Stephen Myers has produced the best recent exegetical and theological argument for covenant theology, and this paper, published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology & Worldview critiques his argument for an overarching covenant of grace, of which the post-Fall biblical covenants are administrations.

I have read all of Michael Horton’s significant writings on covenant theology, and, other than 1689 Reformed Baptist covenant theology, Horton’s version of covenant theology is my preferred version. That said, this essay was not Horton’s best contribution. It was too tradition-focused and more attuned to intra-covenant theology debates when this book called for more Scripture-based argumentation designed to persuade those holding alternative positions. Further, the structure of the essay led to some repetition. A more persuasive essay would have sought to make a clear exegetical case for the three covenants of covenant theology.

I agree with Horton on a number of points.

1. I agree with his claim of a pretemporal covenant of redemption that is worked out in the historical, biblical covenants (41, 52).

2. I agree that the biblical covenants can be classified as law covenants and promise or grace covenants (40). I further agree that that this distinction is not denying that all the post-Fall covenants are established by God’s grace (44). I further agree that both law and grace covenants are contributing to God’s gracious plan of redemption (52). I would add that this distinction is also not denying the existence of promises in law or works covenants or the existence of commands in promise covenants (57). Finally, I agree that the difference between a law/works covenant and a promise covenant whether the “basis” for the realization of the covenant’s blessings is unilateral on God’s part or requires obedience on the human participant’s part (57).

3. I agree that the creation covenant is a covenant of works (43, 46).

4. I agree that the Sinai covenant is a works covenant, but I think its promises pertain not only to temporal blessings (Horton’s view) but also to eternal life (53-54, 68).

5. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is a promise covenant and that God has unilaterally promised to uphold its provisions (55). The requirements of the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled as the fruit of faith and not as conditions for the promises being fulfilled (57).

6. I agree that the new covenant is a grace covenant distinct in type from the Sinai covenant, which is a law covenant (58).

7. I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensational tendency to operate with such a rigid hermeneutic that they engage in question-begging exegesis of the NT, I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensationalist interpretation of Acts 15, and I agree with his critique that the resort to analogy and implication fails to interpret the NT use of the OT accurately (184, 185). (One might say that traditionalist dispensationalists fail to interpret the NT literally.) On the other hand, Horton does not seem to appreciate that Amos 9 also has elements that were not fulfilled in the first century.

8. I agree, against those traditional dispensationalists who deny the church membership in the new covenant, that Ephesians 2 teaches that the Gentiles now partake of the covenants of promise since Christ created one new man through his blood (188).

9. I agree, against Bock, that there is a covenant of creation. Horton rightly points out that Bock misunderstands what elements need to be present for there to be a covenant (189).

10. I agree, against Wellum, that the creation covenant is a works covenant. Horton is correct to note that “the question is not whether covenants contain both promises and obligations” but whether the covenant is a “do this and live kind of covenant” or a covenant in which God unilaterally promises certain benefits. I further agree with Horton that the protoevangelium and the Noahic covenant are not continuations of the creation covenant (196-97).

11. I agree with Horton, against Wellum, that there are only two Adams: Adam and Christ (197).

I also disagree with Horton on a number of points:

1. I disagree that the post-fall biblical covenants are administrations of an over-arching covenant of grace. The fact that Sinai was made post-Fall, serves to advance God’s plan of redemption, and contains promises of a new covenant and coming redemption (45) does not make it a covenant of grace. A covenant may be graciously given, as the Sinai covenant was, but if its principle is “do this and live,” it is not a covenant of grace even though it furthers the plan of redemption. The designations works covenant or grace covenant refer to whether or not the fulfillment of the promises rest entirely on God’s oath or whether they rest on human performance. In Sinai, they rest on human performance—even as the Sinai covenant points Israel ahead to the new covenant as their only hope for salvation both through the imagery of the sacrificial system and through the explicit teaching of Deuteronomy 30.

