Preterist Time References, Part XI

One of the arguments that Preterists often give is that the apostles seem to believe that Christ was returning in their lifetime.

Paul states that the "time is short" and that the form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:29, 31) and that Christ will give "us" rest when He returns with His holy angels and burns up his adversaries.

For it is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed – and you did in fact believe our testimony. (2 Thes 1:6-10)

And I say this, brothers and sisters:  The time is short. So then those who have wives should be as those who have none, those with tears like those not weeping, those who rejoice like those not rejoicing, those who buy like those without possessions, those who use the world as though they were not using it to the full. For the present shape of this world is passing away. (1 Cor 7:29-31)

The apostles simply speak to believers in a way that these events (Christ's return, resurrection from the dead, transformation of their bodies, destruction of the wicked, etc.) will be happening to them. Peter does the same as he speaks of sharing in this glory that is to be revealed when Christ returns and rewards the believers to whom he is speaking (1 Pet 5:1-4).

Now, what Preterists will say is that Paul includes himself in this rescuing, and therefore, believes that the Lord will come back in his lifetime. Yet, Paul is martyred by Nero before the Lord is said to return in A.D. 70. Peter. The problem. of course, immediately emerges that if Peter and Paul are dead, then they are not going to be around for Christ's return, nor be relieved and given rest from the enemies through the event, since they are not a part of the event in A.D. 70.

If it is true that these apostles believe that the Lord will come back within their lifetimes, then everyone, including Preterists, must conclude that they are wrong. Paul is wrong. Christ does not return to deal out fire on his enemies and give to him relief from persecution. Peter is wrong, since Christ does not return in his lifetime.

But there is more than this to consider, and that is the nature of what the apostles believe is going to happen. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, notice what Paul says of this age to come. He is arguing to the Corinthians that they might want to think twice about getting married since the time is short and those who are married will soon be as those who are not. The present world that is passing away includes the marriage institution. It also includes buying things, weeping, and rejoicing about the things of the present world. Did all of that end in A.D. 70? Did commerce end in A.D. 70? Did having joy and sorrow about situations that arise in the world end in A.D. 70? Did the form of this world pass away in A.D. 70 because God knocked down a city in the Middle East? Paul's entire point is about marriage. He is arguing that one needs to consider the brevity of time until those who are married will no longer be married. As Christ argued as well, the age to come is one in which resurrected saints do not marry (Luke 20:35), something that would cause a problem if marriage was restored once a person's body was restored, and the one flesh union made in that body was reestablished, as the Sadducees point out.

One might argue that marriage and buying ends in Jerusalem at that time, but why is Paul arguing that the Corinthians in Corinth might not want to get married because the time is short and marriage is going to come to an end? Paul's argument would make no sense. If marriage ends in Jerusalem, it certainly doesn't end in Corinth, or any other city to which believers could move if they want to get married. 

Furthermore, the enemies upon which Christ deals out a fiery destruction are in Thessalonica, not Jerusalem. And, as discussed before, Paul is relieved from their persecution by death, not Christ's return. 

This is not even to mention the fact that the apostles believe the coming of Christ will do away with death, sin, sorrow, the wicked and their kingdoms, and bring about a resurrection of the dead for both the righteous and the wicked. None of this happens in A.D. 70. 

So are the apostles wrong? This is a possibility, since we believe that the Scripture is inspired to instruct Christians, not in timelines, but in theology and ethics. 

In fact, we know that the apostles do not know when Christ is returning because Christ Himself repeats to them twice that no one knows when He is returning in terms of the macro event, nor does it belong to them to know.

In Acts 1:6-7, the apostles ask when He will restore the kingdom to Israel. He replies that such knowledge does not belong to them, but is solely the Father's prerogative to know such things. This is reminiscent of His response to the apostles' question in the Olivet Discourse concerning the macro event. He relates to them the micro event and says that it will happen within some of their lifetimes, but the timing of the macro event is said to only be known by the Father. Not even the Son knows it, so obviously, Jesus could not be revealing when it was occurring. Hence, the timing of Christ's return is not something God gives to men.

