Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—8. The Mosaic Covenant

by

With chapter 8 Myers turns to the Mosaic covenant, the core of which he understands to be Exodus 19-24. Myers’s main point in this chapter is that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace.

First, he notes that Exodus 19 ties the Mosaic covenant to the deliverance of the Israelites, which took place due to the Abrahamic covenant (Ex. 2:23-25). Both those who see the Mosaic covenant as part of the covenant of grace and those who see it as a works covenant in some way agree that the Abrahamic covenant stood behind Israel’s deliverance, so it is unclear how this observation advances the thesis that the Mosaic covenant is part of the covenant of grace. Since I don’t see the Abrahamic covenant as part of an overarching covenant of grace, I don’t find this line of argumentation compelling. Everything argued here is also consistent with a unified plan of redemption that is unfolded through a series of distinct covenants.

Second, Myers argues that Exodus 19:4 contextualizes the covenant conditions within God’s gracious deliverance of Israel. However, the fact that the Mosaic covenant is graciously given in order to continue God’s plan of redemption does not mean that it is part of a unitary covenant of grace, nor does it mean that the Mosaic covenant is a unilateral covenant. Myers emphasizes 19:4 at the expense of exegeting 19:5-6, and in so doing he blunts the if/then structure of 19:5-6. I would argue that 19:4 shows the Mosaic covenant is graciously given and 19:5-6 show that the blessings of the covenant are conditional upon the obedience of Israel.

Third, Myers argues that the Mosaic covenant further clarifies the covenant of grace. In particular, he argues that all ten of the Ten Commandments are found in Scripture prior to the Mosaic covenant and that the Mosaic covenant blessedly revealed God’s will more clearly to God’s people. I agree with Myers here, but I don’t see how it makes the Mosaic covenant part of the covenant of grace. This argument is consistent with a unified redemptive plan that unfolds through a series of covenants. Nor does this argument preclude the Mosaic covenant from being a works covenant.

Fourth, Myers argues that the continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants is seen in the way the Mosaic covenant advances the seed, land, and universal blessing promises. The seed promise is advanced by Israel becoming a nation with its own governing laws. The land promise is advanced through laws that govern life in the promised land. The promise of blessing to the nations is advanced by Israel’s calling to serve as a kingdom of priests. Myers notes, “A priest represents God to human beings and he brings people into God’s presence” (193). By obeying the Mosaic law God reveals the character of God to the nations. Myers could have also cited Deuteronomy 4 to buttress the point that obedience to the law could also serve to bring the nations to God. Myers sees Israel’s priestly role stated not only in Exodus 19 but also enacted in Exodus 24. He thinks that the covenant ceremony there was the ordination of the nation into the priestly role. I agree with what Myers says here, and I find it consistent with a unified plan of redemption unfolded through a series of distinct covenants.

Finally, Myers argues that the Mosaic covenant advances the covenant of grace by the sacrificial system, which taught the seriousness of sin and the need for atonement.

The chapter concludes with a brief critique of Meredith Kline’s view of the Mosaic covenant. Kline held that on a spiritual level the Mosaic covenant was part of the covenant of grace but that on a typical level it was a covenant of works. Myers objects to Kline’s view on four grounds. First, he does not find the distinction between typical and spiritual levels of the covenant exegetically warranted. Second, he doesn’t think that the typology works since in Kline’s view imperfect obedience is required on the typical level while perfect obedience is required for justification. Third, he is concerned that Kline’s view undermines the universal applicability of the Decalogue. Fourth, Myers argues that God did not delay in judging Israel was not due to Israel’s relative obedience but was due to God’s mercy. Finally, Myers takes issue with Kline’s argument that Exodus 24 refers to Israel entering into a bilateral covenant, arguing instead for the view that Israel is being ordained as a nation of priests.