2. I disagree that the land promises were fulfilled with the conquest of Canaan (60, 190-91). This is to not read carefully the promises themselves as stated in Genesis, the book of Joshua’s acknowledgment of more land to be conquered, the prophets’ predictions of restoration to the land on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and Jesus’s statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to be resurrected so they can experience the promised covenant blessings.

3. I disagree that that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and that circumcision, transposed to baptism, is thus required of all covenant children (61).

4. I disagree that the new covenant is a mixed covenant, including those who are internally part of the covenant and those who are externally part of the covenant (64). This is the very point of contrast between the old and new covenants that Jeremiah identifies as distinguishing them.  I further disagree that the church ought to include both wheat and tares until the eschaton (65). The field is the world, not the church. I further disagree that the warning passages in Hebrews demonstrate a mixed covenant (198-99). Hebrews 6 is certainly speaking of professing Christians who denied the faith. But this does not demonstrate that the apostates were members of the covenant of grace. Saying so proves too much. If Horton’s view is correct, a covenant child who rejected the faith could never be restored to repentance again.

5. Horton sometimes speaks as though an inaugurated fulfillment in the first century is the complete fulfillment of prophecies. Horton also seems to think that the establishment of an earthly kingdom requires the revival of the Sinai covenant (68-69). But this is not the case. The prophecies of new covenant include the earthly, political reign of the Messiah and the return of Israel to the land.

6. Horton seems to think that sacrifices, temple, and the national of Israel are all types that have been fulfilled in Christ (69).  Horton is confusing two distinct things here. The temple and the sacrifices (as Hebrews plainly indicates) are types that are superseded by Christ. But Israel is not a type as such. Israel in the time of the Old Covenant is a type of the church just as David, as king, was a type of Christ. But David will be resurrected and will live in eternity, and Israel will be resurrected (Eze. 37) and be restored as a nation in all eternity.

7. I disagree that Charles Hill demonstrated amillennialism to be the dominant eschatological position in the early church (189). (See further here.)

This book is designed to be an accessible introduction the covenant theology that stands in the heritage of seventeenth-century Baptist covenant theologians. Renihan introduces the book by laying four foundations for Baptist covenant theology. First, he claims that covenant theology covers all of Scripture and yet must avoid “facile reductions or generalizations” (13). Instead, it “must be built on supporting premises, and the supporting premises must be studied as completely and thoroughly as possible” (13).

Second, Renihan distinguishes between creation and covenant and between natural law and positive law. God is not naturally obligated to give man any reward for obedience. That arrangement is not natural but covenantal. Likewise, covenants go beyond natural law, which is “the universal moral law of God” (15) and introduces positive law, “indifferent things prescribed or proscribed for a particular period, place, and people” (15). Thus, an interpreter cannot infer from the presence of a particular feature in one covenant that such features must be present in all covenants. Different covenants can have different positive laws.

Third, Renihan distinguishes between two ways of thinking about law and gospel. Law and gospel can be thought of as “two opposite paths of righteousness” (20). They can also be thought of as “two historical time periods, the Old and New Testaments” (20). It is important to note that law and gospel in the first sense are present in both these periods. This accounts for covenant continuity. But the historical sense should prevent covenant theologians from identifying “the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants with the new covenant, or covenant of grace” (22).

Fourth, the Pauline concept of mystery indicates that there was partial revelation that awaited fuller explication in the New Testament. Thus, “a covenant theology’s treatment of the Old Testament must preserve the presence of Christ as a mystery. And one’s covenantal system must not so flatten out the progress of redemptive history that it effectively, even if unintentionally, unveils the mystery before its actual unveiling” (24).

Belcher turns to the new covenant in chapter 8. His treatment focuses almost exclusively on Jeremiah 31, though he notes that Ezekiel 36-37 is also a key passage. Belcher does an excellent job setting Jeremiah 31:31-34 within the context of Jeremiah 30-33. Interestingly, he observes that the land promise is a major theme throughout this section. He argues that this theme is fulfilled as the gospel goes out into all the world and will be fulfilled when Christ’s people inherit the earth.

