Exegesis and Theology

In his fourth chapter Belcher discusses the Noahic covenant. He begins by tracing the biblical story, with its emphasis on human sin from Genesis 4 to Genesis 6. Belcher does not think that the covenant referred to in 6:18 is a renewal of the creation covenant, since that was a works covenant and the Noahic covenant is part of the covenant of grace. He does not think that the use of qûm in this passage necessarily means that the Noahic covenant is the renewal of an existing covenant, though he does think this terminology may be used to highlight that the Noahic covenant is continuing the purposes God had for humanity under the creation covenant.

As the covenant is spelled out in Genesis 8-9 Belcher sees both redemptive and common grace elements to the covenant. Belcher claims that even though the “Noahic Covenant deals with all the creation order, including human beings and animals, while the Covenant of Grace deals with believers and their seed,” it is still proper to see the Noahic covenant as part of the covenant of grace because it is ensuring the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of the covenant of grace.

Belcher is correct in his interpretation of Genesis 6:18. This verse refers forward to the Noahic covenant that is spelled out in chapters 8-9; it is not a distinct covenant. I also agree with Belcher’s claim that the use of qûm to describe the establishment of the Noahic covenant means that the Noahic covenant not is the renewal of an existing covenant. Against the progressive covenantalists, who hold the Noahic covenant to be a renewal of the Adamic covenant, Belcher correctly observes that the Adamic covenant is a covenant of works while Noahic covenant is not.

On the other hand, Belcher struggles to make the Noahic covenant cohere with the covenant of grace. To be sure, the Noahic covenant ensures the necessary conditions for the plan of redemption to move forward. Those who see a unified redemptive plan instead of a unified covenant of grace would agree. However, it remains difficult to understand how a covenant made with all creation is an administration of a covenant made with Christ and all the elect in him.

John Currid begins chapter four of Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives by examining the consequences of Adam’s sin. 1. Human nature becomes totally depraved, and this depravity was passed on to Adam’s descendants. 2. The creation mandate is “warped by sin” (100). 3. “Man has been alienated from God” (101). And, “man and woman have been alienated from one another” (101). 4. “Adam and Eve…are alienated from their original, perfect physical environment” (101). 5. Man is “alienated from eternal life (102).

Currid follows this with a section labeled “Commencement of the Covenant of Grace.” However, there is no argument made in this section in defense of the heading. Currid simply quotes O. Palmer Robertson to the effect that in Genesis 3:14-19 “God chose to obligate himself to the sinner” (103).

In the final section of the chapter, Currid provides exegetical insights into Genesis 3:15. In the course of his exegesis he claims that in the statement “I will put enmity…,” “God is acting as the king in a suzerain-vassal covenant.” However, this assertion is not developed or defended exegetically.

In the end, though containing numerous exegetical insights into Genesis 3, Currid does not provide an exegetical defense of the covenant of redemption. Currently, the best recent exegetical defense that I’ve encountered is by Stephen Meyer in God to Us.

In his third chapter Belcher introduces the covenant of grace. He notes that after their sin, God covers Adam and Eve with animal skins, which “foreshadow the necessity of blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sin” (38). He asserts that in the statement “‘I will put enmity between you and the woman’ (NIV)” “God established the Covenant of Grace” (38).

Belcher understands that there is a corporate aspect to the seed of the women as seen in Genesis 4 and succeeding passages, but he also argues that in Genesis 3:15 the singular pronouns points to a singular Seed.

In closing this chapter Belcher distinguishes the covenant of works from the covenant of grace, and he elaborates on several issues related to the covenant of grace.

He first lists similarities between the two covenants: “God is the author of both, He initiated both covenants. God entered into both covenants with Adam and they both include his descendants. The promise of both covenants is to receive eternal life and the general aim of the covenants is the glory of God” (41).

He then notes the differences: the former was made with innocent man the latter made to redeem sinners. The former required “prefect, personal obedience” while the latter requires faith in Christ. There was no mediator between man and God in the former, but there is in the latter. Adam failed to fulfill “the principle of works” in the former, but Christ fulfilled it in the later.

