Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants

by Peter J. Gentry, Stephen J. Wellum

Many theological discussions come to an impasse when parties align behind either covenant theology or dispensationalism. But Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum propose a significant biblical theology of the covenants that avoids the extremes of both classical systems—and holds the potential to resolve the differences. Kingdom through Covenant is a careful exposition of how the biblical covenants unfold and relate to one another, key to understanding the narrative plot structure of the whole Bible. By incorporating the latest available research from the ancient Near East and examining implications of their work for Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and hermeneutics, Gentry and Wellum present a thoughtful and viable alternative to both covenant theology and dispensationalism. This second edition features updated and revised content, clarifying key material and staying up to date in the discussion.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Christianity, Faith, Old Testament

960 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Peter J. Gentry (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of Old Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and director of the Hexapla Institute.

Reviews

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gentry and Wellum have finally given a name and theology to a non-dispensational Baptistic theology of covenant. Early on they state their position “would fit broadly under the umbrella of what is called "new covenant theology," or to coin a better term, “progressive covenantalism.” But they argue they are plowing new ground in making new proposals.

The "via media" between Covenant theology and dispensationalism recognizes that both sides have made the same hermeneutical error, in different directions, when understanding covenant. Dispensationalists argue the land promise for Israel is yet to be fulfilled because the New Testament does not explicitly alter it. Covenant theologians say we should baptize our babies because, “The principle of continuity leads us to assume that infants are included in the church unless we are explicitly told they are not.” As they note, this is the same hermeneutical error, based on the Abrahamic covenant. The irony is rich, is it not?

Throughout the book, they stress the importance of covenant in the Bible, so obviously dispensationalists and Covenant theologians will find many areas of agreement. The disagreements are found in the details, not in the broad arguments of the book. Covenants are obviously “the backbone of the metanarrative of Scripture,” as they write in the beginning of the book. They praise both dispensationalism and covenant theology for much, as there is much agreement.

The early part of the book is spent in stating the positions of dispensationalism and covenant theology, critiquing it, and then explaining their methodology and why it is unique. One of the ways they argue they are different is that they seek to “understand each biblical covenant in its own redemptive-historical context by locating that covenant in relationship to what precedes it and what comes after it.”

They list some specific systematic categories for understanding Scripture:
•“First, it is important to affirm that all of God’s redemptive acts are revelatory of him, his plan, and his purposes.”

•“Second, as important as it is to affirm that God acts in order to reveal himself and to redeem his people, God’s redemptive acts are never left to speak for themselves and they never appear separated from God’s verbal communications of truth.”

•“Third, we affirm that Scripture, as a word-act revelation, is also the product of God’s own mighty actions. Scripture not only chronicles the activities of God’s redemption in history; it not only is a word which interprets God’s redeeming acts; it, itself, is a product of God’s own redemptive acts for the purpose of teaching, edification, and instruction, and as such is fully authoritative and sufficient for our thinking and lives. Scripture, then, as a written text, in its final form, is God’s own divine interpretation, through human authors, of his own redemptive acts that carries with it a true, objective, and authoritative interpretation of his redemptive plan. Though it is not an exhaustive Word-revelation, nonetheless it is a true, objective, and first-order text which requires that we read it as a complete canonical text on its own terms, according to its own structure and categories, in order to discern correctly God’s intent and redemptive plan. Once again, hermeneutically speaking, this reminds us that Scripture must be read as an entire revelation, i.e., canonically, in order to discern God’s overall plan, what we have called a “thick” reading of Scripture. This point is further underscored by viewing Scripture as a progressive revelation.”

This last point is perhaps the most important, as it is the progressive revelation of Scripture that is central to their progressive understanding of God’s working through covenants. They write, “Our interpretation of Scripture must do justice to the fact that Scripture has not come all at once.”

They also remind us that the Bible is a story:

“Scripture is more than a storehouse of facts or propositions, since Scripture unfolds for us a plot, a story line, a divine interpretation of the drama of redemption, which is eschatological at heart and Christological in focus, and as such, our interpretation of Scripture and our drawing of theological conclusions must reflect this.”

They deny the continuity of the covenants that Covenant theology expresses: “As we think through the biblical covenants, since God has not disclosed himself in one exhaustive act but progressively, we must carefully think through every biblical covenant first in its own redemptive-historical context, then ask what has preceded that covenant, and then relate that particular covenant to that which comes after it and how it relates to the inauguration of the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is only when we do this that we begin to understand how each covenant relates to previous and later covenants, and how all the biblical covenants relate to what has now come in Christ. We must also be careful as we trace out the historical unfolding of redemptive-history, as demarcated by the biblical covenants and their covenant heads—Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and then our Lord—how the entire plan is organically related yet at the same time preserving its diversity, thus maintaining a proper balance between the continuity and discontinuity of God’s plan as it reaches its culmination and fulfillment in Christ.”

There is much more to their hermeneutic, as they discuss typology extensively and Adam, Noah, Moses, and David all serve as covenant heads, as “types” of Christ. It is not that others ignore typology, but

“…covenant theology utilizes typology repeatedly, but never in terms of the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant. In addition, even though covenant theology speaks of Christ as the “true Israel” it does not do so consistently. In other words, covenant theology often refers to Christ as the “new, true Israel,” but it moves too quickly from Israel to the church without first thinking how Israel as a “type” leads us to Christ as the “antitype” which then has ecclesiological implications for us. This is why covenant theology can argue that the nature of the covenant communities—Israel and the church—are a similar “mixed” entity and that the covenant signs—circumcision and baptism—signify the same spiritual realities. What is missing is a careful analysis of how Scripture moves across the covenants—from Israel to Christ and then to the church—which results in some major changes in how we conceive of the nature of the church and the significance of its covenant sign, namely baptism.”

They later reveal that this is “at the heart of the problem with covenant theology is not viewing Christ consistently as the antitype of Israel.”

They argue that dispensationalism’s critique of covenant theology is right to say that, “the Abrahamic covenant is much more diverse than covenant theology often presents it since it encompasses not only spiritual elements but also national and typological elements that result in significant discontinuity as the era of fulfilment is inaugurated.” They follow Feinberg’s argument that there are four “different senses Scripture gives to the ‘seed of Abraham’”:

“First, there is the biological, ethnic, and national sense. Second, there is a political sense that refers to the entire nation. Third, there is a spiritual sense, which can apply to the redeemed, i.e., people who are properly related spiritually to God by faith. Fourth, there is the typological sense, in which Israel can function as a type of the church.”

Next, they argue that the new covenant is “new in the redemptive-historical sense”, “not merely the continuation of Israel of old”.

They move on to define covenant and the scholarship related to defining it, including the historical context in the Middle East. They then review the mentions of covenant in Scripture and seek to explain each one in its context and its later fulfillment. In the New Testament they argue:

“The new covenant supersedes all the previous covenants in redemptive-history. We have sought to demonstrate that the biblical covenants are the framework and backbone to the overall metanarrative of Scripture. As each covenant is introduced in history, God’s unfolding plan and promises take on greater clarity, definition, and expansion. No biblical covenant is unrelated to what has preceded it since each covenant contributes to the entire revelation of God centred in Christ. Yet it is important to ask, where is God’s plan going? What is the end of that plan? Our conviction is that in the sweep of redemptive-history the end of the road, so to speak, is the coming of Christ and the arrival of the new covenant age.”