Belcher identifies four new covenant promises:

(1) ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts’
(2) ‘I will be their God and they shall be my people’
(3) ‘they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest’
(4) ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more’ (132).

Belcher notes that the Mosaic covenant had the same goals. However, it could not achieve them because the transformation of heart was not a provision of the Mosaic covenant since the Mosaic covenant was shadowy and Christ had not yet come.

Belcher also qualifies the current fulfillment of the new covenant promises, noting that they are at present “provisional.” He argues that the promised inner transformation is still incomplete. Furthermore, not everyone in the covenant now knows the Lord, as promised on the new covenant. Belcher acknowledges that this is a point of debate with Baptists, who hold that only those who know the Lord are part of the new covenant. Belcher demurs, claiming that the threat on Romans 11 that Gentile branches may be removed from the tree, the reality of apostasy (1 John 5:19), the warnings found in Hebrews, and the fact of church discipline all testify that some people who were externally part of the new covenant were not internally members of it.

In general, this is a helpful chapter. Belcher is correct about the need for the new covenant to replace the old. He is correct that the land promise is a major theme in the new covenant passages. I don’t think, however, that the spread of the gospel around the world is a fulfillment of those passages. More significantly, the Baptists are correct that everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord. This is a point of distinction that makes the new covenant better than the old covenant. To assert that this feature is absent at present is, in effect, to deny the inauguration of the new covenant. It is true that the NT warns against apostasy and that church discipline is a necessity in the present age, but this does not falsify the reality that all in the new covenant know the Lord. It simply indicates that fallible humans cannot see the heart. In fact, church discipline testifies to the importance of regenerate church membership. That is, a membership that attempts to restrict church membership to those who are part of the new covenant.

Chapter 7, and the first part of chapter 8 of Belcher’s The Fulfillment of the Promises of God and chapter 8 of Covenant Theology are identical treatments of the Davidic covenant.

Belcher begins with an exegesis of 2 Samuel 7, noting that even though the term for covenant does not occur in 2 Samuel 7, covenant language is used of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 23:5; Pss. 89:3, 28; 132:12. Belcher traces the context for the covenant from David’s proposition to build a temple for Yhwh to Yhwh’s covenant promise to build a house for David. He observes that the blessings outlined in 7:9-11 are blessings that David already enjoys to some extent, but the Davidic covenant will guarantee them for future generations.

Belcher sees that Davidic covenant as the culmination of previous covenants, and he documents the many links between them. For instance, he thinks that the use of Adonai Yhwh, unique in Samuel to these verses, is an allusion to Genesis 15:2, 8 and thus to the Abrahamic covenant. He follows Walter Kaiser’s interpretation of 7:19, “This is the Charter for mankind, O Lord God,” which picks up on the universal blessing aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Belcher traces the idea of kingship back through the Abrahamic and Mosaic to Genesis 1:26-28. He also argues that specific covenant promises from the previous covenants find their fulfillment through the Davidic covenant. For instance, the promise of numerous seed is fulfilled in Solomon’s reign (Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 2 Sam. 7:0-10; 1 Kings 4:20) as is the promise of blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:3; 1 Kings 4:34). Solomon’s reign also saw rest in the land (Dt. 28:1-14; 1 Kings 4:25) and Israel’s witness to the nations (Dt. 28:10; 1 Kings 4:30). The promise of God’s dwelling with his people is furthered by the construction of the temple (1 Kings 8:54-61).

Belcher argues that the Davidic covenant also highlighted the role of the king as covenant mediator for the people and the significance of Zion as the location from which God will reign over the nations.
Finally, Belcher, looking at the specific wording of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, the outworking of the covenant in redemptive history, and the commentary upon the Davidic covenant in Psalms 89 and 132, argues that the covenant is conditional with respect to “each individual king” but that “the promises of an enduring dynasty and kingdom” are unconditional because they are not “ultimately dependent on the obedience of individual kings” (176-77).