Belcher holds that the covenant of grace is conditional upon faith, and that God grants faith to the elect. He holds that there is one covenant of grace administered differently at different times. The substance of the covenant, which remains constant across administrations is “the same promise of eternal life, the same mediator Jesus Christ, and the same condition of faith” (43).

Belcher notes that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect in him. This raises a problem since the sacraments of the covenant of grace are administered to “believers and their children.” This leads Belcher to assert that “a person can be part of the Covenant of Grace legally but not in relationship with God” (46). He asserts that this is just as true under the New Covenant as it was under preceding administrations, and he supports this claim with an appeal to Romans 11: “Romans 11:16-24 sets forth a holiness that comes from being engrafted into the tree that is not the inward holiness that is a result of the Spirit’s work in the life of a believer” (46). He argues that the fact that Israel and the church are pictured as an olive tree shows continuity in “this principle of covenant administration” (46).

This chapter does a good job explaining the position of covenant theology regarding the covenant of grace. But Belcher does not make exegetical arguments for these points; he simply asserts them. This lack of argumentation reinforces my perception that the covenant of grace is the week point of pedobaptist covenant theology.

Chapter 2 of Belcher’s book and chapter 2 to Covenant Theology are identical treatments of the covenant of works. Belcher begins by adducing evidence for a covenant in Genesis 1-3. He observes that though the word covenant is not used in these chapters, the elements of a covenant are present: two parties, conditions, blessings and curses, a covenant representative, and a covenant sign (the tree of life). Belcher also argues that Hosea 6:7 refers to Adamic covenant. He is aware of the three proposed translations (“like Adam,” “like mankind,” and “at Adam”), and he prefers “like Adam.” Nonetheless, he notes that the Adamic covenant could be in view with any of the three translations, observing that some interpreters think that Hosea is punning in his reference to a broken covenant at Adam such that the breaking of the Adamic covenant is also in view.

Belcher also defends the label “covenant of works,” noting that this terminology is foundational for understanding the work of Christ that is imputed to us for our salvation. While wishing to reserve the term grace for God’s redemptive work, Belcher is willing to say that in a wider sense the covenant of works was graciously given.

Belcher argues that the covenant of works is foundational to the gospel. First, all people are born sinners and are in need of the gospel because of Adam’s violation of the covenant. Second, it established the principle of “do this and live” which no one can attain, showing the need for the gospel. Finally, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works so that we can be saved.

Belcher closes by examining four deviations from the standard view, starting with the terminological differences of O. Palmer Robertson and moving through John Murray and W. J. Dumbrell to the serious errors of the Federal Vision.

Guy Richard ably defends the covenant of redemption, which he defines as “a pretemporal agreement between the persons of the Trinity to plan and carry out the redemption of the elect” (43).

After briefly tracing the historical development of this doctrine, Richard noted that language that portrays the Son buying a people, propitiating the Father, and being sent by the Father to do his work all imply a covenant between Father and Son. In addition, the Son is said to be appointed to his Messianic office. Furthermore, the Scripture speaks of the elect being given to the Son by the Father. Passages like Hebrews 10:5-10, in which the Father and Son “dialogue” with one another about the provision of redemption, also point to an intra-Trinitarian covenant.

Richard begins with this wide sweep of biblical revelation before coming to three specific proof texts. He finds that these texts more persuasively testify to a covenant of redemption in light of the previous biblical evidence. The first text is Zechariah 6:13 in which he sees a covenant of peace between the Branch, who is Christ, and Yahweh, whose throne the Branch is seated upon as both priest and king. The second text is Psalm 110:4, which testifies to “a covenant between Yahweh and Christ, one in which the latter is appointed as a priest who will intercede on behalf of God’s people forevermore” (54). The third text is Psalm 2:7 in which a covenant decree is renewed when the Son is resurrected and enthroned.

Richard then turns to theological arguments. He notes that the Bible presents Jesus as the last Adam, who achieves what Adam failed to achieve. Since Adam’s failure to keep the covenant was known to God, a preexisting covenant between Father and Son is implied. He also reasons to the existence of the covenant of redemption from the existence of the covenant of grace.