But there is another interesting possibility, and that is that what is given to men, even commanded of them, is to look forward to Christ's return. In other words, the expectation of Christ's return is something the New Testament considers important. So important, for that matter, that it provides the basis for our sanctification. In fact, it seems that the New Testament authors believe it to be a necessary element in motivating believers to purify themselves.

Jesus places it as the basis for treating one's fellow Christians well in Matthew (24:42-51). In Mark's version, one reads the common theme found in all of the Synoptics.

“But as for that day or hour no one knows it – neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son– except the Father. Watch out! Stay alert!  For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey. He left his house and put his slaves in charge, assigning to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to stay alert. Stay alert, then, because you do not know when the owner of the house will return – whether during evening, at midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn – or else he might findyou asleep when he returns suddenly. What I say to you I say to everyone: Stay alert!” (Mark 13:32-37)

The ignorance of when He is coming plays into the command to stay alert. If one knew the timing of the event, one would merely be tempted to doze off until that time. So looking forward to His coming, and not knowing when He is coming, plays a vital role in staying alert, something God considered necessary for Christians to have in terms of motivating them toward sanctification.

Likewise, John places it as the basis for sanctification in both his epistles and apocalypse. He states of Christ's return,

And now, little children, remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink away from him in shame when he comes back. If you know that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been fathered by him. (See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called God’s children– and indeed we are! For this reason the world does not know us: because it did not know him. Dear friends, we are God’s children now, but what we will be has not yet become visible. We know that whenever He is made visible we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope focused on him purifies/sanctifies himself, just as Jesus is pure). (1 John 2:28-3:3)

Indeed, Paul seems very aware that he is going to die. The prophet Agabus tells him news that leads Paul to declare that he might die in the Book of Acts (21:10-14) , and he indicates this in 2 Timothy 4:6-8. Peter also indicates this (2 Pet 1:12-15) referencing the Johannine scene about which we have discussed before.

So the apostles know that they are going to die. Yet, they include themselves in the "we," "us," etc. when speaking of something that will happen to other Christians. This is a type of speech that is quite common. The "we" does not necessarily refer to the literal group (i.e., I and you together), but to the representative group. In other words, the "we" and "us" can refer to Christians in general, apostles in general, those who preach the gospel in general, Christians who are alive rather than dead in general, etc. 

This is true for any small part of a group that represents the whole in a synecdoche. The part represents the whole, and sometimes the part even represents others in the group. This means that the apostles, both in terms of relating he necessity of looking forward to Christ's return for sanctification, and in terms of speaking to all Christians for all time, can use language that describes a participation in events, or here, an event, in which they will not literally partake.

Hence, Paul can say of Christ's return and the resurrection, 

We will not all sleep, ³⁰  but we will all be changed – 15:52 in a moment, in the blinking ³¹  of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 15:54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen,

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.” ³² 

15:55 “Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?” ³³ 

15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 15:57 But thanks be to God,who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! 15:58 So then, dear brothers and sisters, ³⁴  be firm. Do not be moved! Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowingthat your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

Notice that this passage relates both the necessity in looking forward to Christ's return and the resurrection of this mortal body for purposes of sanctification, and it relates Paul as being one of those people who is alive at the time it occurs, using representational language. If the "we" and "this mortal body" putting on immortality while alive were literal then Paul was simply mistaken, as he died before this event took place in everyone's eschatological scheme, Preterist or otherwise.

Instead, these verses make up what is likely God's desire to communicate imminence to all Christians in the First Century, but knowing that looking forward to Christ's return is a necessary motivation for Christians in general, has the apostles use language that can apply to every generation of believers. After all, God did not simply wish to sanctify the first generation of believers by continually reminding them of imminent Christ's return, but somehow did not see the necessity of giving that same motivation to the following generations.