This is one of their central critiques of covenant theology:

“…now that Christ has come, it is important to stress that we are no longer under those previous covenants as covenants, since they have reached their fulfilment in Christ. Instead we are under the new covenant and all that that entails. A crucial implication of this point is that we, as new covenant believers, must view and apply the previous biblical covenants to ourselves in light of Christ, to whom each of the previous covenants pointed and who fulfills every aspect of them completely. This is consistent with the New Testament’s presentation of our Lord who, as D. A. Carson rightly notes in his discussion of Matthew 5:17–20, “presents himself as the eschatological goal of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance.”24 This observation is important in discerning how the previous covenants “carry over” to Christians in the new covenant era, especially in matters where there are theological differences among us on these very points. For example, in regard to covenant theology, debate regarding the continuing validity of the genealogical principle in the church and its application to the ordinance of baptism centres on this very issue. In order to make headway in this debate we have to decide what features of the Abrahamic covenant, if any, are still in force today. What was the role of the Abrahamic covenant in God’s overall plan and how is it brought to fulfilment in the new covenant, and are there any changes which have taken place now that Christ has come?”

It is clear throughout the book that the thrust of their argument is in the details, as there is much agreement. Here’s a good example of the intricacy of their argument:

“Jesus and the new covenant becomes the hermeneutical lens by which we interpret the fulfilment of the types/patterns of the Old Testament. This may not sound earth-shaking, but it is our conviction that it is not consistently applied in the biblical-theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology. As discussed in chapter 3, this is how we believe the priority of the New Testament should function over the Old Testament. There we made the point that to be biblical we must first do justice to the Old Testament context, and in the case of typology we must discern whether something is a legitimate type/pattern. Then we must think through that pattern’s intertextual development across the biblical covenants, and then finally ask how it is brought to fulfilment in Christ and the arrival of the new covenant age.”

They argue at length the newness and distinctiveness of the new covenant. The central difference being that the new covenant is better than the old—where the people of the old covenant were a mixed people—elect and non-elect, the new covenant people are ALL elect. They see this in Jeremiah 31, where Jeremiah prophesies of the new covenant:

“Under the new covenant all will know the Lord, not in a mediate but in an immediate fashion, and all will have the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgiveness of sin. In fact, it is these last two aspects of the new covenant which highlight the incredible change that is anticipated and that is now a reality in the church. Certainly the expression “law written on the heart” is very close to the language of “circumcision of heart” (cf. Deut. 30:6; cf. Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:25), which refers to regeneration. This does not mean that no one in the Old Testament ever experienced a “circumcision of the heart”; rather it signals the change that is taking place in the nature of the entire covenant community. Instead of the people being a “mixed” entity, now the entire community will experience a “circumcision of the heart,” i.e., it will be a regenerate people.”

“Jeremiah is signalling that, under the new covenant, what was true of the remnant (elect) within Israel will now be true of the entire covenant community and in greater ways. Instead of Israel of old, which in its very makeup and nature was a “mixed” group, the anticipation is that the entire people will be characterised by: (1) the saving knowledge of God; (2) regeneration; and (3) the declaration of justification. Furthermore, we will be characterised by these realities in a greater way since now we will have direct access to God, we will be empowered and indwelt by the Spirit, and the verdict of justification is definitive due to the once-for-all-time nature of Christ’s work.”

Their exposition of Jeremiah 31 is essential to their argument for the newness of the covenant, as it is the primary Old Testament text that speaks to the new covenant. It is not the only one, as they point to several other texts, but it is obvious that Jeremiah 31 is the crux of the argument.
In concluding the book they review their argument and then apply it to ecclesiology (baptism) and eschatology (premillennial dispensationalism). They acknowledge the implications are far greater than they can attempt to unfold in this book, but they promise future writings that will elaborate upon their position.

Those that have read Stephen Wellum’s chapter in “Believer’s Baptism” edited by Thomas Schreiner will recognize the framework for “Kingdom Through Covenant” established there. But this larger, more in-depth work is very helpful in giving a more detailed argument. One of the strengths of the work is its exegesis of covenant passages in Scripture. So while the position has been argued before, this is where you find the meat of the argument.

The book is long, and is intended for a scholastic reader more than the layman. There is a lot of in-depth exegesis of Hebrew and Greek grammar. As a layman, I was able to follow the argument despite these passages. Much of the book is repetitive, though perhaps that was unavoidable as their argument is largely in details and nuances, hence restatement was likely necessary.
I look forward to seeing what else they add to this argument to elaborate on its implications for the church. This is an excellent work that I highly recommend despite its length and complexity.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have no idea how to begin to review this book. It’s not the longest book I have ever read, but it is hands down the book I have spent the most time on.

It is hard to separate my thoughts on the book itself from my thoughts on the main idea it proposes, “progressive covenantalism”, and also from the 5-star experience I had getting together with 3 good friends every Wednesday morning for the last year to discuss.

I’ll try to be as brief as possible or this review will get out of hand.

Christians through the centuries have debated different overarching frameworks through which scripture can be read and interpreted. A spectrum exists ranging from dispensationalism (which proposes that God has a unique relationship with Israel and the Church and will fulfill his promises to each) to covenant theology (which proposes that the church is the continuation of Israel and the recipient of all God’s covenant promises).

In this book, Wellum proposes a view that is basically somewhere between the two traditional views, but a little more covenanty.

In a nutshell, he proposes that the Church is indeed the recipient of promises made to Israel, but he asserts that covenant theology sees too much of a continuity between the old and new covenants. In contrast, he would see the Church as more distinct in nature and structure from Israel, almost more along the lines of a dispensationalist.

Already I am being long winded and at the same time grossly oversimplifying.

While I still have a few lingering questions and hangups, Wellum mostly has me convinced of his view. The storyline of scripture has never made more sense, and many individual convictions and beliefs that felt true but sort of detached now fit together in a really coherent way that I never realized they could. Incredibly positive experience.

To continue in my oversimplifying: Wellum makes a strong case that God’s covenants made throughout the OT were always meant to be received by a faithful covenant partner, which Adam and Israel failed to be. Christ came, and as the last Adam and true Israel, he was the faithful covenant parter. Now, through union with Christ who has received these promises, we inherit them as well.

Makes sense. Still confused by Romans 11:25-26….. but mostly makes sense.

This book, much like this review, suffered from one major pitfall: it was incredibly long and thorough and at times quite difficult to track with.

You have to read it with a pen and a highlighter and with your bible and laptop both open as well. And then you probably need to discuss it with others who are reading it too. Hats off to anyone who could approach this like a normal read and get much out of it because I could not.

So, I’ll dock it one star because it is kind of inaccessible and quite heady. I wished it had a bit more exhortation and application and a bit less Hebrew and Greek. But I guess that is why I’m not a PhD theologian.