I agree with the first, second, and fourth of these critiques. With regard to Exodus 24, T. D. Alexander argues persuasively for both Israel being ordained as a nation of priests and for the institution of a bilateral covenant. I would also note that Kline and other covenant theologians influenced by him do rightly notice that the Mosaic covenant has a works element. There are numerous ways that covenant theologians have attempted to reconcile the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace and these works elements. Some covenant theologians, such as John Owen and certain historic Baptist covenant theologians, deny that the Mosaic covenant is part of the covenant of grace. Myers, however, does not engage with the texts in which these works elements are found (apart from Ex 19:5-6). For instance, he has no discussion of the passages in which the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience are pronounced.

One note of correction. Myers opens chapter 8 with the comment that dispensationalists see the Mosaic covenant as providing a different “economy for salvation under the Old Testament” (186). Revised and progressive dispensationalists have clearly rejected the teaching of multiple ways of salvation. There is a passage in the original Scofield Reference Bible that has given rise to this charge, but some dispensationalists argue that based on other things Scofield said, this statement should not be read as if people were saved in a different way under the Mosaic economy. Even if one concludes that Scofield did teach multiple ways of salvation, dispensationalists have rejected that position explicitly for the past sixty years.

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—7. The Abrahamic Covenant

by

Myers turns to the Abrahamic covenant in his seventh chapter. He begins the chapter by noting the gracious origins of this covenant. He observes that the giving of the covenant follows the Babel account, and he notes that Joshua 24:2 reveals that God graciously called Abram out of idolatry.

Promise Covenants and Law Covenants

Myers then turns to Genesis 12:1 and observes that God begins this covenant by issuing commands to Abram. He concludes from this that the distinction between law covenants and promise covenants is a false distinction.

In this complex texture of the Abrahamic covenant, the supposed distinction between law covenants and promise covenants continues to break down. If a stark division has to be made between these two covenant types, and each historical covenant has to be placed in one of the two categories—either having practically nothing to do with command and obedience, or being based almost entirely on command and obedience—the Abrahamic covenant is left without any satisfactory category. In that covenant, there is both gracious, divine, initiating promise and necessary, subsequent human response. One cannot even get out of Genesis 12:1 without being confronted with this complexity. In that one verse, there is both radical grace in God’s call of Abram and subsequent, necessary human response embodied in the commands that God speaks to Abram. As this one verse makes immediately clear, God is graciously initiating a covenant in which Abram has responsibility.

page 159

However, Myers seems to have created a straw man. Those who hold to a distinction between law and promise covenants do not claim that promise covenants “practically nothing to do with command and obedience” but explicitly state the contrary (Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 132-34; Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 41; Lunde, Following Jesus the Servant King, 39; Horton, “Covenant Theology,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 44). Furthermore, there are biblical grounds for distinguishing between promise and law covenants since Paul makes this distinction central to his argument in Galatians.

And yet, I wonder how substantive my disagreement with Myers is on this point. Later, when discussing God alone passing through the cut animals in Genesis 15, Myers says, “In doing so, God declares that either He will keep His covenant promises or He Himself will die. The fulfillment of the covenant, then, rests entirely on God, and He guarantees that His promises will be fulfilled” (176). This is a perfect statement of what it means for a covenant to be a unilateral, unconditional, or promise covenant. Myers must also believe in the category of law covenants as well, for this is what the covenant of works is. Myers closes this chapter with a warning against antinomianism, and that may be one of the things that he is guarding against by denying the distinction between law and promise covenants. I agree with his concern, but I also think that antinomianism can be opposed while also making the distinction between promise and law covenants.

Promises and Types

Before turning to the promises of the covenant as stated in Genesis 12:2-3, Myers discusses the nature of typology. Based on statements in Hebrews 8:5 and 9:23-25 Myers argues that types are earthly realities that point believers to a heavenly reality that will come to fulfillment in the future. Thus “types point both forward and upward” (163). Myers concludes that though the promises of land, seed, and universal blessing “each had physical fulfillments along the way,” “those physical fulfillments never were the point” (167). Thus, “many types are abrogated and move past any contemporary redemptive significance” (163).
There are a number of points that I would clarify or correct.

