What is Progressive Covenantalism?
Stephen J. Wellum
Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.
In summary form, this is the view of progressive covenantalism. On gospel issues, although there is more agreement than disagreement with covenant and dispensational theology, progressive covenantalism insists that at the center of God’s plans and purposes is Christ Jesus. In him, all of God’s promises are “yes and Amen” (2 Cor 1:20), and by grace, we, as the church, are the beneficiaries of his glorious, triumphant work.
Introduction
All Christians agree that covenants are fundamental to the Bible’s story and that God’s eternal plan unfolds over time reaching its fulfillment in Christ. Furthermore, all Christians accept some form of epochs or dispensations across redemptive-history demarcated by the covenants, and that the fulfillment of God’s saving purposes in Christ has resulted in change or discontinuity from past eras. However, Christians disagree on the exact relationships between the covenants. This is not a new debate. In the early church, the apostles wrestled with the implications of Christ’s new covenant work (see Acts 10-11, 15; Gal 3-4; Eph 2:11-22). Today, Christians still disagree on the newness of what Christ has achieved, especially regarding the larger Israel-Church relationship, along with the specific ongoing application of the OT to the church.
Within evangelical theology, people tend to think about these issues within the larger views of covenant or dispensational theology. Progressive covenantalism serves as a mediating view. I will outline the view in four steps: (1) describe some of its distinctive points; (2) sketch some of its hermeneutical assumptions; (3) summarize its view of the progression of the covenants; and (4) encapsulate its view of how the covenants are fulfilled in Christ, thus highlighting how progressive covenantalism thinks of continuity and discontinuity across the biblical covenants.[1]
Distinctive Points
Progressive covenantalism argues that the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal God’s one redemptive plan for his one people which reaches its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. Each biblical covenant contributes to God’s unified plan, and to know the entire plan, we must understand each covenant in its own biblical context by locating that covenant in relation to what precedes and follows it. By the progression of the covenants, we come to know God’s plan, how all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ (Heb 1:1-3; compare Eph 1:9-10), and how we are to live as God’s new covenant people.
Progressive covenantalism contends that the covenants are more than a unifying theme of Scripture; instead they serve as the backbone to Scripture’s story similar to covenant theology. But unlike covenant theology, the covenants are not subsumed under the bicovenantal structure of “the covenant of works” and “the covenant of grace.” Rather, God’s one plan unfolds through a plurality of covenants, first starting with Adam and creation and culminating in Christ. The creation covenant lays the foundation that continues in all the covenants and is fulfilled in Christ. God’s plan, then, moves from creation in Adam to consummation in Christ.
Concerning the Israel-church relationship, two points are stressed. First, God has one people, yet there is an Israel-church distinction due to their respective covenants. The church is new in history since she is the new covenant community. Second, we must think of the Israel-church relationship Christologically. The church is not directly the “new Israel” or her replacement. Rather, in Christ, the church is God’s new creation, comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, because Jesus is the last Adam and true Israel, the faithful seed of Abraham who inherits the promises by his work. Thus, in union with Christ, the church is God’s new covenant people in continuity with the elect in all ages, but different from Israel in its nature and structure.
This way of viewing Israel-Christ-Church differs from dispensational and covenant theology. First, pace dispensationalism, Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Israel and Adam and in him, all of God’s promises are fulfilled for the church, including the land promise realized in the new creation (Rom 4:13; Eph 6:3; Heb 11:10, 16; compare Matt 5:5). Second, pace covenant theology, Jesus’s new covenant people are different from Israel. Under the old covenant, Israel, by its very nature was a mixed community of believers and unbelievers (Rom 9:6). The church, however, is constituted by people who are united to Christ by faith, which minimally includes heart circumcision, the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of the Spirit. In contrast to Israel, the church is constituted as a believing, regenerate people. This is why the sign of the new covenant is only applied to those who profess faith, and why circumcision and baptism do not signify the same realities due to their respective covenantal differences.
Hermeneutical Assumptions
How does progressive covenantalism interpret biblical texts and draw theological conclusions? Questions on hermeneutics are not new or easy to answer. In theological debates, adjudication between views is often complicated since theological positions involve more than appealing to one or two texts, thus, the reason why it is important to state how one interprets and applies Scripture. Three points summarize my overall hermeneutical approach.
1. Scripture is interpreted according to its own claim to be God’s Word written through the agency of human authors over time.
My purpose is not to defend this claim. Instead, I simply state two hermeneutical implications that follow. First, since Scripture is God’s Word, despite its diversity, we expect that Scripture is unifiedand coherent. As applied to the covenants, this means that the covenants are not isolated from each other; instead, they together unfold God’s one plan centered in Christ (Eph 1:9-10).
Second, since Scripture is God’s Word through human authors, we discover God’s intent through the writing(s) of the human authors by grammatical/literary-historical exegesis. But given the diversity of authors, a canonical reading is necessary to discover God’s ultimate intent. This method entails that the NT’s interpretation of the OT is definitive because later texts give greater clarity and understanding. The NT shows us how the OT is fulfilled in Christ. NT authors may expand the OT author’s meaning in the sense of seeing new implications and applications. But later texts do not contravene the meaning of the earlier texts; they only develop them in ways consistent with God’s unfolding revelation in the OT.