If anyone else has read or ever reads this book, please please please reach out. I’d LOVE to discuss it with anyone and everyone.

[Bob Hayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book, helpful and inspiring. I'll post a fuller review later. After this book I'm certain I've landed in the new covenant theology camp or as the authors term their view: "progressive covenantalism." That basically means I'm Baptist and I have a biblical theological understanding of the Church as the fulfillment (not replacement) of Israel by means of her union with Christ the true Israel. And I have a biblical theological understanding of the "land" as typologically pointing to our experience of rest now ("already") and the greater realization of our heavenly inheritance later ("not yet").

[Zachary Skilling · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave it a 4 instead of a 5 only because I thought it was highly repetitive at times. Otherwise, a fantastic book.

Having grown up dispensational, I was well accustomed to the pitfalls and critiques of classic covenantalism. However, in my own Bible reading and thought, I began to see the problems with dispensationalism as well (two people of God, wooden hermeneutic, etc.)

I found Wellum’s and Gentry’s views extremely persuasive. Especially concerning the issue of Israel and the church. By rooting the covenants in creation and new creation with attention to the progression of the covenants in their historical-redemptive context, I think we are on much better footing to understand how scripture works together and culminates in Jesus Christ.

Definitely recommend!

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

UPDATE (8.23.22): So I read this book along with a slew of others in preparation for a sermon series on the covenants. My original review (below) was written just after reading it in 2018. After finishing the series in early 2022 I knew I needed to come back here and repent. Every time I looked back to this work, I found it more helpful than many others. I agreed more and more with the authors. I agreed less with others. In the end, I found a whole lot more "Yeah!", very little "meh" and just ignored that bit of "ick." In short, I've progressed.

ORIGINAL REVIEW: A blend of “yeah,” “meh,” and “ick;” but with much more “yeah” than “meh” or “ick,” such that the overall assessment is one of “yeah.” I trust this is clarifying, but if you want it all spelled out, the main “ick” had to do with the use of the term “social justice.” “Meh” is in regards to where I don’t think they give classic covenant theology a fair shake and the “yeah” is for where they do.

[Daniel Ligon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very long read, and dense at times, but it has been profoundly helpful to my understanding of the storyline of the Bible as a whole, especially in the Old Testament. I have long (about 15 years) been dissatisfied with the teachings of classic dispensationalism, yet I have also remained unconvinced of many of the claims of covenant theology. Gentry and Wellum present a middle path, progressive covenantalism. In this view, there are not different dispensations in Scripture, nor is there a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Instead, each of the covenants in the Bible build upon each other, progressively revealing God's plan for His people.

Gentry and Wellum thoroughly exposit large sections of the Old Testament and examine how these passages were interpreted and used in the New Testament. I benefited greatly from thinking through the larger storyline of Scripture as I read.

There is a shorter version of this book, called God's Kingdom Through God's Covenants. Whether you read the longer or the shorter book, I'm sure that you will find this perspective thought-provoking and helpful.

[David Saxon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read. Much of the analysis of OT texts was enlightening, although several discussions delved into detailed rebuttals of opposing viewpoints that were neither helpful nor stimulating. The theological summaries of competing systems were well done and helpful.
Overall, as a dispensationalist I found the handling of the land theme less than convincing. The notion that the Promised Land is simply an OT model for a re-creation motif that starts in the Garden and will consummate in the new heavens and earth is hardly novel. It is a Reformed way to evade the literal fulfillment of specific promises made to a specific people--the Jews. God will certainly re-create the cosmos and provide it as an eternal dwellingplace for all believers; but before He does so, He has promised to restore His chosen people Israel to a specific plot of land, and I believe He will keep that promise, the argument of this book notwithstanding.

[Mark Donald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worked through in 2021.

Incredible resource for thinking through how the whole Bible fits together and how that informs our understanding of each of the parts. Highly recommend and eager to see how these ideas are worked out in different areas of theology.

[Jordan Winsby · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a compelling read on how we should view the covenants of God in His Word. I won't say it's an easy book to get through. I likely would have gotten a lot more out of it if I knew Hebrew. There were times when I questioned who the target audience was when this was written. One minute there's Hebrew words all over the pages and the next they're defining the Septuagint (as if people who can read Hebrew wouldn't know what the Septuagint is, even if it's in Greek).

One definitely gets the impression during the beginning and middle of the book that the authors' position is so nuanced it seems they're the only people in history to have figured this out. Many times there would be quotes of people they either totally disagreed with or partly agreed with. Rarely full agreement. It isn't until you reach the last section that you find out there are people they seem to be on the same page with.

To be honest, much of the contents went over my head. As I said, I don't know Hebrew or even its alphabet. But I'm glad I slogged through it. The parts I did understand made sense, and seem to be a good balanced view between covenant theology and dispensationalism. I think we (myself included) can often gloss over or forget the covenants in the Bible, and that's a shame. It seems to me that we can go a long way in grasping God's Word better if we simply take some time to study the covenants He made with people. We may come to different conclusions, but at least we'd be on the right track. And surprisingly, we often arrive at the same destination despite how we got there. This is how siblings in Christ can disagree and yet still remain siblings nonetheless.

[Derrick Kenyon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Gentry and Wellum convincingly show how the six covenants progressively unfold, are fulfilled in Christ and then applied to the church. Together they set forth a via media between dispensational and covenantal theology. Gentry and Wellum argue that dispensational and covenantal theology are not Christological enough in connecting the Testaments and the covenantal promises, resulting in seeing too much discontinuity (dispy) or continuity (covenant theology). Overall, they make a convincing case for what they call Progressive Covenantalism.

Definitely recommend this book. However, Gentry’s exegesis in part 2 is quite dense so this book is primarily for seminary students, pastors, or scholars. For others interested, I assume that the shorter version God’s kingdom through Gods covenant is easier. Also, Wellum’s articles on Christ over all are a helpful summary of the book.

https://christoverall.com/article/lon...

https://christoverall.com/article/lon...

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot recommend this enough. Gentry and Wellum offer a mediating view between dispensationalism and covenantalism, that at least to my mind, is bang on. Covenant theology, they say, emphasises continuity too much, while dispensational theology emphasises discontinuity too much. They argue that the church is 'ontologically one' through Scripture (emphasising continuity), but 'redemptive-historically different' (emphasising discontinuity), and thus that, through Christ, the church is the eschatological Israel, but is made up of regenerate believers only (these dudes are baptists). This has been sitting on my shelf since 2018 and I'm stoked I've finally been able to get to it. Excellent Jesus-centred, Bible-saturated biblical theology.

[Shelby J Holloway · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really helpful for me for unpacking my view of the covenants and how to interpret Scripture. This book helped answer questions I’ve had about a variety of topics for a while and helped me come to better understand a progressive covenantal view, aka kingdom through covenant, which is where I believe I land theologically. And I still have a lot to learn.