So one is given two options with these passages. Either the apostles are wrong about Christ's return because they did not know when He would, as the Bible indicates, or they are using language that includes believers (themselves and other Christians who would not see the return of Christ) as representative of all believers who are looking forward to the event. 

I personally think that the real answer exists in combining these two. In other words, it is since the apostles did not know when Christ would return, they were free to use language that included every believer of their day, even if they did not believe everyone would live until His coming (e.g., Paul and Peter). And God, who is the One who inspires the text, gears it this way so that the text will cause all Christians everywhere throughout time to look forward to Christ's return as a central motivation for their sanctification. 

But Preterist proof texts they are not. The nature of the event negates that idea, the fact that the apostles saying it do not live to see A.D. 70 negate that idea, and neither the language nor the nature of inspiration, frankly, demands such an interpretation.  

All of these remaining verses fall under this category:

“…we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord… …We who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds… …You, brethren, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief.” (1 Thes 4:15, 17; 5:4).

“May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (5:23).

“I charge you …that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Tim 6:14) 

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God.” (2 Pet 3:10-12)

Dodging Authorial Intent: The False Dichotomy between Second Temple and Modern Hermeneutics

There is a common sentiment, one that I think displays a superficial understanding of hermeneutics, that attempts to divorce the “ancient hermeneutic” of the New Testament authors from that of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic used in our modern day by scholars and the like.

Within this concept is the idea that the New Testament authors, as ancient interpreters, do not interpret the text according to context, but instead, ignore context to interpret the text in the light of Christ.

Now, the New Testament interpreters clearly interpret texts in light of Christ. There is no doubt to this. However, the claim that this is done supposedly by ignoring the original context or the interpretive method that would understand the authorial intent from the original context is bogus. Second Temple interpreters do not reject the original contextual meaning for a more spiritual one.

For instance, in Qumran, we have texts that are interpretive texts called pesherim. One of the elements of pesher, as defined by Shani L. Berrin, is a “citation of a biblical text (the lemma)” that the author views as having “an application of the text to a contemporary reality outside of its original context” (“Pesherim” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 644).

There is nothing about negating the original meaning, only that the interpreter is seeking to apply it to new contexts. This is done by seeing a text typologically, not figuratively.

And God told Habakkuk to write what was going to happen to <to> the last generation, but he did not let him know the consummation of the era. And as for what he says: «So that /may run/ the one who reads it». Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets. For the vision has an appointed time, it will have an end and not fail. Its interpretation: the final age will be extended and go beyond all that the prophets say, because the mysteries of God are wonderful. (1QpHab vii.1-8)

The idea expressed here is that there is a plain reading that Habakkuk and the other prophets understood, but that the raz “mystery” of the text was something that went beyond all that the prophets said. This cryptic interpretation was left for the Teacher of Righteousness to reveal.

It is clear by the way the Pesherim interpret the texts that the mystery of the text is nothing more than exchanging the original context for a contemporary one. This can be a valid or invalid way of interpreting the text. In most 2d Temple interpretation, the attempt is to interpret the text in a way that is complementary, rather than contradictory, to the original context. In fact, in most forms of ancient Jewish interpretation it is a general rule that the extended meaning is not to contradict the original basic meaning.

In other words, the interpreter is not contradicting the original references of the text, as though the author believes that Habakkuk could not understand his own words, or that his original audiences was left dumbfounded by the text; but instead, that God made known to Habakkuk what was being said, but that its implications for future interpretation were a mystery ready to be unlocked by a future interpreter. This is the actual hermeneutic of most 2d Temple authors.

The 2d Temple hermeneutic, then, is not one where the authors are merely making things up and reinterpreting texts against their original context. Instead, they are often seeking to understand the original text in order to make further application to their own day. But by “application” I do not mean they merely seek to apply it as we would. Instead, they are arguing that the application to their own day is intended by God through the text itself. It is cryptically hidden. It’s further meaning needs to be brought out by an interpreter led by God.