2. Scripture is interpreted according to three contexts.
Scripture unfolds God’s plan over time, so Scripture must tell us how the parts fit with the whole, and what theological conclusions are warranted by the entire canon. This concept entails that we think of biblical interpretation in terms of three contexts: textual, epochal, and canonical.[2]
First, the textualor immediate context starts with any text in its book context, which we interpret by grammatical/literary-historical exegesis. Second, the epochalcontext is reading the text/book by locating it in God’s unfolding plan. Texts are not written in a vacuum; they are embedded in a larger context of what precedesthem. As God communicates through authors, there is a unity in his plan but also development. By locating texts in God’s unfolding plan, this helps us see intertextuallinks between earlier and later revelation. As later authors refer to earlier texts they build on them, not only in terms of greater understanding, but also by identifying God-given patterns between earlier and later events, persons, and institutions, that is, typology. In this way God’s plan unfolds and reaches its fulfillment in Christ.
How do we determine Scripture’s epochal divisions? This is a major debate within the discipline of biblical theology. Scripture divides history in a number of ways (for example, Matthew 1; Rom 5:12-21), but Scripture’s epochal divisions are best discerned by the unfolding of the covenants. Does placing texts in their epochal/covenantal context matter? Yes. For proof of this see the arguments made in Galatians 3-4 and Hebrews 2:5-18; 3:7-4:11; 7-8. All of these texts illustrate how important it is to “put together” God’s plan in terms of the three contexts.
But ultimately our interpretation of Scripture must read texts in terms of what comes after them, that is, the canonical context. Scripture is God’sunified speech so texts must be interpreted canonically, which entails a grammatical/literary-historical-canonical method of interpretation.
3. Theological Conclusions are Made from Scripture by Reading the Entire Canon in Context, and Unpacking the Progression of the Covenants.
All of Scripture is for our instruction (2 Tim 3:15-17), yet we must carefully read and apply it. Central to biblical interpretation is unpacking the Bible’s covenantal progression. Although Scripture refers to many covenants, my focus is on the six main covenants: Creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New. Before I summarize how the Bible’s storyline is unfolded through the covenants, four hermeneutical points about the covenants will be given.
First, God’s one eternal plan is unveiled through a plurality of covenants (e.g., Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 8:7-13). Progressive covenantalism rejects covenant theology’s subsuming all the post-fall covenants under the theological category of “the covenant of grace.” God has one plan, but it is crucial to let each covenant contribute to the unfolding of that one plan. By doing so, we see the continuity of God’s plan and avoid minimizing significant covenantal differences.
Second, the progression of the covenants is the primary means by which God’s promises and typological patterns unfold and are fulfilled in Christ and the church. The promise-fulfillment motif is central to how Scripture glues the diverse epochs of history together. Yet, it is difficult to think of God’s promises apart from the covenants. By covenantal progression, the biblical authors speak of the continuity of God’s plan (tied to his promises) and its discontinuity (how fulfillment brings about God-intended changes). Additionally, one way that the promise-fulfillment theme is developed is via typology, which also is unpacked through the covenants. Given disputes over what typology is and how to interpret it, I will briefly describe my view.
A Brief Discussion of Typology
Typology is the study of the OT redemptive historical realities or “types” (persons, events, institutions) which God has specifically designed to correspond to, and predictively prefigure, their intensified antitypical fulfillment aspects (inaugurated, appropriated, and consummated) in NT redemptive history.[3] Two points will develop this definition.
- Typology is a feature of divine revelation rooted in history and most significantly the text. It involves an organic relation between “persons, events, and institutions” in one epoch (“type”) and their counterparts in later epochs (“antitype”).
- Typology is prophetic and predictive. It is not prophetic as a direct verbal prediction (e.g., Micah 5:2). Instead, it is more indirect in the sense of predictions built on models-patterns that God intends but which become unveiled as later texts reinforce those patterns, and which reach their fulfillment in Christ. Given typology’s indirectness, it requires careful exegesis in its immediate context, and it may not be fully recognized as a type until later authors pick up the pattern. Yet, typology is in the text, exegetically discovered, and we come to know types as God-intended patterns as later OT authors repeat the pattern, before it reaches its fulfillment in Christ.
How does typology work? Three points will answer this question.
First, typology involves repetition of a person, event, or institution so that types are repeated in later persons, events, or institutions. This is how we discover the pattern. Ultimately, however, the types reach their fulfillment first in Christ and then his people, the church.
For example, Adam is a type of Christ (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:21-49), the covenant head of the old creation. In God’s plan, Adam anticipates the coming of Jesus, the last Adam, and the head of the new creation. How do we know this? In the immediate context of Genesis 1-3, there are exegetical clues that speak of Adam’s significance and through the covenants “other Adams” take on Adam’s role (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David). But none of these “Adams” are the fulfillment although they “predict” the last Adam to come. Also, in Christ, we, as his people, are restored to our Adamic role as image-sons in relation to God and the creation (Heb 2:5-18).
