Chapter 6 contains Myers’ discussion of the Noahic covenant. He begins in Genesis 6 by noting the fallen condition of mankind and the grace God showed to Noah. Myers observes that Genesis 6:8 concludes a major section of the book with the statement that that God gave grace to Noah. Genesis 6:9 begins a major section of Genesis (marked by the toledoth heading) by identifying Noah as righteous. Myers rightly points out the significance of the order. First Noah received grace from God, and only after the reception of grace is he declared to be righteous.

Myers rightly understands the Flood to be a decreation judgment. This is the background for the Noahic covenant.

Myers rightly rejects interpretations, like those proposed by David VanDrunen, which distinguish between a redemptive Noahic covenant in Genesis 6 and a common grace Noahic covenant in Genesis 8-9. There is one Noahic covenant. Furthermore, while Myers grants that the Noahic covenant is universal in scope, he does not pit the universalism of the covenant against its redemptive purpose. Instead, he concludes, “In this, we see that the common-grace elements of the Noahic covenant neither exhaust nor essentially reveal the central concern of the covenant. Preserving regularity in the creation is not God’s foremost purpose in the covenant; it is, rather, a result of God’s purpose. Most essentially, God is manifesting His ability and His intention to gather a heart-changed people before bringing cataclysm on the creation, and the divine pronouncement of creational regularity is but a function of that underlying purpose” (140).
The rainbow, the sign of the covenant, testifies to the redemptive purpose of the covenant—to hold off judgment while God redeems a people for himself.

Subsequent Scripture also confirms a unitary, redemptive Noahic covenant that delays the final judgment until its appointed time. In discerning this point Myers surveys Isaiah 54:9-10; Hossa 2:18-23; Jeremiah 33:19-26; Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:1-10.

At several points in the chapter, Myers repeats his claim that the use of heqim berith demonstrates that the Noahic covenant is a continuation of the covenant of grace rather than a brand-new covenant. However, I did not see him address the difficulty of this covenant being made between God and all creation while, in his view, the covenant of grace was made between the Father and Christ (and all the elect in him).

Myers also argues that the Noahic covenant undermines the distinction between law and promise covenants. First, he argues that even though the covenant promise was given to Noah, Noah had to obey and build the Ark to be saved. However, I would argue that this observation is irrelevant to the Noahic covenant, which was not established until after the Flood. Second, Myers argues that within the Noahic covenant there is both promise and command. This is true, but it does not invalidate the distinction between law covenants and promise covenants. If the Noahic covenant were a law covenant, the commands of the covenant would need to be obeyed for the blessing of no further worldwide floods to be maintained. But the Noahic covenant is a promise covenant because God has unilaterally committed himself to keeping the promise of no more worldwide floods despite the fact that so many people throughout history have broken the covenant’s commands.

I disagree with Myers’s attempt to make the Noahic covenant an administration of the covenant of grace and with his blurring of the distinction between law and promise covenants. But aside from those two areas of disagreement, I found this chapter to be full of exegetical insight.

Chapter 5 is a brief and insightful discussion of the Fall and the protoevangelium. Myers persuasively argues that Adam was with Eve at the temptation and sinned knowingly (rather than being deceived, as Eve was) (Gen 3:6; 1 Tim 2:14). Myers notes that since a covenant is relational, Adam’s violation of the covenant of works was essentially a rejection of his relationship with God.

Myers then turns to Genesis 3:15. He points out that by sinning mankind had united with Satan in enmity against God. But in declaring enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, God was promising to turn the hearts of some humans so that their enmity would be turned from God to Satan.

Myers further argues that the Seed of the woman who defeats Satan is the Messiah. Thus, salvation is from this point on rooted in faith in God’s promise of the Messiah who will bring salvation.
Myers thinks that the continuity of the seed promise from Genesis to Revelation demonstrates the unity of the covenant of grace. However, a singular plan of redemption worked out through a series of covenants would also account for the data.

Chapter 3 of God to Us deals with the covenant of redemption, or the counsel of peace. Myers defines the counsel of peace as the covenant in which the Father elects individuals and gives them to the Son to redeem. The Son covenants with the Father to redeem them. The Spirit covenants to apply redemption and to preserve the redeemed.

Myers notes that this covenant is a great mystery since the one God in three persons has one will which consents to each Person carrying out redemption distinctively.