Richard closes the chapter by responding to the charge that the covenant of redemption implies three wills in God.

I found most persuasive the initial exegetical arguments that were rooted in the Scripture’s teaching about the interactions between the Father and Son in eternity regarding redemption. Of the three prooftexts, I found Psalm 110:4 to be the most persuasive, but I found the arguments regarding Zechariah 6:13 and Psalm 2:7 to be worth considering. I found the theological arguments unpersuasive.

Richard Belcher, Jr.’s The Fulfillment of the Promises of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology is another recent introduction to covenant theology.

In chapter 1 Belcher briefly states why covenant theology is an important topic of study: (1) Many churches confess the Westminster Standards, which teaches covenant theology. (2) Covenant theology is fundamental to the structure of Scripture. (3) Covenant theology is central to the “outworking of God’s plan of salvation.”

Belcher also defines the term covenant in this chapter. “The word ‘covenant’ (běr’t) refers to a legal agreement between two parties that is ratified by certain rituals that emphasize the binding nature of the agreement” (18).

He also briefly defines the covenant of redemption: “The Covenant of Redemption, also called the pactum salutis (a counsel of peace), is a pre-temporal agreement between the members of the Trinity concerning the different roles each member would perform to bring about the salvation of God’s people” (19). He defends the doctrine: “The biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption is found in passages that describe the relationship between the Father and the Son as conditioned on the obedience of the Son with the promise of reward (John 10:18; 12:49; 14:31: 15:10; 17:4; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8; 10:5-10). Covenantal language of being bound by oath is used to describe this relationship (Isa. 45:23 used in Phil. 2:10-11; Ps. 110:1, 4).”

Belcher closes the chapter by recognizing the variety that exists among covenant theologians. He notes that his purpose is” to set forth standard reformed covenant theology” (21) which he understands to be the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards.

This was a good, basic introductory chapter. I would note that his treatment of the covenant of redemption is significantly shorter than Myers’s treatment in God to Us. However, Belcher will conclude his book with several chapters surveying alternate versions of covenant theology, something Myers chose not to include as part of his book’s scope.

In this chapter Myers argues that covenant theology has implications for the nature of the church and the “meaning and correct administration of the sacraments” (285). Though he does touch on the Lord’s Supper, his focus is on baptism.

The Invisible and Visible Church

Myers begins with a discussion of how covenant theology grounds the visible/invisible church distinction. He argues that even through the covenant of grace “includes only the specific number of the elect given to the Son in the counsel of peace, … in its administration it affects far more men and women” (285). Thus, “[t]he Noahic administration of the covenant of grace affected Ham as well as Shem. The Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace affected Ishmael as well as Isaac, Esau as well as Jacob. Both faithful Samuel and rebellious Saul came under the auspices of the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. Both upright Josiah and wicked Manasseh were covered by the umbrella of the Davidic administration of the covenant of grace” (285). Myers concludes from this that membership in the visible church “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children” (WCF 25.2).

Of course, the fundamental question is whether the new covenant is a mixed covenant, including both believers and unbelievers? Myers argues in the affirmative. He points to the inclusion of Judas at the Last Supper. He also appeals to various New Testament passages that indicate the presence of false professors within the church (Acts 20:29; Col. 2:1-10; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 6:4-6; 1 John 2:18-19; 2 John). However, these passages miss the point (at least as an argument in favor of a mixed assembly and infant baptism). The new covenant is explicitly distinguished from the Mosaic covenant by the fact that God’s law will be written on the hearts of those in the new covenant and by the fact that all who are in the new covenant will know Yhwh and will have their sins forgiven and remembered no more (Jer. 31:31-34). Everyone in the new covenant will have new hearts and will be indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Eze. 36:26-27). In other words, everyone in the new covenant will be regenerated (cf. John 3:5). It is for this reason that when church members manifest that they are not truly members of the new covenant, they are disciplined out of the church. Myers does acknowledge the importance of church discipline (287), but he does not explain why he thinks the passages that refer to those who are disciplined out of the church justify bringing those with no profession of faith into the church.