Or, think of the nation of Israel. As God’s son (Ex 4:22-23), Israel not only takes on Adam’s role in the world, but anticipates the coming of the true Son, the true Israel/servant/vine, that is, Christ (see, for example, Isa 5:1-7; Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15; John 15:1-17). But also, in union with Christ, God’s people participate in the typological pattern. Thus, in the case of Israel, Christ is first the “true Israel,” and in him, we are the eschatological people of God. The church is not the antitypical fulfillment of Israel in the first sense: Christ is. Yet in Christ, the true Son/Israel, we become adopted sons (Gal 3:26-4:7), the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), Abraham’s spiritual offspring (Gal 3:29), restored to what God created us to be (Eph 4:20-24). This is how the new covenant promise given to the “house of Israel/Judah” (Jer 31:31) is applied to the church.
Second, typology has a “lesser to greater” character as the type is fulfilled in the antitype. For example, as one moves from Adam or David, through the prophets, priests, and kings, and then to the last Adam, the true Davidic king, the great High Priest, the antitype is always greater than the previous types. Adam is a type of Christ, and “other Adams” arise, yet these Adams disobey, and thus anticipate the last Adam, who perfectly obeys. What is true of Adam is also true of other typological patterns such as various people (Moses, Israel, David, prophets, priests, kings), events (exodus), or institutions (sacrificial system, tabernacle/temple).
Third, typology is developed through covenantal progression. For example, Adam and “other Adam’s” are associated with the covenants of creation, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David. In these covenant heads, Adam’s role continues, and each one anticipates Christ, who by his obedience secures our redemption (see Gen 1-3; 5:1-2; 9:1-17; 12:1-3; Ex 4:22-23; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ps 8; Rom 5:12-21; Heb 2:5-18). Or, think of the promise to Abraham regarding his seed. As the seed promise unfolds it does so in Isaac, Israel, the Davidic king, and ultimately in Christ, and then to the church as Abraham’s spiritual offspring (see Gen 12:1-3; 17:1-22; Ex 1:1-7; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Gal 3:16, 29). More examples could be given: Moses, David and his sons, the entire tabernacle-temple structure, the exodus-event that eventually anticipates a greater exodus to come. All of these types are tied to the covenants; one cannot think of them apart from wrestling with how the covenants relate to each other and how the covenants are fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant. This is how OT history is prophetic and anticipates Christ’s coming and work (for example, Matt 5:17-18; 11:11-15; Rom 3:21).
Returning to our discussion of the covenants, there is a thirdhermeneuticalpoint. To categorize the covenants as either unconditional and unilateral (royal grant) or conditional and bilateral (suzerain-vassal) is inadequate. Each post fall covenant contains both aspects, although some covenants emphasize one aspect more than the other (for example, the old covenant is strongly bilateral but also gracious, while the Abrahamic covenant is strongly unilateral with bilateral demands). In fact, it is due to this blend that there is a deliberate tension within the covenants—a tension that heightens as God’s plan unfolds—and is only resolved in Christ. Let me explain.
On the one hand, the post-fall covenants reveal our triune covenant Lord who makes and keeps his promises. As God initiates covenant relationships with his creatures, he is always the faithful partner (Heb 6:17-18). Regardless of our unfaithfulness, commencing in Genesis 3:15, God’s promises are certain. On the other hand, God demands from us perfect obedience, thus the bilateral aspect of the covenants. Yet as the covenants progress, a tension grows between God’s faithfulness to his promises and our disobedience. Obedience is not an option for us. God is holy and just, but we have sinned against him. And, in light of Genesis 3:15, God’s promises are tied to the provision of an obedient son, who will undo Adam’s disastrous choice. But where do we find such a son who fully obeys and meets God’s moral demands? And how can God remain in relationship with us unless our sin is removed? It is through the covenants that this tension increases, and it is through the covenants that the answer is given: God himself—our covenant-maker and keeper—will unilaterally act to keep his own promise by the provision of an obedient covenant partner, namely our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fourth, the new covenant is the fulfillment of all of the previous covenants. Since all of the covenants are part of God’s one plan, no covenant is unrelated to what preceded it, and no covenant makes sense apart from its fulfillment in Christ. No doubt, new covenant fulfillment involves an “already-not yet” aspect to it. Yet, what the previous covenants revealed, anticipated, and predicted is “already” here. This is why Jesus is the last Adam and head of the new creation; the true seed and offspring of Abraham who brings blessings to the nations; the true Israel fulfilling all that she failed to be; and David’s greater son who rules the entire creation as Lord. In fulfilling the previous covenants, the earlier covenants continue to have value for us today since they are forever part of Scripture, which is for our instruction and growth (2 Tim 3:16-17). But now that Christ has come, Christians are no longer directly under the previous covenants as covenants (other than the Noahic until the consummation). As the church, we obey all of Scripture, but now in light of the fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant (1 Cor 9:19-21), which has important implications for how we apply the OT to our lives today.
How God’s Plan Unfolds through the Covenants from Creation to Christ
By covenantal progression, the truth of “kingdom through covenant” emerges, which unites the Bible’s metanarrative from creation to consummation. Let us unpack this truth a bit more.