[JR Snow · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Mammoth project of mine that I earmarked 1 whole year for; beginning on August 15, 2022, and ending last night. My goal was to incorporate some of what I read into my 9th grade O.T. Survey classes. This book has been helpful. Most of the book is concerned with looking at the various covenants in their canonical and literary context (part 2) with part 1 spending about 120 pages doing a standard round-up of sorting through various theological systems or variations of covenant theology and dispensationalism. The last sections of the book (summary, theological implications) is also helpful, but I felt like the whole book was supposed to be more about the "theological implications" stuff whereas it was something appended rather than integrated into the whole work.

I know there is an updated edition that interacts some with Covenant theology, but that is a major weakness of this book–lack of critical engagement with opposing views. From my viewpoint, Covenant theology is really the most credible alternative to Gentry and Wellum's view, and needs to be interacted with at the biblical-theological level, which they don't really do. For example, there is a long and helpful exegesis of Jeremiah 31 from the Progressive Covenantalist view, with hardly any interaction with Covenant theology on those same points.


I solid work that moves the needle forward in terms of Biblical-theological scholarship, if a bit uneven. I would love to get ahold of the revised edition that interacts with other positions more.

P.S.: Some reviewers are complaining about mentions of "social justice" in the book, which I think is confusing but ultimately not an issue–They seem to squarely define it as Isaiah does–justice in human relationships, i.e. not defrauding ones neighbor, not oppressing them, not stealing from them, etc. What Gentry/Wellum do NOT seam to mean by "social justice" is a different kind of justice (group justice based on race, gender, past oppression) that plagues the hippie progressive wing of Big Eva these days. They probably could have pointed out that they simply mean actual biblical justice in the realm of human relationships, rather than a different definition of justice, but there you are.

[Andrew Krom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Best book I have read this year. Wellum and Gentry show their readers an in-depth analysis of how there is a via media between dispensational and covenant theology. The progression through the covenants is an essential hermeneutical tool to understand for anyone trying to read and apply the Bible (especially the OT). The exegetical sections in the middle of the book were detailed and scholarly. I was most helped by Part 1 and Part 3 and all of the more "practical" advice that was offered. This is a book that I will continue to reference and study in the future. Time to read Wellum's ST Volume 1!

[Mark Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book and found it thrilling to read. As I have wrestled through the classic biblical systems of "covenant theology" and "dispensationalism" I have never been satisfied with the way either system deals with all the biblical material on the covenants. I found that this book shared my frustration and offered a robustly biblical and compelling "middle way" between these two systems. I would strongly recommend this book, especially to Calvinistic Baptists, many of whom are wandering in the wilderness between the theological influences of John Murray and John Darby.

The only dissapointment I had with the book is that I found some of the exegetical work in the heart of the book didn't always have relevance to the discussion on the covenants. Now, I can appreciate that this work is still important - I am glad the authors wrote an abridged version that summarized a bit more of that work - and unless you have time and training to pour over their exegetical study, I would recommend an abreviated version. On the other hand, there were a few questions that I thought really could and should have been adressed a little more; namely, the question of Jesus' "active" obedience - the discussion was great but never go to what I think is the heart of the debate - did Jesus "obey" the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant or did He usher in a new ethical code in his very life and ministry? Likewise, I think it would have been helpful for us to know a little bit more about how the authors understand the nature of the Kingdom of God as it relates to the church - it is spiritual? Geopolitical? Maybe an excursis on their view of the millenium would clarify some of that (taking either a more "spiritual" view of the rule of Christ as in amillenialism or a more geopolitical understanding as in pre or post millenialism). The only other part of the book I am still undecided on is whether the strong distinction between "establishing" and "cutting" a covenant is really all that meaningful or significant - the authors make a really big deal out of delineating the different uses of these Hebrew verbs and they rest a lot of their work on it....but my suspicion is that they are pressing the language a little too hard, and a little too far. But I still appreciate the great work they have put into trying to sort out the difference between when a covenant is "cut" or created and when it is "established" or upheld in subsequent narratives (and it really is a TON of lexical work they have done here).

Altogether, I give this book 5 out of 5 stars. It is right where I am at theologically. I am so pleased to see subsequent works that they have produced and I love what is coming out of Southern Seminary with all these writers thinking along the same lines in the way they "put the Bible together" - Tom Schreiner, James Hamilton, etc. This book deserves wide readership, especially by Baptistic seminarys and colleges.

[William Dicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a phenominal book!

Gentry did a stellar job in applying Biblical Theology principles to the concept of covenants in the Bible in chapters 4-15. Here the gargantuan job of scouring the Scriptures with regards to the covenants and related data is presented in great detail.

Wellum wrote the introductory chapters and then applied Systematic Theology principles to Gentry's data to write the Systematic Theology formulated chapters 16-17.

For those who don't want to work through Gentry's chapters and all its technical data can go straight to Wellum's chapters.

In fact, the book is worth it even if you do only read Wellum's chapters. However, if you want to know how Wellum came to his conclusions, then Gentry's chapters are essential.

Apart from a few questions I have, all in all it is an excellent book!

[Steve Stanley · Rating 5 out of 5]

6 stars. Brilliant. More (and better) clarification than the first edition.

What's revised and new in the second edition can be found here: https://www.crossway.org/articles/wha...

Is the second edition worth getting? See this short review here: http://wyattgraham.com/review-of-king...

Gentry updated his research; Wellum completely revised his parts, added chapters, and came out swinging.

Interview here:
https://soundcloud.com/christisthecur...

[Collin Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a doozy. So much rich theological truth. There are a few sections that will go over your head if you are like me and don’t have a working knowledge (or any knowledge) of Hebrew. Other than that, this is by far the best theological book I have ever read

[Mitchell Traver · Rating 3 out of 5]

All in all, I’ve read Gentry and Wellum’s proposal 2.5x. The first time, I was doing research for a seminary paper, contrasting covenantal views on baptism, and picked through certain portions. Recently, I chose to read (twice over) Kingdom Through Covenant in full and then offer a critique from the viewpoint of Reformed covenant theology. Suffice it to say, the book has become very familiar to me, and upon reflection, I’d like to offer to distinct takeaways regarding Kingdom Through Covenant. The first will be what I think is the strength of the book, and the latter, the notable weakness.

First and foremost, Gentry and Wellum’s work is a model of Christ-centered scholarship. More precisely, they operate with a very high view of Scripture as the inerrant and infallible Word of God and their aim is very clearly to magnify Christ to the highest possible degree. Simply for the sake of witnessing what exegetical rigor and devotion to Christ through scholarship looks like, Kingdom Through Covenant is an edifying read worth the time for anyone seriously interested in learning more about Scripture’s covenantal framework. Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum love Jesus, and it’s very, very obvious throughout the entire book. I was encouraged at many points.