  1. In the case of the tabernacle, the Holy Places were from the beginning intended to symbolize heaven. But this does not mean that all types point to something eternal and heavenly rather than to something physical. Even the tabernacle as a whole pointed to the cosmos and finds its fulfillment God dwelling with redeemed man in the new creation. Interestingly, even the heavenly most holy place, the New Jerusalem, descends to the new creation as a physical dwelling place for the redeemed.
  2. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the distinction between the initial, typological fulfillments and the ultimate fulfillment is not that the former are physical and the latter is heavenly. Myers appeals to Hebrews 11:16, which says that Abraham desired “a better, that is, a heavenly country.” But Abraham did not desire a country located in heaven. He looked forward to the day when Canaan could be characterized as heavenly. Again, the city that God has prepared for Abraham will descend from heaven to earth.
  3. It is important for orthodox theology to not oppose the heavenly and spiritual to the physical. The heavenly country promised to Abraham is physical and located on earth just as the spiritual body of resurrected saints is a physical body. The contrast that Scripture draws between earthly, fleshly things and heavenly, spiritual things is not necessarily a contrast between the material and non-material.
  4. Promises are different from structures like the tabernacle/temple and sacrifices. The latter are inherently typological and thus pass away when reality arrives. However, promises are speech acts that commit the promiser to perform the thing promised. A promise is not a type. Even though the initial fulfillments of a promise are types of the ultimate fulfillment of the promise, these are often not mere symbols but are often down payments, as it were, of the full reality to come. For instance, Isaac as the seed of Abraham is a type of Jesus the Seed of Abraham. But Isaac is not a mere symbol that passes away but a redeemed man who will live forever in the new creation.
  5. It is true that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are universalized so that the seed promise is fulfilled ultimately in Christ and thus includes all the Gentile believers in him. It is also true that the land promise is expanded to include the entire earth. However, these expansions are a function of the universal blessing promise, and they are stated in seed form in Genesis 22. Because the expansions are explicit, the expansions of the promises do not rest merely upon typology. (Myers does not treat Genesis 22 at any length.)
  6. The universalization of the promises does not abrogate the particular promises. Romans 11 makes clear that the redemption of Abraham’s physical seed remains part of God’s plan. Likewise, the universalization of the land promise does not abrogate the promise for Israel as there are numerous passages that predict a restoration of Israel to the land.

Genesis 15

Myers’s exposition of Genesis 15 brims with insight. For instance, Myers notes that Abraham’s story up to Genesis 15:6 this point has included some remarkable works of obedience (as well as some faltering along the way), but God is clear that Abraham is counted as righteous before God not on account of those works but by faith.

Myers also skillfully interprets the latter part of chapter 15. He observes that the phrase ’emah khashekah gedolah indicates that Abraham is in God’s Presence (Ex. 15:16; Deut. 32:2; Ps. 18:11). He also explains the ceremony of cutting the covenant (with recourse to Jer. 34:18-20), in which the parties that pass through the cut animals are by their action declaring that they should be as those animals are if they break the covenant (that is, they should die). Myers rightly observes that it is God alone who passes between the animals in Genesis 15.

Myers rightly rejects interpretations in which Christ is said to come under this curse on the cross. Rather, God’s action in cutting the Abrahamic covenant is an affirmation of the sure fulfillment of the covenant promises since “the eternal God who walks the path of self-malediction in Genesis 15 cannot not exist” (176).

Genesis 17

Myers begins his exposition of Genesis 17 by correcting a potential misreading of the opening verses of the chapter. God did not tell Abraham that he would make a covenant with Abraham if he were sinless. Rather, God promises to confirm the covenant to Abraham as a single-hearted follower of God.

His treatment of circumcision as the sign of the covenant is also well done, though he overstates the case when he says that the circumcision of all the males in Abraham’s house (and not his biological sons only) demonstrates that “God’s true covenant people would not be defined or delineated by visible realties or ethnic lines.” Ethnicity is not determined only by genealogy. Understanding the NT debate over circumcision requires understanding that in the OT Gentiles could become Israelites through proselytization and circumcision whereas in the NT Gentiles can become part of God’s people without adopting Jewish ethnicity.