Kingdom through Covenant
Graeme Goldsworthy argues that “the idea of the rule of God over creation, over all creatures, over the kingdoms of the world, and in a unique and special way, over his chosen and redeemed people, is the very heart of the message of the Hebrew scriptures.”[4] But as Tom Schreiner notes, God’s kingdomis not only central to the OT, it is also “of prime importance in New Testament theology.”[5] But what exactly do I mean by kingdom? I offer three points to explain.
First, Scripture begins with the declaration that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the King of the universe (Gen 1-2; Ps 103:19; Dan 4:34-35; Acts 17:24-25). God’s creation work is the outworking of his eternal plan in time (Eph 1:11; Rev 4:11), which he directs to a specific telos. As history unfolds, God’s plan is unpacked vis-à-vis specific covenantal relationships, which all lead to a Christological telos (Col 1:15-20). Although the wording, “kingdom of God,” comes later in Scripture, the idea is taught in its first chapters.
Second, our triune God is the King, but the fall brings change. Before the fall, everything is “very good” (Gen 1:31), but due to human sin, God’s rule over creation is rejected by us. Sin is rebellion against the King, which results in our death (Gen 2:16-17; Rom 3:23; 6:23). Given the fall, the OT distinguishes between God’s sovereign rule over creation and his coming saving reign to make all things right. For God to save, he must act, which sets the stage for the Bible’s story of a coming Redeemer to set creation right, and to usher in a new creation.
Third, how does God’s saving kingdom come? It comes through the covenants. Following the loss of Eden, redemption is linked to a promised human (Gen 3:15)—who will be more than human—but which is given greater definition through Noah, Abraham, Israel, and the Davidic kings. Through the covenants, God reveals how his image-bearers ought to live and how he will establish his saving reign and restore creation through a promised, obedient Son.
Kingdom through Covenant
Kingdom and covenant are organically linked: it is through the covenants that God’s saving reign comes in Christ. Let me summarize how the covenants unfold God’s plan leading us to Christ, which in turn helps us see the continuity and discontinuity of God’s plan over time.
The Creation Covenant
Covenant theology refers to the covenant in Genesis 1-2 as the “covenant of works,” but dispensationalism rejects such a covenant. For covenant theology, the “covenant of works” is made with Adam as the head or representative of the human race. To him and his entire posterity, eternal life is promised upon the condition of perfect obedience to God’s law. But due to his disobedience, Adam, along with all humanity, was plunged into a state of sin, death, and condemnation. But God graciously did not leave us in this condition; instead, he gave a saving promise that is ultimately fulfilled in Christ.
Although this articulation is common for covenant theology (and progressive covenantalism), some have questioned such a covenant in Genesis 1-2 due to the absence of the word “covenant.” Yet, this skepticism is unwarranted for three reasons.
First, the absence of the word covenant does not entail that there is no covenant; context and later Scripture are decisive (for example, Hos 6:7; Gen 2:19-25 [marriage]; 2 Sam 7:14). Second, contextually, not only are covenantal elements present such as the Lord-vassal relationship, the obedience-disobedience motif (Gen 2:16-17), but also God identifies himself by his covenant name: Yahweh (Gen 2:4, 5, 7, 8; Ex 3:13-15). God creates Adam as God’s image-bearer and son (Luke 3:38), which are covenantal terms and assumes a covenant relationship. Third, the canonical context reveals that the Bible’s story divides humanity under the headship of two individuals, Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12-21). The new covenant headship of Christ as the last Adam makes little sense without the covenant headship of the first Adam.
Additionally, starting with a creation covenant is crucial for two reasons. First, the creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since allsubsequent covenants unpack Adam’s role in the world. Adam, and all humanity, is created as God’s image-son, a priest-king to rule over creation. Adam is created in relationship to God as he mediates God’s rule to the world. Yet, God demands perfect obedience from his covenant partner. All subsequent covenant heads will function as subsets of Adam, who, in God’s plan, will point forward to Christ. Adam’s role as the representative head of creation defines what comes after him, along with the entire work of Christ (Heb 2:5-18). Second, the creation covenant is foundational for establishing various typological patterns that eventually reach their telos in Christ and the new covenant.[6] All of these patterns will eschatologically terminate in Christ and God’s new covenant people, the church.
One last point: we must also discuss sin’s entrance into the world and God’s first redemption promise, a promise that receives expansion in subsequent covenants (Gen 3:15). Genesis 3 describes how sin entered the human realm, and it requires that we make a crucial distinction between pre-fall under Adam and post-fall redemptive promise in Christ. Humans, created to know God and to rule, now end in death (Gen 2:17; Rom 6:23). Sin’s effects are disastrous, but God graciously speaks a word of promise. Before God, sin creates a covenantal tension. Covenants allow God to be present with his people. But how can sinners dwell in his holy presence? How can God be just and the justifier of the ungodly (Rom 3:25-26)? Scripture’s answer is glorious: God himself will save us by his Son (“seed”) who will perfectly obey unto death thus reversing the effects of sin and ratifying a new covenant (Phil 2:5-11; Heb 2:5-18). This truth is gradually revealed by the progression of the post-fall covenants which all culminate in Christ and his ratification of the new covenant.