However, there were a number of things which arose in reading KTC that carry quite a bit of significance. For me, the greatest can be articulated in the form of a question: What about the kids? In a behemoth of a book checking in at a smidge under 1,000 pages, there was not—and this is no exaggeration—there was not *one sentence* devoted to articulating where children DO BELONG in the new covenant. Gentry and Wellum were very clear in conveying where kids of Christian parents supposedly don’t belong (I.e., baptism), but there wasn’t even a single sentence in the 900 or so pages which clarified the place of children in the new covenant. In fact, Gentry and Wellum went so far as to say that the “self identity” of those in the old covenant was that of “children” while the new covenant self-identity belongs to “mature adults.” In other words, Christianity is a faith for adults! I recognize how uncharitable this summary sounds at this point, but I’d ask the reader to remember the extent I went to in order to read Gentry and Wellum as well as I could. With such a substantial statement, it really mystifies me how no articulation, at all, was given for what to do with kids until they reach “mature adulthood.” Or how kids relate to Jesus. Or how Christian parents should regard their kids. Especially concerning were the pastoral implications here. Even if one were to argue that the book was a scholarly work devoted to articulating the covenantal superstructure of Scripture, one still has to ask—can it really be true that the new covenant has nothing to do with children other than saying they shouldn’t be baptized?

In the end (as is probably more than clear by now), Gentry and Wellum’s work affirmed my love for covenant theology in the historically Reformed tune. My encouragement to Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, along with my brothers and sisters who do find their proposal more compelling than I do, is to cultivate a deep and rich vision for the place of children in the new covenant/new covenant community. It does not seem a stretch to me to suggest that our Lord who rebuked his disciples from hindering the children from coming to him might just demand the same disposition from us as well, no matter our exegetical rigor or evangelical zeal.

It’s a 4 star book in effort and intent, and a 2.5 star book in terms of ecclesial application and consistent exegesis (Jeremiah was particularly strange, in my opinion). Thus, a 3-star book that’s both edifying and yet unsatisfying. I learned much from Gentry and Wellum and ultimately am grateful for their labors in the Lord.

[Josiah Schrodt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

Wellum begins the book by discussing the role of covenants in dispensationalism and covenant theology and examines the underlying hermeneutical issues in each system. The authors introduce a via media, or middle way, between the two biblical-theological systems, namely, progressive covenantalism, or, Kingdom Through Covenant.

Gentry writes the second section of book and provides a thorough exposition of the biblical covenants, beginning with creation and Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and finally, the new covenant. Gentry delves deeply into Hebrew grammar and syntax, does justice to immediate historical-grammatical context, and interprets each passage of the unfolding metanarrative of Scripture in light of its preceding and then following covenantal, epochal, and canonical contexts.

Wellum concludes the book by summarizing from Scripture the authors’ understanding of “Kingdom Through Covenant,” expounding how in Jesus and in his mediating a new and better covenant all the biblical covenants find telos and fulfillment, and further, how the church participates in the Messiah’s secured blessings. Wellum discusses how an understanding of God’s kingdom progressively revealed through covenant contributes to proper understanding of Christology, the Christian life, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

The authors understand the biblical-historical covenants as forming the backbone of Scripture as God’s kingdom is progressively revealed and Christ is the center, climax, and fulfillment of all God’s dealings with his creation. He is the last Adam, the true seed of Abraham through whom all the nations are blessed, the faithful and true Israel, the greater son of David, the one in whom all God’s promises are “Yes and Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:20).

[J. Machen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wellum and Gentry provide both an outstanding introduction to Biblical Theology and Biblical-theological systems, as well as providing a profoundly biblical via media between the two reigning Biblical-theological systems of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. At 716 pages (before appendix and indices)"Kingdom Through Covenant" proves to be a weighty volume, but it is a tremendous resource. I highly recommend this book for those who are interested in Biblical theology, Systematic theology, hermeneutics (so pretty much everyone). Whether you consciously hold to a biblical-theological system or not at the very least this book will challenge your current understanding of the overarching plot structure/meta-narrative that binds the canon of Scripture together. If you currently hold to a baptist ecclesiology and view of the sacraments this book will go beyond proof-texting in helping you understand why you believe what you believe and why covenant theologians disagree

The conclusion that the authors reach is that the overarching meta-narrative of Scripture is the covenants found throughout Scripture (specifically Creation, Noachian, Abrahamic, Israelite [sometimes called the Mosaic or Old covenant], Davidic, and the New Covenant)that progressively work towards the New Covenant and bring about God's Kingdom. Part one of the book provides a helpful discussion on what exactly Biblical Theology is, what Dispensational and Covenant theologies are, and discusses both the presuppositions of the authors and their hermeneutical approach to Scripture. The middle section of the book (458 pages, 129-587) is an exegetical examination of all these covenants found in Scripture across three horizons: the covenants in their historical/grammatical context (the textual horizon); the covenants in their epochal horizon, that is, where they are in redemptive-history or where they are in terms of God's unfolding plan; and the covenants in the canonical horizon, that is the covenants in relation to the entire canon (92-99). This exegesis, while thick and containing some technical discussion, is tremendous and provides sound exegetical conclusions along with a wealth of historical cultural insights.
In the last part of the book, part 3, the authors summarize the middle chapters and outline how all the covenants interlace and provide their understanding of Kingdom through covenant. They also briefly delve into theological implications of their biblical-theological system: including, but not exhausting; particular redemption (limited atonement), credo-baptism(contra paedobaptism), the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant typologically being fulfilled in the new creation that will come to a crescendo at Christ's second coming(contra Dispensational Premillenialism and the future land fulfilment with ethnic Israel), and regenerate covenant community (contra Covenant theology's mixed community).

Some reviews I have read have debated whether arriving at a via media was the authors interpretive grid with which they came to Scripture, or if their conclusion of Kingdom through Covenant was an exegetically derived conclusion (see here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold...). The impression I got throughout the book was of the latter, it would seem that in their exegetical investigation of Scripture that they came to their conclusion of Kingdom through Covenant and presented it as a via media between the two reigning systems (e.g. see page 684).

Another review seemed to miss the point of their conclusion on a mixed church (see here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold...). Because of their exegetically derived model of Kingdom through Covenant and their resulting understanding of the discontinuity between the Old Testament covenants(specifically the Abrahamic and the Israelite) and the New Covenants, Wellum and Gentry throw away Covenant Theology's visible invisible distinction of the Church. They believe that the New Covenant community is not a continuation of the Israelite covenant community where parents and children entered the covenant at birth through the rite of circumcision and the actual community of Israel contained believers (e.g. David) and unbelievers (e.g. Manasseh). Based off of texts like Jeremiah 31 (and others, see page 686-688 for a summary)they conclude that the New Covenant community is not a mixed body but only contains those who are regenerate, true believers who are initiated into the community through the rite of Baptism proceeding a profession of faith (credo-baptism)(this provides a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, one of the reasons why the New Covenant is new). Unlike how the above review portrays their conclusion, the authors explain that a visible invisible distinction does exist within the Church--just not how covenant theology explains it. The covenant community is made up of regenerate believers, but the local church will contain those who are truly part of the covenant community (who have put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour) and those who make a profession of faith but who were never truly saved and therefore never were part of the covenant community. This is what is described in the parable of the wheat and the tares, with discussion of those who apostatize, and the parable of the dragnet.