Conclusion

Though I think that Myers would be wise to adopt the distinction between promise and law covenants, and while his discussion of typology needs refinement, this chapter nonetheless provides an insightful exposition of the Abrahamic covenant, especially as presented in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. Myers’s writing also has a refreshing devotional quality that does not come through in my summaries. He rightly recognizes that the goal of understanding the biblical covenants is richer devotion to and fellowship with God.

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—6. The Noahic Covenant

by

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.

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—5. The Covenant of Grace Announced

by

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.

Can heqim berit refer to the making of a covenant?

by

קום in the Hifil can refer to confirming an existing covenant (Lev. 26:9). It can also refer to fulfilling an existing covenant (Gen. 17:7, 19, 21) or failing to fulfill an existing covenant (Jer. 34:18). I would argue that it can also refer to the making of a covenant (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; Ex. 6:4; Eze 16:60, 62). This variation of senses should not be surprising since קום has a wide semantic range.

This latter use is controversial. Gentry and Wellum claim:

An exhaustive study of all instances of berit in the Hebrew Bible and classification of all constructions and expressions in which this noun occurs reveals a completely consistent usage: the construction ‘to cut a covenant’ (karat berit) refers to covenant initiation while the expression ‘to establish a covenant’ (heqim berit) refers to a covenant partner fulfilling an obligation or upholding a promise in a covenant initiated previously so that the other partner experiences in historical reality the fulfilling of this promise, i.e., one makes good on one’s commitment, obligation, or promise.”

Kingdom through Covenant, 155; cf. Myers, God to Us, 106.

However, this claim is difficult to square with Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17 and Ezekiel 16:60, 62. The occurrences in Genesis 6 and 9 relate to the establishment of the Noahic covenant. Gentry and Wellum claim:

God is not initiating a covenant with Noah but rather is affirming to Noah and his descendants a commitment initiated previously. This language clearly indicates a covenant established earlier between God and humans at creation, or between God and humans at creation. When God says that he is affirming or upholding his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment to his creation…are now to be with Noah and his descendants.

God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants, 60.

Stephen Myers rightly notes that the creation covenant is the covenant of works. The Noahic covenant cannot be a confirmation of the covenant of works:

The covenant of works had required perfect obedience from a sinless Adam; how could it be meaningfully renewed with fallen Noah? Such a situation would not be the renewal of an existing covenant, but the establishment of an altogether different covenant, on different terms, with different requirements.

God to Us, 107.

Furthermore, the content of the Noahic covenant shows that it is not a works covenant. The creation covenant promised life and blessing for obedience and death and cursing for disobedience. But the Noahic covenant promises a stay on God’s wrath for all of creation in recognition of the sinfulness of mankind.

Myers agrees with Gentry and Wellum that heqim berit does not refer to the making of a covenant, and he proposes that the Noahic covenant is the renewal of the covenant of grace, which was first announced in Genesis 3:15 (God to Us, 107). But this also cannot be. Myers takes the participants of covenant of grace to be the Father and Christ (with all the elect in him). But the Noahic covenant was made between God and all of Noah’s seed (elect and non-elect), indeed with every living creature (Gen 9:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17). The Noahic covenant and the covenant of grace cannot be the same covenant if they are made with different parties.

There is no plausible covenant to which the Noahic covenant is a renewal. It is best, therefore, to recognize that heqim berit sometimes can refer to the initial making of a covenant (Leupold, Genesis, 1:275; Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, NAC, 367). The word קום in the Hifil “means literally ‘to make stand, to erect.’ God “erects” a covenant with Noah. Thus the verb may indicate that God here institutes a new relationship” (Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, NICOT, 316).

In Exodus 6:4, God uses קום to refer to making a covenant with the patriarchs. Gentry and Wellum argue that God is referring to his action during the exodus to fulfill the land promise part of the covenant (Kingdom through Covenant, 159). But קום occurs here as a non-initial perfect, indicating past tense (as the translations uniformly recognize). This verse refers to the making of the covenant, not to its fulfillment (cf. Hamilton, Exodus, 98).

