. . . Crucial here is the eschatological action of the Spirit, his enabling of created things to become what they are by anticipating what they shall be, a function inaugurated and instantiated by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Having said that, however, we must remember that there is eschatology and eschatology. On the one hand, there is that, whose father is perhaps Origen of Alexandria and whose greatest exponent is perhaps Augustine, which sees the end of creation as a return to the perfection of its beginning. This tends to be associated with, if it is not actually the outcome of, a Neoplatonic and emanationist view of things, according to which it is the destiny of creation to be, so to speak, rolled back into the being of God. The inadequacy of this is shown by the consideration that if creation is God’s self-communication, his word, then its destiny is to return to him void, for it does not become, in its own right, anything more than it once was. It simply returns whence it came as what it once was: nothing. That is to say, it has no truly eschatological teleology. On the other hand, if the Spirit is indeed the perfecting cause of creation, whose function is to bring the world through Christ to a completeness which it did not have in the beginning, there is rather more to be said. The destiny of things on this account is to be presented before the throne in their perfection, not without the human creation, indeed, but transformed in such a way that their true otherness is not only respected but achieved. This is the work of the Lord who is the Spirit. (Colin E. Gunton, “Theology Through the Theologians,” 149)

If this is true, which I believe it is, then “Covenant/Federal” Theology is defunct. It is defunct not necessarily because of its eschatology; but instead because of its “static” conception of God. Typically Federal theology places one-to-one correspondence between the first Adam, second Adam; so that “Eden-lost,” in the the first Adam, becomes “Eden-restored,” in the second Adam. If we don’t have dynamism, and creativity (being in becoming) in our view of God, then subsequently we end up with a creation that likewise has no dynamism or creative telos in its ontology. I digress, the reality is, is that by the Spirit, in Christ, the second Adam we move beyond, to our telos (purpose) . . . what started in the first Adam was always intended to “end” in the second Adam so that “creation” might find its purpose in union with its Creator. To simply be restored back to first Adam status, in other words, is rather circular; and just won’t do.