J. Nicholas Reid contributed the chapter on the Mosaic covenant. He observes that there are two main positions with regard to the Mosaic covenant. The dichotomist position holds that there are two covenants: a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. A trichotomist position holds that there are three categories: a covenant of works, a covenant of grace, and the Mosaic covenant which is subservient to the covenant of grace. Reid holds the dichotomist position, but he does describe other positions fairly in the course of the chapter.

According to the dichotomist position, all of the post-Fall covenants are in substance part of the covenant of grace but as to their accidents differently administered. He holds the substance of the covenant to be “forgiveness of sins and salvation” through Jesus (152).

Reid claims that the Mosaic covenant was unilateral in that God unilaterally established it and fulfills its promises of atonement (promises signified in the sacrificial system). But it is bilateral in the expectations for obedience to the law laid down. Further, though an administration of the covenant of grace, it is an “inferior administration” in that it is “Jewish” (rather than universal), “shadowy,” “temporary,” “condemning,” “weak,” and “preparatory” (154-55).

Reid also claims that the law which was part of the covenant of works was included in the Mosaic covenant as “a perfect rule of righteousness” (WCF 19.2). While granting that the Old Testament does not make the ceremonial, judicial, moral law distinction, Reid holds that this distinction emerges by observing how the New Testament writers handle the law.

Reid then discusses the threefold use of the moral law: to restrain sin, reveal sin, and serve as a rule for life. He looks to these distinctions to distinguish how the law functions with relation to justification and sanctification. This the Christian is set free from the law with regard to its function of condemnation but still under the law as a rule of life. Legalism happens when people attempt to keep the law apart from Christ and the Spirit. This is why love for God and others is so important to the law.

Reid grants that the exile shows there is some conditionality to the Mosaic covenant. However, he argues that the exile did not occur because Israel failed to perfectly obey the law. Though the law required perfect obedience, as an administration of the covenant of grace of also provided sacrifices and covenant mediators to deal with the sin problem. Rather, Israel went into exile because of idolatry, a failure to love God. Finally, Reid argues that God’s wrath under the Mosaic covenant is only temporary.

In the final section of the chapter Reid deals with Meredith Kline’s republication thesis. While acknowledging that there are different interpretations of Klinean republication, and that Kline’s view may have developed over time, Reid holds that in the end Kline taught that the Mosaic covenant was part of the covenant of grace rather than teaching substantial republication. Kline holds that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works only on the typological level and that the merit required was also only typological. Furthermore, typological obedience was imperfect, though it pointed forward to Christ’s perfect obedience. Reid notes that Leviticus 18:5 is the key verse for republication since it articulates the works principle. Some argue that Leviticus 18:5 and its use in the NT demonstrates that there was a works principle within the Mosaic covenant, even though the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace and even though the works principle was not tied to eternal salvation. In favor of this view, in addition to its use in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, is Jeremiah 31:33 which says the Mosaic covenant had been broken. Others argue that in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 Paul is responding to false teachers who are misusing Leviticus 18:5. A key verse for this interpretation is Romans 9:32, which indicates that by not pursuing the law by faith but by works, the Jews stumbled. Proponents of this view argue that Leviticus 18:3-4 indicate that this command is given to those who are already God’s people, meaning that the law as a guide to righteous living is in view.

Reid offers a fair summary of the various covenantal views regarding the Mosaic covenant.

Belcher acknowledges, “The Mosaic covenant is the most difficult covenant to understand” due to its multifaceted nature (75). He begins by noting that the Mosaic covenant is a means of fulfilling the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Exodus explicitly states that God delivered Israel in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

Belcher then turns to Exodus 19 and 24. His comments are disappointingly general and do not engage the question of whether or not these passages indicate the Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant or not.

Belcher then turns to Deuteronomy, which he argues is a renewal of the Sinai covenant. He argues that when Deuteronomy 5:2-3 said that God did not make the Sinai covenant with their fathers but with them, it means that God did not make the Sinai covenant with the patriarchs and that the second generation stands in solidarity with the first generation. In favor of this reading is that “fathers” in Deuteronomy universally refers to the patriarchs.