The Continuity of the Covenant of Grace and Baptism

Myers’s version of covenant theology emphasizes continuity between all the biblical covenants. This has certain implications for the discussion of baptism:

If God has one covenantal purpose and He has been pursuing it from all eternity, one would expect there to be a marked similarity and continuity from one stage of redemptive history to the next. … Simply stated, since there is one eternal covenant of grace being revealed from Genesis 3:15 onward through the conclusion of the Scriptures, things do not have to be reiterated to be binding. Given the continuity of God’s purposes and work, covenant theology expects that in the new covenant, signs and seals will accomplish precisely what signs and seals accomplished under the old covenant. [292]

Myers then turns to Colossians 2:8-12 to establish a link between circumcision and baptism. He concludes, “In baptism, the Colossian Christians received the benefits and blessings that were to be had from circumcision. In baptism, the Colossians are circumcised” (294). However, this reading of Colossians 2 misses the fact that circumcision of the heart was held out as a new covenant promise and linked with regeneration (Dt. 30:6). Furthermore, in distinction from those in the Mosaic covenant, who could be circumcised in the flesh and yet still unregenerate, Colossians 2 links circumcision of the heart to union with Christ. Since baptism is linked with circumcision of the heart in Colossians 2, these verses provide strong support for baptizing only those who profess union with Christ and regeneration.

By appealing to Romans 2 and 4 Myers wishes to find an inward/outward distinction in circumcision that can be carried forward to baptism. Thus, in both circumcision and baptism there are those who have externally received the sign and a subset who have also internally received it. But this misses the eschatological nature of the circumcision of the heart. Heart circumcision is a promise of the new covenant, and those old covenant believers who received it are receiving a gift of the new covenant proleptically given. Thus, when the new covenant arrives, the inward/outward distinction does not carry forward.

Myers argues that the “New Testament never states explicitly who the recipients of the baptism should be,” arguing that the New Testament’s silence on this matter means that the pattern of circumcision should be followed and the children of covenant members should receive the covenant sign. However, the New Testament is not silent on this matter. Passages like Hebrews 8 indicate that the new covenant is distinct from the old precisely in the fact that all its members are regenerate, and passages like Colossians 2 indicate that the outward sign ought to be given to those with the inward reality. The argument is simple. The covenant sign should only be given to those within the covenant, and only the regenerate are party to the new covenant.

Myers seeks to evade the teaching that the new covenant is restricted to the regenerate by arguing that the new covenant includes the children of covenant members in its purview (Isa. 59:21; Jer. 32:38-39; Eze. 37:25). However, these passages simply indicate that in the last day God will redeem ethnic Israel (as also promised in Romans 11) and that the children will be included in that redemption.

Finally, Myers argues for the baptism of covenant children on the basis of the “household baptisms” (Acts 16:14-15, 29-34; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). He finds it “irrelevant” as to whether children were in these households or not because baptism depends not on a “genealogical principle” but on a “federal principle.” Thus servants of the household are included along with children. In this connection Myers also appeals to 1 Corinthians 7:14 where not only the children but the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse.

But surely these texts prove too much. On the federal principle that Myers is proposing, shouldn’t adult servants and spouses be baptized when the head of the household believes? Similarly, on this logic wouldn’t Acts 16:31 teach that the belief of the head of the household saves all who are in the household: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That is clearly a wrong conclusion. It is better to note that the gospel was preached to the whole household and that the whole household believed with him (Acts 16:32, 34). It is thus best to assume that household baptisms followed household belief.

Conclusion

Myers is correct that his version of covenant theology, by grouping all of the post-fall covenants under a single covenant of grace, favors the paedobaptist position. On the other hand, as much as I appreciate and benefit from the work of paedobaptist theologians, I find the position unconvincing largely because I find its interpretation of the new covenant in relation to the preceding covenant unconvincing.

In chapter 12 Myers argues that the New Testament displays an understanding of covenant theology through the examination of three texts: Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22.
Each of these textual surveys is well done. The one significant refinement I would make to this chapter would be a clearer emphasis on physical aspects of God’s kingdom.