All Christians agree that covenants are fundamental to the Bible’s story and that God’s eternal plan unfolds over time reaching its fulfillment in Christ. Furthermore, all Christians accept some form of epochs or dispensations across redemptive-history demarcated by the covenants, and that the fulfillment of God’s saving purposes in Christ has resulted in change or discontinuity from past eras. However, Christians disagree on the exact relationships between the covenants.
This way of stating it differs from covenant theology. Covenant theology divides redemptive history into two covenants: the covenant of works (“law”) and the covenant of grace (“gospel”), and then subsumes all postfall covenants under the latter covenant. No doubt, there is some truth in this. The theological categories of “law” and “gospel” are true, but they are not derived simply by covenant theology’s bicovenantal structure. In Genesis 2, God establishes a covenant relationship with Adam, and postfall, God graciously promises redemption through Christ (Gen 3:15). Postfall, salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. Yet, Genesis 3:15 is not the ratification of “the covenant of grace” (which is a theological category and not a specific biblical covenant) but as a gracious promise that is progressively revealed via the covenants reaching their fulfillment in the new covenant. This way of stating it better reflects how Scripture describes God’s plan revealed through a plurality of covenants (Eph 2:12) culminating in Christ. It is true that the Bible’s metanarrative is subsumed under two covenant heads: Adam and Christ. But postfall, and due to God’s salvific promise, it is best to think of God’s plan unfolding through multiple covenants which all progressively reveal the new covenant.
Also, this way of stating it allows for each covenant to contribute to God’s unfolding plan; it does not subsume all of the OT covenants under the “covenant of grace” and then draw lines of continuity too quickly from old to new, especially regarding circumcision-baptism and the “mixed” nature of Israel-church. After Genesis 3, all humans are born in Adam, while God’s elect experience grace, thus creating two humanities. Those who believe the promise are in Christ (in the sense that they look forward to him and the dawning of the new covenant). But as subsequent covenants are cut, a clearer delineation is made between these two humanities. In the OT covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), they remain mixed, and it is not until the new covenant that “in Christ” entails a regenerate people. This understanding better explains why and how the new covenant is new and how all the covenants reach their fulfillment in it.
The Noahic Covenant
The word “covenant” first appears with Noah (Gen 6:18; 9:9-11). This covenant is a continuation of the creation covenant demonstrating God’s commitment to creation, now in a post-fall context. Given sin, humans and creation are threatened, but given God’s promise (Gen 3:15) and now his promise, as “the earth remains” (8:22), this covenant re-enforces God’s intention that humans will fulfill their role as image-bearers in creation. The “seed of the woman” will come through Noah, the covenant mediator and his family. Noah is “another Adam” (Gen 9:1-7; compare with 1:26-30), and the universal scope of the covenant reminds us that God’s purposes encompass not just one people, but all nations and the entire creation.
The Noahic covenant establishes two other points. First, Noah’s disobedience (Gen 9:18-28) demonstrates that our heart problem remains (see Gen 6:5-7 with 8:21-22), and that he is not the “last Adam” to come. What we need is a greater heart transformation by the Spirit so that we will fulfill our role as image-bearers. Second, the Noahic covenant explains why fallen humanity simultaneously exists alongside God’s people until the consummation. While Christ has alreadyinaugurated the future age, the fallen creation order will continue until the end.
The Abrahamic Covenant
Given its location in Scripture, the Abrahamic covenant stands in contrast to the judgments of God on human sin and presents anew the plan of creation. Important elements in the creation of humans are repeated in the blessing to Abraham: God’s promise of a great name and seed, the multiplication of humans, the provision of the land, a peaceful relationship between God and humanity, the restoration of the nations (Gen 12:1-3; compare with 15:4-5; 17:1-8; 18:18-19; 22:16-18).
Yet, unlike with Noah, God does not destroy humanity. Instead, God allows the nations to exist and then calls Abraham out of the nations to become a great nation (gôy), that is, a kingdom. God’s intent is to work through the covenant mediator, Abraham and his seed, to bring blessing to the nations by making him a great nation.
The Abrahamic covenant is the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity (Gen 3:15; Gal 3:16). Abraham and his family constitute “another Adam.” The Abrahamic covenant functions as a subset of the creation covenant in a postfall context yet narrowed through one family ( or nation). In Abraham and his seed, first in Isaac, then in Israel, and then the Davidic king, all of God’s promises for humanity will be enacted—promises that God unilaterally keeps, as beautifully portrayed in the covenant inauguration ceremony in Genesis 15.
In the text, there is also a hint that over time the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant will occur in two stages: first, in the nation of Israel who will live in the promised land and serve as a kingdom of priests under the old covenant (Ex 19:4-6; Deut 4:5-8). Second, in Christ, Abraham’s royal, singular seed will bless allnations (Gen 17:4-6; compare with 22:17b-18; 49:8, 10; Isa 9:6). Even in Genesis, Abraham’s fatherhood is expanded to include the nations. This expansion entails not only the promise of a global inheritance, but also an expansion of the promised land (Gen 1:28; Matt 5:5; Rom 4:13; compare with Eph 6:2-3; Heb 11:13-16). This expansion is suggested in Genesis 22:17b-18. The male deliverer will bless all nations and possess “the gate of his enemies,” which implies that his kingdom expands to fill the earth (compare with Gen 24:60). This makes perfect sense since the Abrahamic covenant is the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity (Gen 3:15).