Myers finds scripture support for the covenant of redemption in four types of passages.

First there are passages in which Christ obeys the Father to secure redemption for the elect so that they become his people (Isa 53:10-12; Jn 10:18; 12:49; 14:31; 15:10; 17:11-12, 15-16, 17, 19, 25-26; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 5:8). This is accomplished by the application of redemption by the Spirit (Jn 16:7-11; Acts 2:33; Eph 1:12-14; Titus 3:4-7).

Second, several passages indicate that the “obedience-for-reward relationship” is a covenantal relationship (Lk 22:28-30; Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:22).

Third, there are passages that indicate that the contents of this covenant are eternal (Eph 1:4; 3:8-12; Phil 2:5-11; Rev 13:8).

Fourth, there are passages that indicate an organic connection between this covenant and its historical out working (Isa 53:10-12; Jn 17).

Myers concludes the chapter with devotional reflections on how the covenant of redemption helps is adore the triune God.

I think that Scripture passages under points one, three, and four significantly contribute to the argument for a covenant of redemption (though I might differ with the inclusion of this or that passage). For point 2, I think Luke 22:28-30 contributes to the argument, but Romans 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 refer to temporal covenants rather than to the covenant of redemption. The main question then is whether the language of “covenant” is the best language to capture what these passages describe. My personal assessment is that once we recognize the analogical nature of covenant language as applied to the persons of the Trinity, speaking of a covenant of redemption is appropriate.

Chapter 2 is Myers’s defense and exposition of the covenant of works. He begins by acknowledging the objection of John Murray and others that the term berith (covenant) does not occur in Genesis until chapter 6. Myers has three rejoinders. First, the Davidic covenant is not called a covenant in 2 Samuel 7; the language of covenant is applied only by later Scripture passages. Second, Hosea 6:7 refers to a covenant made either with Adam or with all mankind, and this is likely a reference to the covenant of works. Third, covenant first appears in Genesis 6 as part of a Hebrew phrase that indicates the establishing of an existing covenant. This indicates the presence of a covenant or covenants prior to the first use of the word in Genesis 6:18. (Myers, however, does not think that Genesis 6:18 is referring back to the covenant of works.)

Myers then turns to Genesis 1-3 to see if the elements of a covenant are present in these chapters. Covenants involve relationships, and Myers begins by establishing how the creation of man in God’s image established a relationship between God and man. Myers then notes that covenants involve parameters, and he outlines four creation ordinances (procreation, subduing, Sabbath, and marriage) along with what he calls “the focal command” (the prohibition upon eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). Finally, Myers observes that life is the reward for keeping the covenant of works. If a covenant is “a binding relationship between parties that involves both blessings and obligations,” then a covenant exists in Genesis 1-3.

But is this a works covenant? Myers grants that the very giving of the covenant was gracious (he refers to this as condescending grace), but the covenant promised eternal life upon condition of obedience, which means that it was not a covenant of redeeming grace.

Myers concludes the chapter with warm, pastoral observations about the relevance of the covenant of works to the believer today.

This chapter successfully argues for the existence of the covenant of works in Genesis 1-3, and it does so with such warmth and exegetical insight that I’d recommend it to anyone preaching on those chapters. My differences with this chapter would be one of emphasis. First, I’m more convinced that the correct reading in Hosea 6 is Adam (the person) rather than all mankind. Second, while Myers is clear that procreation and subduing are blessings and not merely ordinances, I would argue that the text presents them as primarily blessings. 1. This is what the text explicitly calls them. 2. The curse following sin explicitly falls on these blessings. 3. Redemption includes the establishment of a kingdom (subduing) on an earth that is full of humans ruling creation in submission to God. That said, I grant that these blessings do reveal what is normative in God’s creation and that they therefore carry an obligation to live according to them and not contrary to them.

Myers’s first chapter surveys the history of covenant theology from the New Testament through to the twenty-first century.