In his treatment of 1 Corinthians 15, Myers wishes to reduce the kingdom to kingship. This was a popular view in the mid-to-late twentieth century, but recent scholarship has demonstrated that the realm should not be excluded from the biblical concept of kingdom.

As Jonathan Pennington writes: “The root of this view [that kingdom refers to kingship rather than realm] is from Gustav Dalman’s Words of Jesus.” He notes dissent from Dalman in the work of more recent scholars. Brevard Childs holds that Dalman depended too much on rabbinic tradition, which is problematic “because this tradition was rather suspicious of and ultimately rejected the views of the kingdom found in the apocalyptic literature,” literature which Childs holds must be factored in (Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 632). Pennington also observes, “[T]he linguist Rick Brown offers yet another correction to Dalman’s widespread view. Brown convincingly shows that rather than always referring to rule, ‘the Jews had a more complicated kingdom expectation with several components of meaning'” (Rick Brown, ‘Translating the Whole Concept of the Kingdom,’ Notes on Translation 14/2 (2000): 1-48; idem, ‘A Brief History of Interpretations of ‘The Kingdom of God’ and Some Consequences for Translation,’ Notes on Translation 15/2 (2001):3-23)” (Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 254-55). It is thus best to see both kingship and realm as included in the idea of kingdom.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul connects Christ’s reign to the resurrection, to his role as the last Adam, and (in its culmination) to his return to earth. Paul also says that the reign is comprehensive (“all things in subjection under him”). This argues for the concept of kingdom to retain the realm aspect, with the realm being all of creation.

In his treatment of Revelation 21-22 Myers does see the land promise fulfilled in the new Jerusalem, and in footnote 29 on page 279 there is an indication that he might see the new Jerusalem as part of a restored creation. But in a section describing the ultimate fulfillment of the land promise, it is notable how little land appears. This is no minor theme in the Bible. It is rooted in the creation blessing of Genesis 1:26-28, and it is a theme in every single covenant. To focus on the land is not less “spiritual” or less Christ-centered any more than the focus on the physical resurrection of the body. Christ is king over the new creation, succeeding where Adam failed and leading the redeemed to reign with him (Rev. 22:5).

Chapter Summary

Chapter 11 of God to Us focuses on the new covenant. Once again Myers is concerned to demonstrate that the new covenant is in continuity with the previous covenants and is, indeed, part of the one covenant of grace with them. This is a tall order since, as Myers notes, “Initially Jeremiah’s words can appear to place a very sharp division between the old covenant and the new covenant” (245).

Continuity

Myers identifies the following elements of continuity:

1. The new covenant is made with “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah,” which are established by the Abrahamic covenant and “given further shape” by the Mosaic and Davidic covenants (245).
2. In the new covenant the law is written on the heart. Myers asserts, “Very clearly, here God is referring to the law given in the Mosaic covenant” (245).
3. The goal of the new covenant is the same as the goal of the previous covenants: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:33)(246).
4. The blessings of the new covenant as described in Ezekiel 37:24-8 are the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

The Newness of the New Covenant

Given this continuity, Myers must then explain why the covenant is called “new.” He argues that the Hebrew word translated “new” has “a wide range of meaning” and that “the new covenant is new in the sense that each wave of new fruit [that grows on a given tree] is new” (247-48). Myers further argues that the Greek word used to refer to the new covenant in the New Testament is not the word for “brand new” but the word for “a new iteration of something previous” (248). Myers also clarifies that when God said that Israel “broke” the covenant, the meaning is that its laws were violated rather than that the covenant was put to an end.

These points established Myers then describes what factors make the new covenant new:

1. The law before the new covenant was “something external, written on tablets of stone” (250). But in the new covenant, the law will be written on the heart.
2. The Holy Spirit will be poured out to enable obedience.
3. The sacrificial system has been fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Myers notes three complications to this understanding of the newness of the new covenant.

