various kinds of men, or in terms of their usefulness for food and medicine.” I thought, Do I really have to answer this? I pointed out to John that James Jordan did not believe what he believes either and therefore it was useless to quote him to me. In fact, James Jordan wrote the following book:

Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One LOL!

Sheesh.

So, I’ve never been able to understand how anyone can stay with Covenant Creation. I’ve read their book (Jeff & Tim’s) which Tim graciously sent me for free. Their arguments are not convincing. It is painfully evident that the only reason they see Genesis 1 as only (don’t say “merely”, it makes them mad) covenantal is because they need for it to be “consistent” with when Jesus supposedly destroyed the heavens and earth in AD70. Since “heavens and earth” were destroyed then, and it obviously wasn’t physical, then “heavens and earth” in the whole rest of the Bible must refer to something other than physical. Huh?! Their version of full preterism must have it that way. It colors everything they write and read. I got exhausted with it. In my humble opinion, and for lack of a better description… “Covenantal Creationism” is nuts. Feel free to quote me on that.

The exchange I had over at DID was pleasant enough (they were not rude). I believe most (if not all) of them are sincere. But, you know the old saying. We can be sincere, and sincerely wrong. But the good thing is, we can change. I did. The truth will make us free, but first it will make us mad.
sam

Greg, that’s Jason’s point. Every morning on our way to school, we passed by a farm with cows. They were eating grass. I would quote Genesis and a psalm. “God made the cows, and see, he is feeding them with the dew of the morning, and gives them grass to eat.” Simple. And they have a simple faith today. “See the moon? God made that in a blink, on the fourth day. He said, “moon”, and there was a moon.” Awesome. Stupendous. Today, on an honor roll track, my boys – straight A students – confound their teachers with crazy questions. I love it. I taught them how to think critically, analytically, question everything. They see right through the “assumptions” (presumption,more like it) of “so called science”. In short, they understand Presuppositionalism. God defines “fact”, not man.

In the Garden, we became like God, knowing good and evil. In other words, we became gods, deciding what was good and evil by our own autonomous mind without any need or reference to God’s word. We defined reality, and then state that God must “fit” this reality. Jesus Christ gives us an escape from this. He is a man. He is in heaven. He warps our understanding of time, space, dimension and reality. A human body in heaven? Talk about bending physics! Keep your eyes on Jesus, Greg……and he will astound you every day.

Share with your friends!