But the plain meaning can be understood by everyone, and both are meant to be conveyed by God. The meaning one gains from the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which is nothing more than understanding what the author in his own day meant by observing the internal logic of language, one which we acknowledge on a daily basis in our own speech, is foundational. To reject the historical-grammatical hermeneutic is to reject logic as applied to language itself, and this would render all speech as useless babel that can be refitted to any situation and interpreted in any way the reader sees fit. Indeed, the postmodern “reader-response” hermeneutic so popular in academics is a result of such thinking.

However, this is not the hermeneutic of the New Testament. The New Testament, like other 2d Temple interpretive literature, receives the plain meaning and the spiritual meaning of a text as existing in harmony with one another. Paul does not think that Abraham and Sarah are merely allegories and not real persons. He does not reject the story and theology surrounding them and conveyed by the original plain reading of the text. Instead, he acknowledges this story when he notes how Abraham received righteousness from God by believing Him. This would not be possible if Paul rejected the original plain reading. However, does Paul see that there is more to the story that can be made of these characters? Absolutely. They can be used in an analogy to represent law and promise and applied to the contemporary debate in Galatia.

Likewise, does Paul really believe the original legal command concerning oxen was not about oxen, or does he believe that it is about oxen, but stated mainly as a principle that is expressed through oxen but meant to be applied to people, namely, those who make their living from the gospel? I think the latter is clear, as Paul affirms the plain principles of the law in general.

Again, does Matthew really not know how to read Hosea when God says, “Out of Egypt I called my Son,” or could Matthew be using that text to apply the plain meaning of the text to Jesus Christ as the true Israel? In other words, the plain meaning must be understood first in order to understand the argument that Matthew is making about Jesus.

In fact, it was required to know the plain text well enough that one could start using it in more imaginative ways. It was, frankly, a test to how well one knew Scripture. Hence, Jesus and Paul use the very minutia of grammar to make their arguments against their Jewish counterparts (i.e., “I am the God of Abraham . . .” and “seed, not seeds”).

Jesus interprets the OT text plainly all of the time. He interprets God making them male and female to be one flesh as God made them male and female to be one flesh. There is no other typological meaning produced by Christ here. But Paul can use this typologically as well to say that the male represents Christ and the female the Church without rejecting the original contextual interpretation, since he quotes the plain interpretation elsewhere as he prohibits fornication.

It becomes clear that the New Testament author’s quote the Old Testament in two ways. The first is that they quote its plain, contextual meaning quite often. The second is that they use the text typologically, and as typology, it can be applied to new situations to come (i.e., to Christ or to preachers, etc.).

But the fact that they will interpret the texts they quote in both ways shows that they actually do believe that both are valid. In other words, if they rejected the plain, historical-grammatical, contextual reading of texts, they would never interpret texts according to that plain meaning. Yet, they clearly do interpret it in these ways.

Hence, it is not that Paul does not believe the original story of the rock that delivers water to the Israelites in the wilderness as it would be interpreted in its original context, but that he also sees a typological analogy with the water and Christ. In fact, the plain meaning is needed to understand the analogy. Even though the water existed in the midst of the Israelites and could have given them life, they still all died in the wilderness and did not receive the promise (the original interpretation in its original context and with its original authorial intent). Likewise, even though Christ may be present among those in the visible church at Corinth, if they persist in rebellion like the Israelites, they will perish without receiving the promise. Hence, the rock that gives the water of life is Christ (the typological interpretation of the text applied to a new context).

In fact, much of the New Testament builds on whole theologies gained from understanding entire literary contexts. John builds his theology from Pentateuchal themes as well as the overall theology of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The author of Hebrews seems to draw his warning passages from the theology of Numbers gained from a literary reading. Echoes of entire contexts exist in the New Testament, which is something that would be impossible if they did not interpret Scripture according to its authorial intent as evidenced by context. As my professors always said, “Context is king,” and the NT authors seem to be well aware of this. They just believe that much of the OT is typological and has further meanings to explore for the newfound context of Christ and His Church.