1. There is an already/not yet aspect to these promises, which explains why Christians still struggle with sin (Romans 7).
2. The Spirit was active in the Old Testament as well as the New.
3. Old Testament saints were saved by the cross work of Christ

Given that the most significant realization of the new covenant is future and given that the Spirit is eternally active in working out the plan of redemption, even the discussion of the newness of the new covenant ends up focusing on continuity.

The Problem of Exile

Myers is concerned that the exile of Israel, especially as it is expounded in Hosea 1, could be read as an “annulment” of the old covenant, this creating the need for an entirely new covenant (255). Significantly, God declared Israel “not my people” in Hosea 1, which seems to be an “undoing” of the covenant with Israel. Myers asks, “Does the exile represent a revocation of, or alteration in, the covenant of grace, as Israel goes from being “My people” to being “not My people”?” He answers,” Quite simply, the answer to the last question is no” (256).

Myers reasons that since the exile is a reversal of the land promise, the Abrahamic covenant (which promised the land) is the covenant in view. However, since the validity of the Abrahamic covenant is immediately affirmed in Hosea 1:10, God cannot be revoking his covenant.

Myers proposes an alternative interpretation. He claims that in 1:9 God is declaring the Northern Kingdom as not his people, in distinction from Judah which is his people (cf. 1:7). He qualifies this by noting there are Israelites on the Northern Kingdom who are God’s people and people in the Southern Kingdom who are not. Thus, he refines the message of Hosea 1:9: “God is making clear that “national Israel” is not shorthand for “the people of God.” National Israel can be scattered to the winds and God’s covenant with His people remain untouched” (258). In fact, rather than seeing the exile negatively, Myers argues that it was a step forward toward the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles.

Hebrews 9 and the Unity of the Covenant of Grace

Myers closes the chapter by arguing that Hebrews 9 teaches the unity of the covenant of grace. He sees here an affirmation that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were effective because the blood of Christ shed in the new covenant was in “organic connection” to them. Indeed, he thinks that the covenant spoken of in 9:20 is the covenant of grace that encompasses all the other covenants.

Chapter Evaluation

Continuity

The first, third, and fourth elements of continuity between the new covenant and previous covenants are valid. All three of these points would be affirmed by those who see in the biblical covenants a unified, progressing, plan of redemption. Regarding the second element, it is not very clear that the law written on the heart is “the law given in the Mosaic covenant.” The law written on the heart in the new covenant does not include circumcision, dietary laws, the sacrificial system, civil penalties for disobedience, etc. This is not to deny the overlap between the content of some laws in the Mosaic covenant and the law that is written on the heart. This overlap accounts for the fact that the New Testament authors can quote from the Decalogue, and other parts of the Mosaic code, in describing expectations for Christian behavior. But Christians do not follow the dietary laws of the Mosaic code, for instance, because they are under a different covenant with a law that does not include those provisions.

The Newness of the New Covenant

Myers is correct that the new covenant is new because it is internal rather than external, because the Spirit is poured out to enable obedience, and because it is founded on the sacrifice of Christ. However, the three caveats that Myers makes to these points tend to undercut the newness of the covenant.

A better way forward is to understand that the benefits of the new covenant were not benefits that were offered by the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the prophets pointed forward to the new covenant, and individuals in the Old Testament could, by faith, experience some of the benefits of the new covenant proleptically. In addition, while the Spirt was active in the Old Testament, and while he played an essential role in regenerating OT saints, the Spirit did not indwell Old Testament believers as he now indwells members of the new covenant (see Jim Hamilton’s book God’s Indwelling Presence). Thus, there are substantive differences in the benefits that OT and NT saints experience.

The substantive differences between the new covenant and the previous covenants (“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers”) calls into question Myers’s claim that “new” in the label “new covenant” simply refers to “a new iteration of something previous. The Hebrew word can clearly refer to something that is “brand new,” and the contrast (“not like the [Mosaic] covenant”) points to something new in kind rather than a mere “new iteration of something previous.” Regarding καινός, the word used in the New Testament, BDAG lists new covenant passages under the following sense: “pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new…in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by that which is new” (BDAG, s.v., καινός sense 3b).