[Cristian Castro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parts 1 and 2 are absoultely glorious. This massive 1000 page book is a wonderful explanation of biblical theology. Gentry explains both dispensational theology and covenant theology in clear and succint ways but then delivers a clear and superior third way—Progressive Covenantalism. If you're lost in of all the "-isms", this will only delve deeper, but it's worth it it to know how to read Jesus in all of the Bible.

Part 2, which is probably 75% of the book was way too academic for me with hebrew grammar thingys meant for the smart folk. But even so, the first and last parts were so good I didn't even care.

I think Gentry has a shorter more accesible version simply called "Progressive Covenantalism" which would probably get the job done in a 1/3 amount of the space.

[Michael Stilley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick reading for the internship. What a fantastic resource!

[Matt Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would actually give this book 4.5 stars if I could. The main reason I feel the need to mark it down is because of Part 2. Dr. Gentry uses so many block quotes, many of them are more than a page in length. I recognize that this is meant to be a scholarly work, so it is not the technicality that bothered me. Rather, I think it could have been better if some of these quotes were simply summarized. Furthermore, there were portions that did not really contribute to the overall argument.

With that said, this book is excellent. It really is a must read for those who want (and need!) a solid understanding of how the biblical storyline is put together. Perhaps I am biased, but Gentry and Wellum's scheme does seem to arise more naturally out of the text than the traditional dispensational and covenant theology approaches. This book calls out both of those systems for failing to fully understand the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants as they are fulfilled in Christ. Primarily, they call out dispensationalists for their failure to see the land as a type pointing forward to the New Heavens and New Earth, which all believers will inherit. And they call out Covenant theologians for their failure to see how the mixed nature of the community undergoes change as a result of coming of Christ, the true seed of Abraham. For that reason, it has been (and will continue to be) attacked by both sides. I hope that these attacks do not scare people away from reading it. The Progressive Covenantalism view that Gentry and Wellum hold to is a view to be reckoned with. I look forward to the books and articles that will come out by theologians and biblical scholars who agree with Gentry and Wellum's view, and who will show how other passages should be read in light of their salvation-historical approach and how their view contributes to systematic theology.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 4 out of 5]

2021 reads: #45
Rating: 4 Stars

This surely will be the definitive text for Progressive Covenantalism for years to come. There is much to appreciate in this book and it is difficult to rate.

Gentry and Wellum attempt to construct a middle road between dispensationalism and covenantalism and they present their case in some detail. Two of its major contributions is to show how the biblical covenants find their fulfilment in Christ, and how certain discontinuities are important to understanding the people of God under the New Covenant.

The exegesis and the theological synthesis are excellent, even if I am not persuaded on all the affirmations the authors make, especially regarding the nature of inaugurated eschatology. I also think that Progressive Dispensationalism does a better job of articulating how the various administrations in Scripture interlocks with the progression in the covenants. Any book of this magnitude, the case it makes and the hermeneutical approach it lays out will be judged not on how it deals with its control texts, but rather on how it deals with texts that at face-value do not align to the expectations generated by the case being laid out. Here I think further clarification and refinement is necessary. Still there is much to learn from Gentry and Wellum, and it is impossible to walk away from this without being challenged at various junctures. I was often driven to devotion as I saw the coherence of the Scriptures demonstrated and Christ's perfection as the ultimate covenant partner elevated.

I likely would have rated this a 4.5/5, even though I have some differences with the authors. Ultimately I am marking it down further because of the repetition. This could perhaps be addressed in future editions.

Still a valuable text for the church, especially those within Baptistic circles.

[Brian Pate · Rating 5 out of 5]

I need to read this book every year.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm thankful for men like Gentry and Wellum. This book made me see and worship Jesus more than before.

[Ben Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can't get enough Wellum

[Mathew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Middle Way

Gentry & Wellum are seeking a middle way between covenant theology and dispensational theology. As a covenant theology loving Christian I found their critiques even-handed and thoughtful. Anyone interested in developing a theology that fits within the big picture narrative of Scripture would benefit from Kingdom through Covenant.

They first define biblical theology as

concerned with the overall message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole. As an exegetical method, it is sensitive to literary, historical, and theological dimensions of various corpora, as well as to the interrelationships between earlier and later texts in Scripture. Furthermore, biblical theology is interested not merely in words and word studies but also in concepts and themes as it traces out the Bible’s own story line, on the Bible’s own terms, as the plot line reaches its culmination in Christ. (33)



After establishing the ground rules for their hermeneutical method, they offer a history of both dispensational theology and covenant theology. If you are interested in the history of these interpretations as well as the finer points these chapters are gold. It provides a concise survey and accurate comparison of both systems.

Gentry & Wellum boil down the major difference between the two systems to “the Israel-church distinction” (42). They also argue that each system has made the same error but in different ways. They both understand the covenants of the Old Testament as either conditional or unconditional. The dispensationalist, they argue, understand the land promises as unconditional, whereas the covenant theologians understand the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant as unconditional (fusing the Abrahamic covenant with the idea of the covenant of grace). They see both of these proposals as incorrect and later argue for their middle way.

Part 1 concludes with a discussion of the finer points of their exegetical method. They say,

As we think through the biblical covenants, since God has not disclosed himself in one exhaustive act but progressively, we must carefully think through every biblical covenant first in its own redemptive-historical context, then ask what has preceded that covenant, and then relate that particular covenant to that which comes after it and how it relates to the inauguration of the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ. (92)


They describe this as the three horizons: textual, epochal, and canonical. In discussing this method, they spend a significant amount of space defending biblical typology by distinguishing it from allegory.

While the type has significance for its own time, its greater significance is directed toward the future; it testifies to something greater than itself that is still to come. But the future antitype will surely come, not only because God completely knows that it will, according to his eternal plan, but also because God sovereignly and providentially will guarantee that the prophetic fulfillment of the original type will occur in Christ. (104)



Heavy Lifting in the Covenants

Part 2 is an extended exegetical discussion of the major biblical covenants. This section is where the heavy lifting really happens. While finding some of the discussion challenging (I’ve never studied Hebrew), I also recognized an approachability in the way even the most difficult passages were examined. They not only argued positively for their position but they also interacted with the opposing positions and counterpointed many of the major concerns. They were not afraid to draw out exegetical possibilities that didn’t strengthen their own position. This holistic approach allowed them to fairly expound each passage of Scripture

The discussions surrounding the covenant of creation and the Noahic covenant, the new covenant as revealed in Daniel, and the life in the new covenant discussion in Ephesians 4:15 were the most thought provoking and encouraging for me.