A good example for this is Jesus’ use of parables. He gives parables that have cryptic meanings for the hard-hearted masses, but when He wants the disciples to understand, He tells them plainly. If the Jewish mind were one where “plain meanings” were not a part of their hermeneutic, how are they understanding what Jesus says “plainly.”

And, in fact, what emerges is that the idea that the ancient reader did not interpret language according to the internal logic that the historical-grammatical hermeneutic seeks to expose is complete nonsense. The ancient speaker would be incapable of communicating and the ancient hearer would be incapable of understanding him.

Attempting to deny the internal logic of language in terms of how it conveys authorial intent via context is like attempting to deny the law of non-contradiction. It ends up being a self-defeating process of explaining away the internal logic of language by using the internal logic of language.

Instead, the ancient reader simply sought to apply the text to new found situations, and many times, interpretation was not seen as a mere human effort, but one governed by the Spirit of God to make such applications of texts that could be viewed both in their original contexts, and as typological of other future contexts to come. 

It is also sometimes claimed that the modern approach is a Greco-Roman influence, but this is complete nonsense. Ironically, the idea that the text should be interpreted spiritually with only the allegorical meaning is truly the result of Greek influence, as it conveys a type of Platonism that one sees in circles influenced more by Greek thought, such as among the Gnostics. 

Indeed, to divorce the two methods of interpretation from one another, i.e., divorcing the original meaning that was conveyed in words that have contexts that ground them in order to pursue some spiritual meaning only is truly a Greek way of thinking. Yet, even the Greeks had to communicate their interpretations to their students, and so the Platonists and Gnostics ended up explaining their interpretations using language that needed to be interpreted by its hearers/readers with the historical-grammatical/contextual hermeneutic. As one once said of the law of non-contradiction, the more one attempts to deny it, the more one affirms it.

The New Testament authors do not partake in such absurdities. They affirm the original contextual meanings, but also see God as conveying typology through those texts. As such, the either/or claim that most employ in order to dodge their having to grapple with the originally intended meaning of a text has no validity to it.

Preterist Time References, Part X

I mentioned in the previous post that there seems to be some confusion on the nature of the new covenant in Jeremiah. This confusion is compounded by a statement, often misread, in the Book of Hebrews.

In Hebrews, Auctor makes the following observation after his quotation of Jeremiah 31 concerning the new covenant.

When he speaks of a new covenant, he has made old the first. Now what is growing old and wearing out is already fading away. (Heb 8:13)

What Preterists think this means is that Auctor is arguing that Jeremiah predicted a future time when the new covenant was going to come and the old covenant would grow old and be soon to pass away. The common interpretation of the passage is to understand it as Auctor arguing that the old covenant is currently in the process of passing away in his own day, but that it has not quite occurred yet. Hence, Preterists see this as a reference to the coming of Christ in A.D. 70, since that is the big even about to happen and when the old covenant is said to have passed away completely. 

First, I want to point out again that in Jeremiah 31, the difference between the old and new covenant is where they are written and how they are communicated. Jeremiah is addressing the Jewish community that is going to be without a temple, sacrifices, and any of the external means through which God had communicated the law to them. 

Hence, the text is arguing that God will write His law upon their minds and hearts so that they will be directly taught of God, rather than having a need to have physical demonstrations and illustrations of holiness through ritual or an external law written on tablets of stone. 

Instead, the new covenant will see the law written upon the very beings of the exiles themselves. “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” (31:33). In fact, the whole context relates God's restoration of Israel from the exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the establishment of the priesthood. But the renewed covenant is needed, one that differs from the first in terms of where it is displayed, because none of the external pictures exist after they are wiped out by the Babylonians. 