In the latter part of the chapter Belcher argues for the Mosaic covenant’s inclusion within the covenant of grace, while also recognizing its distinctiveness. First, he argues that the Mosaic covenant furthered the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. He thinks this points to both being part of a single covenant of grace. Second, he claims that the phrase “my covenant” applied to the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants (Gen 6:18; 17:2; Ex 19:5) indicates that these covenants are part of an overarching covenant.

Belcher rejects the claim that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. First, he holds that the necessity of perfect obedience to the law is universal. Since the law is prominent in the Mosaic covenant the Jews rightly understood it to require perfect obedience to the law to avoid condemnation, and everyone ought to keep the law. Belcher says that this was always true of Jew and Gentile and is not unique to the Mosaic covenant. Second, republication is an incorrect interpretation because Israel entered the covenant already fallen. Third, Belcher claims that both the second and third uses of the law are at work, and it depends on the state of the person as to which is foremost. In this Belcher wishes to distinguish the Mosaic covenant and the law that is contained within the covenant. He did not wish to define the covenant as a law covenant. Finally, Belcher argues that the physical blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are typological. They do not pertain to salvation.

Belcher’s overall argument for the inclusion of the Mosaic covenant within the covenant of grace suffers from a failure to examine whether or not the Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant or not. This is the fundamental issue. I would argue that Exodus 19 as well as several NT references back to the Mosaic covenant make it clear that the Mosaic covenant is a conditional, and thus a works, covenant.

Belcher’s arguments do not overturn this. The Mosaic covenant can further God’s covenant plan without being part of a covenant of grace. The phrase “my covenant” by no means clearly refers to a covenant of grace. It is not right to abstract the law from the covenant; the law defines the Mosaic covenant. Israel’s entrance into the covenant already fallen meant that it could never attain the covenant conditions and would therefore come under the covenant curses, which God states explicitly in Deuteronomy 28-30. However, Christ was born under this covenant and did fulfill its conditions. While there is typology at work in the Mosaic covenant, it is not correct to draw a sharp line between the physical blessings and curses and salvation.

John Scott Redd surveys Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22 in his treatment of the Abrahamic covenant.

Redd is aware that some argue for multiple Abrahamic covenants, usually seeing one in chapter 15 and another in chapter 17. Redd argues for a singular Abrahamic covenant, noting, “The Noahic covenant is singular and complete even though it is administered at different points and with different emphases before and after the flood” (134). He also claims, “the Mosaic covenant is delivered at Sinai (Ex. 19–24) and again renewed and updated on the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy).” Redd is correct to argue for a single Abrahamic covenant, but it is better to see the Noahic covenant as announced in Genesis 6 but cut on Genesis 8-9.

Redd also argues that every covenant is ordained by God and received in faith which then leads to faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant. With this in mind, he states, “The interplay between divine ordination and initiation in redemptive covenants is on display in the Abrahamic covenant, which itself is anticipated, inaugurated, amended, and confirmed over the course of the narrative of Genesis 12:1–25:11” (135).

Genesis 12 is the anticipation, Genesis 15 is the inauguration on the basis of faith, Genesis 17 is the amending to make clear that faithfulness is required, and Genesis 22 is the confirmation. Redd rightly notes that in Genesis 15 God “unilaterally” makes and guarantees the covenant. However, he says that Genesis 17 “includes helpful corrective to the previous emphasis on God’s unilateral participation in the covenant” (135). This is unhelpful wording. The unilateral nature of the covenant, clearly established in chapter 15, does not need to be corrected. Nor, in light of Galatians 3:15, is the language of covenant amendment ideal. Better is the statement, “In Genesis 17, the Lord revisits Abram and clarifies the terms of the covenant into which they have both entered. Lest the foregrounded unconditionality of the covenant ceremony in chapter 15 be misconstrued as a universalistic arrangement in which Abram has no responsibility, the divine instruction of chapter 17 outlines the expectations of the covenant for Abram” (141).

Redd explicitly rejects Kline and sides with John Murray in denying the claim that some covenants are conditional and others unconditional. In doing so, Redd wrongly concludes that all covenants have both unconditional and conditional elements.