I think Myers opening claims would have been more convincing if, instead of arguing that covenant theology existed in the New Testament and post-apostolic era, he had argued that certain elements that are significant to the system of covenant theology are present in the early church. For instance, in the section on the post-apostolic church, Myers seems to understand covenant theology as teaching “an unbroken unity to God’s work” from Abraham to Christ, with Christ being the fulfilment of all the OT promises (18). But this definition is broad enough to encompasses progressive coventantalists and progressive dispensationalists. The breadth of his definition for what counts as covenant theology in this period is seen in his appeal to the Epistle of Barnabas as evidence of covenant theology in the patristic period: “Certainly, the author of Barnabas had a rather peculiar structure to his covenant theology, one very different from that set forward at present, but what is important is that he was using covenants and covenant theology in his apologetic and evangelistic engagement with Jews” (19). I think Myers would have been better off to simply claim that Irenaeus taught that there was a succession of divine covenants that culminate in the new covenant or that Augustine taught the covenant of works (though not by that name). In other words, Myers would have been on much firmer ground to claim that elements that became a significant part of covenant theology had their origins in this period.

Myers then turns to the medieval period, and he makes the case that Jerome translated covenant words in the OT and NT with different words, thus leading to a distortion in the medieval concept of covenant.

Myers’s treatment of covenant theology from the Reformation to the nineteenth century was well done. Someone who desires to study covenant theology in these centuries from the primary sources would do well to use the footnotes in this section as a reading guide. I understand that Myers probably limited the depth of his discussion to keep the book of a manageable length, but I wish Myers had spent a bit more space in this section explaining the distinctive contribution of each of the men discussed as well as what was common to them all.

When he comes to the nineteenth century, Myers briefly and effectively deals with Heppe’s distortion of covenant theology as read through a Calvin vs. the Calvinists lens. He then turns to dispensationalism, and he makes the quintessential error of covenant theologians—he discusses Darby and Scofield as if they represent dispensational theology. It is of course appropriate to treat Darby and Scofield in a historical survey. But it is scholarly malpractice to treat them as defining dispensationalist beliefs at present. For instance, Myers claims “the heart of dispensationalism as a system” is the idea of “a dispensation is “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God” (35). But no current dispensational scholar holds this view. It plays no part in Ryrie’s three distinctives, Feinberg’s six distinctives, Vlach’s six distinctives, or in any progressive dispensational presentation. Notably the only sources cited in this section were the Scofield Reference Bible and covenant critiques of dispensationalism. No recent dispensationalist sources are cited. This treatment of dispensationalism happens with such regularity that I’m starting to think that progressive dispensationalists should change their name to something without “dispensationalist” so that scholars will interact with what they actually write.

Myers then moves on to a cogent critique of Barth and his heirs for their revision of covenant theology in a monocovenantalist and universalist direction.

Myers concludes the chapter with an extended discussion of Murray and Kline. His summary of both men’s positions is helpful, and his critique of Murray is on the mark. I also think Myers cogently critiques Kline’s reliance on now outdated scholarship about ANE covenants. Nonetheless, I the distinction between two covenant types need not rest on appeals to ANE covenants. There seems to have been a minority report within the history of covenant theology that at least rhymes with Kline’s approach to covenant theology.

All in all I found this to be a helpful survey of covenant theology, especially from the time of the Reformation through Kline.

Stephen G. Myers’s God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture comes recommended as an excellent introductory resource to covenant theology.

As expected of a RHB publication, the book opens with spiritual warmth and doctrinal precision. Myers begins by observing that we come to know God better when we understand our covenant relationship with him.

He then turns to the matter of what covenant theology is by surveying the biblical covenant terminology. Myers concludes from the terminology that covenants are both contractual and relational.

Myers then defines covenant theology as “the study of God’s eternal, unchanging purpose to bring a people to Himself through covenantal relationship” (9). This definition may be too broad since this definition would encompass progressive covenantalists and dispensationalists. However, Myers then specifies the three covenants commonly held by covenant theologian: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. Even here the description of covenant theology is broad because, if the new covenant is equated with the covenant of grace, progressive covenantalists and certain dispensationalists would affirm all these covenants. Myers goes on to specify that the covenant of grace is made up of the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel at Sinai, David, and the new covenant. Myers identifies these covenants as different administrations of the covenant of grace. At this point covenant theology is distinguished from progressive covenantalism and all forms of dispensationalism. However, certain covenantal Baptists would reject this composite covenant of grace, preferring to equate the covenant of grace with the new covenant. Myers notes that there is some variety within covenant theology that he will discuss later.

In my opinion, the overlap between the views is because these systems are all developed by orthodox Christians who are seeking to make sense of the biblical data. Some systems, however, do a better job than others of accounting for all the data.