Ezekiel 16:59-63 is another instance in which heqim berit refers to the making of a covenant. Gentry and Wellum initially granted that this passage was an exception to their claim that heqim berit never refers to the making of a covenant (Kingdom Through Covenant, 475-76). However, they have since revised their view. They now argue that the two covenants in view are the Abrahamic covenant (indicated with red lettering) and the Mosaic covenant (indicated with blue lettering):

“For thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, 60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you take your sisters, both your elder and your younger, and I give them to you as daughters, but not on account of the covenant with you. 62 I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, 63 that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD.”

However, since Ezekiel 16 is about Jerusalem in particular rather than about the nation Israel generally, the covenant made with Jerusalem in its youth, which covenant she broke, is likely the covenant in which Yhwh chose Jerusalem as his own dwelling place and the seat of the Davidic ruler (Ps 132:13-17; Stuart, Ezekiel, PC, 135; Alexander, “Ezekiel,” REBC, 722). The covenant that Yhwh will make in the future is the new covenant (the emphasis on knowing Yhwh is an important part of the new covenant), a covenant which includes the restoration of the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31:38-40; 32:36-41). The Abrahamic covenant has no such promise regarding the restoration of Jerusalem. Since the new covenant, a covenant still in Ezekiel’s future, is the one that Yhwh will establish, heqim berit here refers to the making of a covenant rather than the confirming of an existing covenant.

The claim that heqim berit is sometimes used to indicate the making of a covenant is consistent with the semantic range of קום in the Hifil. There are other passages in which the word carries the meaning of “set up,” “make,” or “found” something Joshua 4:9; 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 7:21; Psalm 78:5; Amos 9:11).

Review of Buist Fanning’s ZECNT commentary on Revelation

by

I have a review of Fanning’s commentary on Revelation in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview. Though I disagree with Fanning on some points (e.g., I think the apostle John is the John who wrote Revelation, and I don’t think 666 is linked to Nero), Fanning has written an excellent commentary on Revelation. I’d rank it right up with, and probably just a bit ahead of, Grant Osborne’s BECNT commentary on Revelation.

See also: “Four Commentaries on Revelation: Thomas (WEC); Beale (NIGTC); Leithart (ITC); Osborne (BECNT)“

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—4. The Covenant of Grace

by

In chapter 4 Myers expounds and defends the covenant of grace. In his view the covenant of grace includes the covenant of redemption (and thus God’s eternal plan of redemption) as well as the historical outworking of that plan. Myers identifies the parties of the covenant of grace the Triune God with the elect being included by virtue of being in Christ.

Myers’s version of covenant theology understands the covenant of grace to be a real covenant (and not merely a plan of redemption) with its own parties. The biblical covenants are administrations of this unified covenant of grace. But this formulation creates a significant problem. The covenant of grace is made with Christ (and all the elect in him). The Noahic covenant, on the other hand, was made with all flesh (elect and unelect). The Abrahamic covenant was made with Abraham and his seed (Christ is included because he is the Seed of Abraham). The Mosaic covenant was made with the nation Israel (both elect and unelect). The Davidic covenant was made with David and his seed. (Christ is included because he is the Seed of David). How then, can these various covenants be administrations of a covenant made with Christ (and the elect in him) since the covenant partners in several of these covenants include the non-elect?

I’m sure that this is not a novel objection and that covenant theologians have developed an answer to this conundrum, but Meyer does not consider this particular objection (at least at this point in the book).

Meyer does respond to Gentry and Wellum’s claim that “it is more accurate to think of God’s one plan revealed through a plurality of covenants” (105, citing Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed., 655). Meyer appeals to the phrase heqim berith in Genesis 6:18 in support of his position. He holds that this phrase is not used of making a new covenant but is used to refer to “perpetuating a previously existing covenant” (106). Gentry and Wellum agree with this understanding, but they claim that Genesis 6:18 refers to the perpetuation of the creation covenant in the Noahic covenant. Meyers rightly responds that the creation covenant was a covenant of works violated by Adam. The Noahic covenant is “the establishment of an altogether different covenant, on different terms, with different requirements” from the original works covenant.