Fast-forward to the Auctor's time. Auctor is making the argument that the Old Testament teaches the necessity of Christ. Christ, after all, is the capstone of the new covenant, and indeed, even its foundation. He argues then that the reason why Christ's blood of the new covenant is necessary is because the old covenant is no longer in effect. It has already passed away. The external religion that existed in rituals and sacrifices were shadows of the covenant to come in Christ. Hence, once Christ had come, the shadows became ineffectual and unnecessary. This is what Auctor picks up on in Jeremiah.

His argument is that because Jeremiah used the word "new" Jeremiah was implying that the external covenant written on tablets and existing in rituals was "old." Auctor then points out that what is old is worn and is already passing away. 

Where many people have misunderstood what is being said, it seems rather clear that Auctor is saying this of Jeremiah's day, not his own. In other words,Jeremiah, not Auctor, used the word "new." Jeremiah, not Auctor, implied by his use of the word "new" that the external covenant was old. Jeremiah, not Auctor, was implying that what is old is worn out and already fading away. In Jeremiah's day. In the 6th Century B.C. In fact, that's the context of Jeremiah. The old is already passing away and the new is already coming, so that the exiles can worship God even without the external religion, since now it will be written on their minds and hearts. 

So Auctor is not arguing that the old covenant is currently passing away in his own day, as though it did not take its last breath at the coming of Christ and His finishing work on the cross; but rather that if it was already fading away in Jeremiah's day, then it was certainly finished off by Christ in His death, resurrection, and especially ascension. 

Hence, his entire argument in Hebrews is that Christ has already fulfilled the sacrificial laws, He is already fulfilling the priesthood by being at the right hand of God the Father, He has a better tabernacle in the presence of God the Father to do His priestly work, etc. There is simply no need for the old external covenant when one has the new better one now. This is his argument to Jews leaving Christianity. It is not that they will have something better in terms of the covenant, but that they currently do through Christ's fulfilling the rituals seen in the external covenant law via His death, ascension, priesthood, tabernacle, etc.

The text of Hebrews 8:13 is simply being misread. If I say that Napoleon said that he wore blue to the Battle of Waterloo, and I say, "by blue, he implies that he did not wear red, and what is not red is making a bold statement," I am not implying that red is making a bold statement in my day, but in his. 

To get a better analogy, imagine if I said that Napoleon said that he had a new sword, and by "new" he implies his other sword was old, and what is old is wearing out and already fading away, it is well understood that I am not saying that the sword is becoming worn out and is already fading away in my own day, but in his. 

Or to put it in logical terms: X, who lives in Time M, used the word Y in Time M, which implies Z in Time M. What is Z is B and C. If X implies that Y is occurring in Time M, then Z is occurring in Time M. If Z is occurring in Time M, and it implies B and C, then B and C are occurring in Time M.

One can argue that this is only a prophecy of the future and not meant for the returning exiles, and perhaps even exiles, but this would simply ignore the context of Jeremiah and that of Hebrews as well.

This, instead, is the logical implication of what is said since it is Jeremiah, in the sixth century B.C. who says/implies it, and not Auctor in the first century A.D. This also takes seriously the context of Jeremiah that argues this in the context of God restoring the exiles to their land and restoring their living and worship there. And it is also the context of Hebrews where Auctor argues that there is currently no need for any externally communicated covenant since the new covenant has already come and Christ has and is currently fulfilling its role in a far superior way, as the substance of what was to come, than the shadow did in its own day. 

What is old in Jeremiah's day is worn out in Jeremiah's day, and is already fading away in Jeremiah's day. When Christ comes, He removes any further need of its remaining elements and takes over the roles those external elements played in the worship of God.

Hence, this is not a time reference that indicates any sort of transition period. As argued before, there is no transition period. The new covenant is celebrated as having already come when Jesus hands the disciples the wine, which symbolizes the new covenant in His blood. This same new covenant is celebrated by the early church in communion, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26. The new has come. The old has faded away as a necessary means to worship God. And this is Auctor's point. The superior has come, so the inferior has already faded away. The renewed and superior is necessary. The old and inferior is superfluous. Trading in the former for the latter, therefore, is foolish.