First, a challenge I have faced when discussing covenant theology with skeptics is the starting point--the covenant of works/creation. The major argument I’ve encountered is the lack of the word covenant within the first three chapters of Genesis. Gentry & Wellum argue convincingly from the text that the major components of a covenant are present. They also look at the linguistic data behind cutting a covenant and upholding a covenant. They argue from Genesis 6 & 9,

Therefore the construction heqim berit [sorry for the missing accent markers] in Genesis 6 and 9 indicates that God is not initiating a covenant with Noah but rather is upholding for Noah and his descendants a commitment initiated previously. This language clearly indicates a covenant established earlier between God and creation or God and humans at creation. When God says that he confirming or upholding his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment to his creation, the care of the creator to preserve, provide for, and rule over all that he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he initiated through and with Adam and Eve and their family, are now to be with Noah and his descendants. (156)

They also look at other passages which describe what God established with Adam in the beginning in contrast with the upholding of that covenant. They discuss this covenant within their three horizons (textual, epochal, and canonical) demonstrating that talking of a covenant in creation is not a fabricated reformed blindspot but is a Biblical, exegetical, and historically sound interpretation of what takes place in Genesis 1-3.

Second, the chapter on the new covenant in Daniel is masterful. Daniel more than any other book intimidates me. Mainly the second half of the book. There seems to be so much going on and so many allusions and prophecy--it’s hard to wrap your head around. At least for me. Now don’t get me wrong the discussion surrounding Daniel was intense and challenging but I walked away feeling like I have a much better grasp on the book then I did before and it’s made my understanding of the entire story of Scripture richer and more satisfying.

The discussion in Daniel begins with a bird’s eye view of the entire book examining the literary structure, emphases, & unity. They say,

[T]he first half of the book establishes and proves that Daniel has a gift of interpreting dreams and visions of events which could be independently verified by Daniel’s contemporaries. Therefore, we must believe and trust the interpretation of the visions in the second half of the book, which deal with the distant future and hence were not open to verification by the audience of Daniel’s time. (533)

They look at the major lexical and syntactic issues of the second half of the book. They unpack the importance for dividing the seventy weeks. They also argue that the “Anointed One” and “Leader” in 9:25-26 (see pp. 541-543) are the same. They argue for a physical return to the land in the first seven weeks and a time where a spiritual restoration would take place as a key component in understanding the 7 and 62 weeks as “the ultimate jubilee” (544).

Thus the real return from exile, a return including the forgiveness of sins, renewal of the covenant, and consecration of the temple, will not take just seventy years, but rather seventy “sevens,” i.e., a much longer time. This fundamental point of the vision has unfortunately escaped the attention of proponents of both dispensational and nondispensational treatments in the last hundred years. (541)

They also argue for Ezra’s return commissioned by Artaxerxes as the beginning of the seventy weeks and note it also starts “a sabbatical cycle” (547).

I mentioned earlier that in the midst of all the technical discussion they had a way of making the discussion approaching and this is exemplified best in the discussion of Daniel. There was a lot of linguistic and technical work being argued for to establish for their position. Some of the Hebrew was above my pay grade but I never felt lost and easily followed the train of thought. I could see this chapter being extremely helpful for pastors looking to springboard into a sermon series on Daniel.

Finally, they ended part 2’s discussion of the covenants with an examination of Ephesians and especially the phrase speaking the truth in love (4:15). I found this discussion particularly compelling because today it’s fashionable to contrast Christian piety (good old fashioned holiness if you’d like) with missional living. The priority is given to social justice (feeding the poor, taking care of orphans, etc). Some of this can be seen in this recent video.

They argue that Ephesians 4:25-5:5 Paul is arguing for a new Christian ethic established by the new covenant. Speaking the truth in love is paramount for this. In fact, “speaking the truth in love is both at the heart of the new covenant stipulations and is also a short summary of them” (571). It’s noteworthy that Paul argues that people who speaking crudely, live lasciviously, and generally disregard this new covenant holiness have “no inheritance in the kingdom of Chist and God” (Ephesians 5:5).

They then unify the false dichotomy between holiness and social justice--as if caring about reading your Bible and speaking wholesomely and taking care of the poor are mutually exclusive. They trace the meaning of the concept speaking the truth in love back through the Old Testament arguing that it’s connected with the concept social justice. They say,

Earlier a question was raised: “What do I say to a person who claims to know Christ but is following a lifestyle that entails sexual immorality as defined by Christ and the apostles?” What does speaking truth in love mean in such situations? According to a biblical-theological understanding of Ephesians 4-6, such a lifestyle is not only morally wrong, it is a form of social injustice and leads to being less than fully human. We must address violations of the covenant requirements not simply as offenses against God but as a destructive path that constitutes social injustice and inhuman behavior. This must be part and parcel of both our speech and our actions in the covenant community.

And it is only this humanity that will survive divine judgement and enter the new heavens and the new earth. Do we treat each other with faithful loyal love? We must obey these instructions, because only in this way can we attain social justice, and only in this way can we become truly human. any other path will lead us to lose what it means to be truly human (586-87).

So a lack of holiness is social injustice which will work itself out in the way we treat others. There is no such person than who is so concerned with this new covenant ethic that is also not fulfilling his duty to his covenant community. The two are inseparable.

What is Kingdom through Covenant?

After all the groundwork and exegesis, the book closes with a discussion on the implications of this middle way. Foundationally, they argue that “it is through the biblical covenants that God’s kingdom comes to this word centered in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ” (591). They are viewing the development of the covenants (the s is also an important distinction they make from covenant theology) diachronastically

Yet, contrary to “covenant theology,” which has the tendency to speak of God’s one plan of salvation in terms of the “covenant of grace,” or “dispensational theology,” which tends to partition history in terms of dispensations, it is more accurate to think in terms of a plurality of covenants (e.g., Gal. 4:24; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:7-13), which are part of the progressive revelation of the one plan of God that is fulfilled in the new covenant. This allows us to speak properly of the continuity of God’s plan across the ages now culminated in the new covenant, and it also helps us avoid flattening the relationship between the biblical covenants and downplaying the signficant amount of progression between them. This, in turn, allows us to see specific covenantal discontinuities in God’s unfolding plan which has import for a variety of theological issues. (602)


Three of the major practical implications which I found helpful in the final section include the discussion of baptism, particular redemption, & the land promises.

First, it’s clear that part of the major difference between this new covenant theology and classical covenant theology is the understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of grace. Gentry and Wellum argue that there is both conditional and unconditional imports to the Abrahamic covenant. And that the new covenant made with Christ is unique and distinct from the old covenant. So while they can speak of one people of God, they also call out the church as a new people of God. This understanding (seeing the continuity and discontinuity) provides the basis for rejecting padeobaptism. For in the new covenant, they argue, Jeremiah 31 says that all those who are under the new covenant have experienced the work of the Spirit in their heart. I could say more but you should really buy the book.

Second, they offer a robust defense of particular redemption. Within the wider development of their kingdom through covenant, their argument for particular redemption is nearly an impenetrable fort. They again place the unique work of redemption by Christ in the framework of the new covenant. If we argue that the new covenant is different from the old covenant primarily because the new covenant is not mixed and as Jeremiah 31 says all those under the new covenant will experience a greater working of the Holy Spirit than the question must asked: for who is Christ representing under the new covenant?

If the answer is everyone without distinction than we do not have much of a new covenant. This lackluster covenant then also speaks to the success of Christ’s high priestly work. The work of the high priest was always only for the covenant people. In the new covenant Hebrews emphasis repeatedly that the new covenant is better in its efficiencies and application. However, this cannot be the case under a general redemption.