Two other elements of the Abrahamic covenant are important. First, it is multifaceted. It not only encompasses spiritual aspects that link it ultimately to the new covenant, but it also consists of national and typological elements that must be carefully unpacked through the covenants. Second, it also consists of unilateral and bilateral elements. God’s action in Genesis 15 is unilateral, yet God also demands full obedience from his covenant partner for the covenant to continue (Gen 17:1; 18:19; 22:16-18). And like Adam and Noah, Abraham fails to meet this demand. This growing tension between God keeping his promises anddemanding an obedient covenant-partner is only resolved in the true seed of Abraham, Messiah Jesus (Gal 3:16).
The Mosaic-Old Covenant
In the OT, the amount of space devoted to the old covenant is vast, yet Scripture teaches that it is not an end in itself. Scripture views it as temporary in God’s plan and thus when Christ comes, as an entire covenant, it is fulfilled and Christians are no longer under it as a covenant(Gal 3:15-4:7). What was its purpose? The answer is diverse, but centrally it revealed and intensified sin and prepared God’s people for Christ’s coming (Rom 5:20-21; 7:13; Gal 4:4). Also, three points are important in summarizing the role of the old covenant in God’s plan.
First, given its epochal and covenantal context, God calls Moses to deliver Israel from Egypt and establishes a covenant with them because of his promises to Abraham (Ex 3:6; compare with 2:24-25; Deut 4:36-38). In relation to the previous covenants, the old covenant reveals with greater clarity how Abraham’s “seed” is narrowed to the nation of Israel. Israel, as a nation (gôy) (Ex 19:5-6), is a corporate Adam as she fulfills that role to the nations. It is through Israel that God fulfills his promise (Gen 3:15) to undo Adam’s sin. Further proof of this truth is that Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “son” (Ex 4:22-23). The “Father-son” relationship looks back to Adam and looks forward to the Davidic kings, linking the covenants together. Israel, as a nation, is called to serve as God’s son-priest-image and through them to bring blessing to the world.
Second, the old covenant is a unit. Scripture does not partition the covenant into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws; rather, it is a unit that governed Israel’s life, and now, in Christ, is fulfilled. Also, as a unit, the covenant develops in greater detail a number of typological patterns that find their antitypical fulfillment in Christ and his people. For example, Israel, as a kingdom of priests, needs Levitical priests to represent them before God. Related to the priesthood is the entire tabernacle-temple-sacrificial system, which not only served as a means by which Israel dwelt in God’s presence, but also pointed to their antitypical fulfillment in Christ and the full forgiveness of sin (John 2:19-22; Isa 52-53; Heb 5:1-10; 7-10). The same is true of the role of the prophet and the anticipation of the king (Deut 18:15-18; Acts 3:22-26; Deut 17:14-20; Rom 1:3-4; Heb 1:5). Or, the Passover and Exodus become patterns of a greater, new exodus and redemption to come, all of which is fulfilled by Christ.
Third, although the covenant is strongly bilateral, it is more. As with all the covenants, God unilaterally keeps his promises, yet Israel is called to be an obedient son. And like Adam, they disobeyed. The old covenant heightens the tension in how God’s kingdom comes through fallen people. God will keep his promise to bring forth the offspring of Abraham, now through an Israelite. And yet, Israel cannot produce the son and faithful covenant partner that God demands. This is why the OT prophets anticipate a permanent, unbreakable new covenant to solve this dilemma (Jer 31:31-34).
The Davidic Covenant
This covenant is the epitome of the OT covenants; it brings the previous covenants to a climax in the king. There are two main parts to it: (1) God’s promises about the establishment of David’s house forever (2 Sam 7:12-16), and (2) the promises concerning the “Father-son” relationship between God and the Davidic king (2 Sam 7:14; compare with Ps 2; 89:26-27). The sonship promise links the Davidic covenant to the previous covenants, and it anticipates in type the greater Sonship of Christ. Previously sonship applied to corporate Israel (Ex 4:22-23; compare with Hos 11:1), but now it is applied to the individual Davidic king, who, in himself, is true Israel. He becomes the mediator of the covenant thus representing God’s rule to the people (2 Sam 7:22-24), and fulfilling the role of Adam by effecting God’s rule in the world (2 Sam 7:19b).
God’s redemptive plan was always to restore humanity’s vice-regency via the woman’s seed. We now know that this will occur through the Davidic king. This truth is borne out in many places that speak of the Davidic son as having a universal rule (for example, Ps 2, 8, 45, 72, compare with Isa 9:6-7, 11, 53). Yet, in OT history, this was never realized. As previous covenant mediators disobeyed, so the Davidic kings, but the hope of salvation is in them. God continues his unilateral resolve to keep his promise to bring forth Abraham’s seed, now more specifically a Davidic king, who will reign under God over the whole world. And yet, there is no faithful son-king who effects God’s saving reign. This leads to the message of the Prophets and the anticipation of a new covenant.
