Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Can heqim berit refer to the making of a covenant?

by

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

This latter use is controversial. Gentry and Wellum claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God to Us, 107.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture—1. A History of Covenant Theology

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture – Introduction

by

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

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

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

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

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