Finally, they tackle the land promises and trace the idea of land and rest through out the whole story of Scripture. They firmly plan the promised land as on the shoulders of the first rest offered to Adam and final rest and its fulfillment in Christ in the new creation. They say,

In this final vision, as the curtains close, we now see what the eschatological goal of God’s creation was in the first place. Eden as the temple sanctuary now reaches its telos in the new creation. The land, which functioned as a type of this greater reality, now reaches its terminus. And the covenant relationship which God created us for in the first place is now realized in its fullness as we enjoy the presence of our great and glorious triune covenant God, and serve him in worship, adoration, devotion, and obedience forevermore. (716)


Balanced, Scholarly, and Approachable

I enjoyed reading Kingdom through Covenant immensely. It again was refreshingly balanced and biblical. I cannot recall a place where their arguments were not tethered to the Bible even when I may have disagreed with their conclusions. You cannot ask for much from any book. I already mentioned the benefit for the chapter on the new covenant and Daniel but the entire work would be a huge help for pastors interested in preaching through the Old Testament. Also, the flow of thought and arrangement could nicely translate into a more advanced discipleship track or sunday school of sorts for unpacking the covenant and the narrative of all of Scripture. There is so much rich information that could easily be translated into meat for a lay person.

Practically Kingdom through Covenant’s thrust is more covenant than dispensational. And it’s more Baptistic in its understanding and hermeneutical underpinnings. What they have provided is a magisterial biblical theology that reformed Baptists can grab on to and call their own.

Kingdom through Covenant is the kind of book you must read with your eyes opened and fully engaged. Especially if you do not have a background in theology, the reading will be strenuous but I found the same joy finishing this book as I do after a long hike to the top of a mountain. Therefore, do not let the size of this book intimidate you. The benefit will far out weigh the hard work you put in to reading it.

[Drake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many Christians, myself included, find themselves stuck between two competing theological systems used to interpret the Bible's over-arching story: dispensationalism on the one hand, and covenant theology on the other. The reason I say "stuck" is that those of us in this murky middle area don't find either system completely convincing; yet over the course of the previous century, there has not been any third option presented that has proved to be a real contender with these two long-established systems. But in this monumental work, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum attempt to provide just that: a fleshed-out theological system that serves as a "middle way" between dispensationalism and covenant theology, which they've termed "progressive covenantalism." The result is a massive yet fascinating exploration of the unfolding of the covenants of Scripture that is both theologically rich and exegetically compelling.

Pros:
1. The authors make an excellent case for their main thesis: that the key to understanding the storyline of Scripture is to understand the nature and role of each biblical covenant, how they relate to one another, and how they find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Thus, each chapter addressing a biblical covenant will look at the covenant in (1) its immediate context, (2) the context of what covenants have come before it, and (3) passages of Scripture that refer back to that covenant and explain its fulfillment. The emphasis of the book is on progressive revelation - i.e., how God's plan becomes clearer and more fully explained as the Bible's storyline unfolds. This understanding and application of progressive revelation is something that, as the authors rightly note, is missing in certain areas of dispensational and covenantal theology, particularly in regards to the land promises made to Israel (dispensationalism) and the "genealogical principle" applying the sign of the covenant to infants (covenant theology). By establishing the principle of progressive revelation, the authors allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, thus providing a strong hermeneutical foundation for their theological system.

2. The book showcases an understanding of both minute exegetical discussions and big-picture theological issues. This is largely due to the pedigrees of the two authors: Peter Gentry is an Old Testament scholar (and thus specializes in biblical theology), while Stephen Wellum is a systematic theologian. Wellum is thus primarily responsible for the opening and concluding chapters of the book: the former explaining the current theological systems in place (i.e. dispensationalism and covenant theology), the overall theological vision of the book, and the hermeneutical principles underlying the exegetical sections; the latter summing up the main theological conclusions of progressive covenantalism and the areas of systematic theology (e.g. Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology) that are affected by these conclusions. The bulk of the book, however, belongs to Gentry, as the massive middle section is comprised of chapters that examine the biblical covenants in (sometimes painstaking) detail and provides the exegetical basis for their theological system. This mix of tight exegesis and theological integration provides a wonderful example of how the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology can inform and strengthen one another in extremely edifying ways.

3. The authors interact with other scholars extensively throughout the book, both those with whom they agree and those with whom they disagree. They often quote other scholars at length, allowing them to explain their arguments in their own words. I sometimes would read these sections and assume that the authors agreed with the scholar they were quoting simply because of how extensive the quotes were, only to be surprised at the end of these sections to find that the authors actually took issue with that scholar's view and proceeded to argue against it. I personally was grateful for this, as it allowed me to see fairly fleshed-out arguments from both sides and to come to my own conclusions on those particular issues.

4. The authors exhibit a Christ-like attitude throughout the book, exhibiting a tremendous amount of humility and patience towards those they cite who hold views different than their own. They are quick to give credit where it is due, often quoting both dispensationalists and covenant theologians whose insights into the text they themselves have profited from. It is also evident that they are not seeking to create controversy or divide Christians through this book; rather, their stated goal throughout the book is to bring glory to God by helping Christians from all sides better understand the biblical covenants and thus the whole storyline of Scripture. That is an admirable goal indeed.

Cons:
1. The most glaring problem of the book is that it lacks any substantial interaction and exegesis of key New Testament passages that bear directly on the fulfillment of the covenants. To be sure, they do cite these passages (such as Romans 11, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 3), but they don't demonstrate the same detailed discussions of exegetical issues surrounding these texts as they do the Old Testament passages describing the covenants. Wellum has responded to this critique by saying that they simply didn't have enough space to give to the New Testament; however, as I'll explain below, I believe they could have had far more room for these discussions if they were given priority over less crucial discussions that made it into the book.

2. The book has a tendency to deviate from its main focus, often engaging in extensive exegetical discussions that don't seem to have a direct bearing on the subject at hand. These discussions are often fascinating in and of themselves (e.g. their discussion of the first commandment in Exodus 20), but they felt more like rabbit trails than helpful contributions. As enjoyable and interesting as they were to read, it is difficult to understand why entire chapters were given to the seventieth week in Daniel 9 and the code of conduct in Ephesians 4-5.

3. The final chapters of the book, though at times extremely helpful, are often unnecessarily repetitive. Every time a new section or new area of theology was introduced, Wellum would go through and repeat the entire covenantal storyline that the authors have already spent hundreds of pages explaining and summarizing. This redundancy made these chapters feel more tedious than they should have been, and more space could have been given to the actual theological issues being discussed (e.g. ecclesiology and eschatology).

Overall, the book is definitely worth the time and effort to work through. It provides a satisfying alternative to both dispensationalism and covenant theology that is more faithfully rooted in the biblical text itself. While the book is incomplete in some important ways, and not all of my questions have been answered by it, it has provided me with a helpful theological framework to continue further studies in this area.