The New Covenant
All of the OT writing prophets are post-Davidic. Why is this significant? Because their prophecies build on what God has already revealed through the covenants. The prophets proclaim an overall pattern of renewal by recapitulating the past history of redemption and projecting it into the future. The prophets announce that God will unilaterally keep his promises to save, but he will do so through a faithful Davidic king (Isa 7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 42:1-9; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12; 55:3; 61:1-3; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28). In this king, identified as the “servant of Yahweh,” a new or everlasting covenant will come, and with it the pouring of the Spirit (Ezek 36:24-38; 37:11-28; Joel 2:28-32), God’s saving reign among the nations, the forgiveness of sin (Jer 31:34) and a new creation (Isa 65:17). The hope of the prophets is found in the new covenant.
Within the OT, the new covenant is national (Jer 31:31-40; 33:6-16; Ezek 36:24-38; 37:11-28) and international. It will include Jews and Gentiles, and its scope is universal, thus fulfilling the Abrahamic promise.[7] Isaiah projects the ultimate fulfillment of the divine promises in the new covenant onto an ideal Israel, that is, a community tied to the Servant of Yahweh located in a rejuvenated new creation (Isa 65:17; 66:22). This “ideal Israel” picks up the promises to Abraham and is the ultimate fulfillment of the covenants that God established with Adam, the patriarchs, the nation of Israel, and David’s son.
What is new about the new covenant? Jeremiah 31:29-34 speaks of newness by a change in the structure and nature of God’s people because of the work of its greater covenant mediator. Let us look at these respective changes.
First, the new covenant changes the structure of God’s people. Under the old covenant, God dealt with his people through specially called leaders. The OT does pay attention to individual believers, as evidenced in the remnant theme. But in general, the people’s knowledge of God and their relationship with him depended upon specially endowed leaders. The entire nation benefited when these leaders did right, and they suffered when they did not. Thus, the OT does not emphasize God’s Spirit being poured out on every individual believer and empowering them but distinctively on prophets, priests, and kings. But Jeremiah signals a structural shift in the covenant community where all of God’s people will know him, from the least to the greatest. By this change, the new covenant raises every member of the covenant to the same relationship with God through the universal distribution of the Spirit (see Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2). The Messiah, being the first to be anointed with the Spirit (see Isa 11:1-3; 49:1-2; 61:1ff), will in turn pour out his Spirit on all flesh, namely, everyone within the covenant community (see Ezek 11:19-20; 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-32; compare with Num 11:27-29).
Second, the new covenant changes the natureof God’s people. Jeremiah distinguishes between the old and new covenant based on the heart condition of its members (Jer 31:31-34). Whereas only a remnant under the old covenant truly knew Yahweh, God changes the heart (“circumcision of heart”) of every new covenant member (Jer 31:33-34; compare with Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25; Rom 2:29). This does not mean that OT saints were not regenerate; instead, it implies that that the new people will all be regenerate. The old covenant community was a mixed people (Rom 9:6), but this is not true of the new. The entire community will savingly know God.
Third, the new covenant changes the sacrifice made for God’s people. The old covenant offered the forgiveness of sins through the priestly-sacrificial system, which was never intended to save (Heb 10:4). The old covenant sacrifices were designed to remind God’s covenant people of their sinfulness through repetition. Yet, Jeremiah says, God “will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more” (Jer 31:33-34; Heb 10:17). Under the new covenant, then, a better priest will offer a better sacrifice (Ps 110), and all in the covenant will be justified before God.
How the OT Covenants are fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant
As the NT begins, fulfillment is in the air: what the OT anticipated and predicted is now here in Christ. Our Lord’s identity is that he is the eternal Son of the Father and the promised Messiah who has come to restore humanity’s vice-regent rule over creation. Jesus teaches us that he is now fulfilling all of God’s covenantal promises and establishing God’s promised kingdom through new covenant by his obedient work and the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost. Also, Jesus reminds us that his work is to redeem a new people for that kingdom, his church (Matt 16:18). Let us think of the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises in three steps, which in turn allow us to think properly about the continuity and discontinuity in God’s plan: (1) how Christ fulfills the previous covenants, (2) fulfillment in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and (3) how the church is new and receives all of God’s covenant promises in and through Christ.
Messiah Jesus Fulfills the OT Covenants
From the opening verse of the NT, Jesus is identified as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1), which is significant. Jesus, the eternal Son made flesh (John 1:1-2, 14), has not only become the first man of the new creation, but also in him all of the previous covenant mediators, typological structures, and promises have reached their fulfillment (2 Cor 1:20).
Think about how the NT presents Jesus’s identity, especially tied to the covenants. Jesus is the divine Son who comes to save his people, and, by virtue of his incarnation and work, becomes the son, the antitypical fulfillment of the previous covenant mediators, thus securing our eternal redemption by his obedient life and death (Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:6-11; Heb 1:1-3). In his incarnation and cross, Jesus becomes David’s greater Son, who inaugurates God’s kingdom, and is now seated as the Davidic king, leading history to its consummation at his return (Matt 1:1; 28:18-20; Acts 2:32-36; Rom 1:3-4; Eph 1:9-10; Phil 2:9-11; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1 [compare with Ps 2, 45, 110]). Jesus is also the true Israel, who fulfills Israel’s role and brings Israel’s exile to its end in a new exodus, and who obeys where Israel disobeyed (Matt 2:15 [Hos 11:1]; Matt 3:15-17 [compare with Isa 11:1-2; 42:1; 61:1]; Matt 4:1-11; John 15:1-6 [Isa 5:1-7]). Jesus is Abraham’s true seed (Gal 3:16) who constitutes all those in him, the true children of Abraham, and inheritors of all the Abrahamic promises (Rom 2:25-29; 4:9-22; Gal 3:6-9; Heb 2:14-18; Rev 5:9-10).