Meyers argues that the phrase heqim berith in Genesis 6:18 is exegetical evidence for the covenant of grace. “Prior to God’s covenantal interaction with Noah, there was a previously existing covenant that was concerned with the salvation of God’s people and that was of such a character that it could be meaningfully renewed with subsequent generations of human beings. This previously existing, redemptive, transhistoric covenant was the covenant of grace” (107).

This is the best exegetical argument I’ve encountered for a unified covenant of grace. However, it depends on heqim berith never being used with reference to making a covenant. Contrary to Meyer (and Gentry and Wellum), the phrase heqim berith is used of making a covenant in Exodus 6:4; Ezekiel 16:60, 62 and, arguably, in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17.

Meyer’s final argument for a unified covenant of grace is that God has a unified goal (dwelling with his people), that this goal is realized for individuals in a unified way (by faith in God’s gospel promises), and that throughout redemptive history there has been one unified people of God. However, progressive covenantalists and progressive dispensationalists both affirm all three of these truths while not holding to a unified covenant of grace. A unified plan of God advanced through distinct covenants is also compatible with these points.

Myers developed the best exegetical case for the covenant of grace that I’ve read, but I remain unconvinced of this aspect of covenant theology.

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—3. The Counsel of Peace

by

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.

Books read in January 2022

by

Wells, David. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Wells persuasively argues that it is not abstract ideas which shape people’s thinking (ideas have consequences) but the inculturation of ideas that shape people’s thinking. This is a helpful corrective to a pure intellectual history.

Given my work at the Press, I found some of the most helpful material to be on the democratization of American culture and how that has fostered both problematic individualism and problematic communities.

Jacobs, Alan. Breaking Bread with the Dead. Penguin, 2020.

Jacobs makes a case for reading past authors with whom we disagree. As typical for Jacobs the argument is supported by well-chosen literary examples and careful reflection.

Webster, John. “Sins of Speech.” God without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology: Virtue and Intellect. Vol. II. New York: T&T Clark, 2016.

This is a careful theological essay on the ethics of speech. Webster begins with the theological foundations in God and creation for virtuous speech, relates human nature to virtuous speech, describes how sin disorders speech, and then looks at how speech can be mortified and vivified for the regenerate person. I found the essay spiritually warm, and it had the effect of arousing desire for more God-honoring speech in my own life.

Amstutz, Mark R. Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

This book provides a useful survey of the US immigration system, including analysis of the system’s strengths and weaknesses. Amstutz also surveys various church statements on immigration, and he faults them for making specific policy recommendations that are not tightly tied to biblical or theological principles. In general he finds these statements too favorable to illegal immigration. Amstutz praises a 2012 statement from the Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod for it statement “Immigrants Among Us: A Lutheran Framework for Addressing Immigration Issues” because it guides church members about their interactions with immigrants in their various vocations rather than making public policy pronouncements. While I agree with Amstutz that churches should not make public policy pronouncements, since that lies beyond the church’s competency and mission, I expected Amstutz as a Christian ethicist in this field to provide some public policy options supporting by argumentation. The fact that the churches should not bind Christian consciences to specific public policies doesn’t meant that Christians shouldn’t be thinking about the public policy. The lack of possible ways forward is a significant weakness of this book.

Porter, Stanley E. and Andrew W. Pitts. Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

This is a good introduction to the basics of textual criticism.

Augustine of Hippo. The City of God, Books I–VII. Edited by Hermigild Dressler. Translated by Demetrius B. Zema and Gerald G. Walsh. Vol. 8. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950.

In these books Augustine refutes those who claim that Rome suffered calamities because she turned from the traditional gods to Christianity by recounting disasters that befell Rome prior to Christianity and by pointing out the benefits that Christianity had brought even in the present trials. He also shows the absurdities and vices of the Roman gods.

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—2. The Covenant of Works

by

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.