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.

In chapter 9 Myers deals with the New Testament’s teaching about the Mosaic covenant. He acknowledges from the outset that covenant theologians disagree about the relationship began the Mosaic covenant and the New Testament. Myers sides with those who emphasize that Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace and who do not see it in any way as a covenant of works in essence.

In navigating this issue Myers begins by distinguishing the Mosaic covenant, which is left behind as a covenant administration, and the Mosaic law which “retains a vital and unchanged role in God’s covenantal dealings with His people” (208).

Myers argues that the New Testament teaches that the Mosaic covenant was part of God’s covenant of grace. First, Jesus and the apostles affirmed that the Mosaic covenant taught the gospel. Second, Moses, Aaron, and the sacrificial system all pointed forward to Christ.

Myers argues that seemingly negative statements about the Mosaic covenant arise not from any “defect” in the covenant but from a “regression” back to the Mosaic covenant after the progression forward to the new covenant (209). Myers argues that the same critique would have been made of someone under the Mosaic covenant who insisted adhering only to the Abrahamic covenant.

Regarding a passage like 2 Corinthians 3, Myers states, “However, if one looks beyond the negative language, one sees Paul declare that the old covenant was ‘glorious’ (v. 7, 11), that it ‘had glory’ (v. 9), and that it was ‘made glorious’ (v. 10). Certainly, Paul is making a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant, but that distinction is not a distinction between the old covenant as monstrous and the new covenant as good. Rather, the distinction is between the old covenant as glorious and the new covenant as possessing a glory that splinters all bounds” (210).

Turning to the Mosaic law, Myers argues that although the ceremonial and civil laws of the Mosaic covenant have passed away passages like Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 7:12; and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 teach that “the moral law of the Ten Commandments, which was the Mosaic law, remains” (212).

Myers understands negative statements about the law, such “the law is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12; cf. Rom 10:5) to refer to the fact that the law was never meant to be a means of justification. He takes the Leviticus 18:5 to refer to the role of the law in the life of the redeemed, and he understands Paul to be teaching that the role of works in sanctification is not applicable to the economy of justification. Thus, there is a “righteousness that is of the law” (Rom 10:5) for the believer who is indwelt by the Spirit. But that is the righteousness of sanctification, not that of justification.

Myers concludes this chapter with a look at the role of the law in the life of the Christian. He lays out three options. 1. “Relegate it to a past and therefore irrelevant period of redemptive history.” Myers argues that those who take this position have unregenerate hearts (John 14:15). 2. Focus on one’s successes in keeping the parts of the law. This is the path of self-righteousness. 3. Focus on personal failure to keep the law and turn to Christ for salvation.

Evaluation

Myers does as good a job as any covenant theologian that I’ve read in arguing for the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace considering the New Testament’s teaching about the Mosaic covenant. He works hard to defend his view exegetically, and he engages several of the problem texts for his view. But in the end, I feel the same as I do about traditional dispensationalist arguments for the postponement of the kingdom or the limitation of the new covenant to national Israel—I can see how they make the exegesis of hard passages conform to the system, but I’m not convinced that their interpretations are the best readings of those texts.

1. The fact that the Mosaic covenant pointed forward to Christ and proclaimed the gospel does not make it a covenant of grace. Hebrews is clear that the sacrificial system pointed forward to a new covenant, and passages like Deuteronomy 30 clearly pointed forward to the new covenant on their proclamation of the gospel. But ja covenant of works, recognizing that no one will meet its conditions, can point forward to a covenant of grace.

2. The New Testament is not only concerned about covenant regression in its negative statements about the Mosaic covenant: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb 8:7). This is a statement that recognizes the need for a different kind of covenant. Second Corinthians 3 makes the same point. In his discussion of 2 Corinthians 3 Myers both creates a strawman (no one is saying that the Mosaic covenant is monstrous) and misunderstands Paul’s argument. While it is true that Paul sees the old covenant as glorious and the new covenant as glorious, Paul specifies that the old covenant was an external law that ministered death and condemnation. The new covenant is more glorious because in the new covenant the Spirit gives life and writes the law on the heart. In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works and the new covenant is a covenant of grace.

3. While I agree with the practical result of saying that the moral law continues while the ceremonial law and civil law pass away, I don’t think this formulation is the most faithful to the biblical data. It is better to say that the whole Mosaic code was fulfilled by Christ and thus passed away. However, since the Mosaic covenant repeated and applied the universal law written into creation and since this same universal law is written on the heart in the new covenant, there is indeed an overlap in content in the law that Christians observe and in the law that was part of the Mosaic covenant. Furthermore, the concrete applications that God made of this universal law to Israel’s time and place remain valuable as Christians seek to apply God’s law in their own contexts.

4. Myers’s attempt to make Leviticus 18:5 refer to sanctification rather than justification is ingenious—but I don’t think it works. In the first place, Leviticus 18:5 in its original context is a soteriological promise (see Kiuchi, AOTC, 332; DeRouchie, “The Use of Leviticus 18:5,” Them. 45.2 [2020]: 247-49). (It is important to remember the Israel was redeemed from Egypt typologically but that Israelites were still in need of redemption unto eternal life; it is also important to note that the Pentateuch both sets out salvation by obedience to the law and tells Israel that no one will actually be saved in this way, cf. Deut. 30). Myers acknowledges that Jewish interpreters understood the life in Leviticus 18:5 to be eternal life, but he dismisses this as a later development (221, n. 39). However, Jesus, in response to the lawyer’s question about how to inherit eternal life cites Leviticus 18:5 (Lk. 10:28). This should be determinative. It is best to see Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans as observing that in the Torah God laid out two possible ways of attaining eternal life. Either obey the Mosaic law entirely and perfectly or look forward to the new covenant’s gracious provision of salvation. The Mosaic covenant clearly stated that the first path would be impossible for sinners. (However, Christ was born under the law to redeem those under the law (both Jews under the Mosaic law and Gentiles under the universal creational law, Gal. 4:3-5.) Notably, Myers rightly recognizes that in the allegory of Galatians 4 Paul is contrasting a covenant of works with a covenant of grace. Paul identifies the covenant of works as “Mount Sinai,” the Mosaic covenant. It simply will not do to say, as Myers does, that “Mount Sinai” refers to “the legalistic abuse of God’s law by the Jewish leaders of Paul’s day” (224, n. 49). The point of the allegory is to contrast two types of covenants.

Myers labors mightily to harmonize the New Testament’s teaching with the claim that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, and I respect his effort. However, that very effort reinforces my conviction that it is best to recognize that the Old Testament covenants differ in nature, with some being promise covenants and the Mosaic covenant being a works covenant. In identifying the Mosaic covenant as a works covenant I do not deny but affirm that God graciously gave it forward his plan of redemption, and I affirm that it pointed the way to salvation in Christ through the new covenant.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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