The Problem of Exile

Myers’s claim that Hosea 1:9 refers to the Abrahamic covenant and is a statement that the Northern Kingdom is not part of the people of God does not withstand scrutiny.

1. Myers argues that the Abrahamic covenant must be in view since the exile is “the removal of Israel from the Land of Promise,” which is a promise of the Abrahamic covenant. But exile is one of the sanctions of the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 26:333-39; Dt. 28:37, 64-65).
2. The name of Hosea’s daughter, No Mercy, alludes to Exodus 33:19; 34:7 in which God showed mercy toward Israel and established the Mosaic covenant with them despite their rebellion in the golden calf incident. The name of Hosea’s second son, Not My People and his statement, “And I am not I AM to you” (Dearman, NICOT, 990-100; Stuart, WBC 33) is also a reversal of the Mosaic covenant’s promises (Ex. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Dt. 27:9).
3. In breaking the Mosaic covenant, Israel made itself like the Gentiles: not God’s people. However, Hosea 1:10 contrasts the broken Mosaic covenant with the future hope that Israel (and the Gentiles) have via the Abrahamic covenant (1:10 alludes to Genesis 22:17).
4. Myers is correct that in 1:7 the Lord distinguishes between Israel and Judah. God will have mercy on Judah (for a while longer) while he no longer will have mercy on Israel. But in the end the judgment of exile will fall on both kingdoms, and both will be restored under the rule of the Messiah (1:11).

Read rightly, Hosea 1 presents the Mosaic covenant as a bilateral covenant that Israel has violated such that it has come under the covenant curses. The Abrahamic covenant, by contrast, is presented as a unilateral covenant which provides hope for restoration.

Hebrews 9

The covenant mentioned in Hebrews 9:20 is not the covenant of grace but is clearly the Mosaic covenant (Hebrews is here quoting Ex. 24:8). The whole passage draws comparisons and contrasts between two different covenants.

Myers turns to the Davidic covenant in his tenth chapter. Once again, he is seeking to demonstrate that the biblical covenants stand in continuity with one another as administrations of a unified covenant of grace.

Myers notes several links between the Davidic and the Mosaic covenants First, though no Israelite kings had been anointed yet, Deuteronomy 17 laid down the law for Israel’s kings. Second, the Davidic covenant required faithfulness to the Mosaic law (1 Kings 2:3-4).

Myers also argues that the Davidic covenant establishes an “office of covenant mediator” for the covenant of grace.

Myers notes again the dynamic of promise and obedience within the covenants. In the Davidic covenant “the obedience of the Davidic king is necessary and important,” but “God’s faithfulness will not be affected by the obedience or disobedience of that mediator” (236). Thus, disobedience brings discipline, but the promises made to David will be fulfilled.

The Davidic covenant poses a problem for Myers because of the exile. In his words, “the exile can appear to be the strongest argument for rejecting the suggestion that there is one, eternal covenant of grace, for in that exile God seems to take away the embodiment of His promises only to begin afresh later with Jesus Christ” (237). Myers resolves this problem by appealing to Vos’s dual-level typology. Since the earthly type refers not only to a “future fulfillment” but also to an “eternal, heavenly reality” it does not matter “if the line running from the earthly type to ultimate fulfillment seems to disappear” since “the line from earthly type to heavenly reality remains” (238).

Myers ends by showing how Christ’s mediatorial kingship is rooted in the Davidic covenant.

Evaluation

I agree with Myers about the links between the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, but I think this shows the two covenants to be part of a unified plan of redemption rather than evidence that they are part of the same covenant of grace. One reason for not seeing the two as part of the same covenant is that the Mosaic covenant is clearly a conditional covenant (the covenant curses come upon those who break the covenant and the covenant blessings are forfeited) whereas the Davidic covenant is unconditional. As Myers notes, though disobedience brings chastening for individual disobedient kings, the covenant blessings of the Davidic covenant will infallibly be brought about.

I confess that I don’t see the exile as a major threat to a unified covenant of grace. Nor do I see Vos’s dual level typology helpful here. The mediatorial kingship of Christ is not a “eternal, heavenly reality.” It is an incarnational reality, which means that it is temporal and earthly.