Moreover, Jesus, as the last Adam, fulfills the foundational role of Adam and the creation covenant (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Heb 2:5-18; 8-10). In his conception, the Spirit brings about the beginning of the new creation (Luke 1:35; compare with Gen 1:2). In Jesus’s baptism, the promised Messiah receives the Spirit in full measure (Isa 11:1-5; 61:1-2; Luke 4:14-21) and he pours out the Spirit on his people (John 20:21-23; Acts 2:1-36; 10:44-48; Gal 3:1-6; 3:26-4:7), fulfilling OT expectations of the new covenant. In fact, in Christ’s bodily resurrection, the new creation is now visible and physical. No wonder, in Christ, we are now a new creation by the Spirit, both individually (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:1-10) and corporately as the church (Eph 2:11-22).
In every aspect of Jesus’s life, ministry, and cross-work, he fulfills all of the promises, instruction, and typological patterns of the previous covenants. Yet, it is important to think about the nature of this fulfillment in terms of inaugurated eschatology.
Inaugurated Eschatology and Fulfillment in Christ
The NT clarifies how Christ fulfills all of the OT promises and covenants. The OT prophets speak of the onecoming of the Lord and Messiah to consummate all things. This onecoming will result in the end of this present age (characterized by sin, death, and opposition to God) and the beginning of the last days or “the age to come” (characterized by life, forgiveness of sin, the defeat of God’s enemies, and the arrival of a new creation).
Additionally, the OT prophets think of the “age to come” in terms of an entire package. Minimally, when the Lord and Messiah come, we will see such things as: the arrival of God’s kingdom, the pouring out of the Spirit, a new temple, the full forgiveness of sin, the judgment and defeat of God’s enemies, resurrection life, eschatological rest, a restored Israel, a transformed people comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, and a new creation.
The NT teaches the same truths, yet it modifies the redemptive-historical timeline to speak of two comings of Christ. In his first coming, Jesus appears as Lord and Christ, and brings all that the OT associates with the age to come into this present age in principle. Yet, the consummation of the age to come awaits the second coming of Jesus. Between these two comings, Scripture teaches that Christ is currently reigning over his creation-kingdom. The realities of life in the age to come have already come into this present age, but not yet in full.
What is true regarding the already-not yet dynamic of Christ’s rule is also true of the entire package of prophetic anticipation of the age to come. For example, because Jesus is the risen and exalted Davidic king and Lord, he pours out the promised Spirit on his new covenant people, in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:32-36; compare with Luke 24:46-51; John 14:15-17). Yet, the present gift of the Spirit is the deposit and guarantee of our future inheritance (Eph 1:13-14). The reception of the Spirit signals that the OT restoration promises, first given to Israel, are now taking place in Christ and the church, which entails that everyone in Christ has the Spirit and now participates in the promised age.
Or, think of other OT promises which are now here, yet await their final consummation. In Christ, we are now forgiven of our sin, partakers of new covenant blessings (Jer 31:34; Rom 3:21-26; 8:1), yet we will still publicly stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10). Presently, in Christ, we are raised from spiritual death to life, adopted, redeemed, reconciled, and holy. Yet, we still await our bodily resurrection at Christ’s return, the full benefits of our adoption and inheritance, and our glorification. Presently, in Christ, new covenant believers are now, individually and corporately, God’s temple indwelt by the Spirit. Yet, we still await the new creation where there is no temple because of the Lord and the Lamb (Rev 21:22). Even the new creation promise is fulfilled in an already-not yet way. Our Lord is the first man of the new creation in his incarnation and resurrection. And, in union with Christ by the Spirit, we, individually and corporately, are now “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:1-22), although we wait the consummation of all things.
Also note how the promise of a transformed people participates in the already-not yet dynamic. The prophets anticipate that Messiah’s new covenant people (believing Jews and Gentiles) will not be like Israel (Jer 31:29-32). God will circumcise their hearts (Deut 30:1-6; Jer 31:33) by the Spirit (Ezek 36:25-27; 37). The Spirit will empower and gift the entirecommunity (Joel 2:28-32) so that allknow God (Jer. 31:34) and allexperience the forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34). In Christ, this is fulfilled in us, individually and corporately. A Christian is nowno longer in Adam but “in Christ,” which entails that all new covenant blessings are ours now, although we still await our glorification and resurrection bodies.
Why is inaugurated eschatology significant in debates over theological systems? Because although inaugurated eschatology is widely accepted within evangelical theology, dispensational and covenant theology often apply it inconsistently at specific points in their systems.
For example, dispensationalism distinguishes Israel from the church ontologically so that in the future, national and ethnic Israel must receive certain promises tied to the land, distinct from believing Gentile nations. The church is not viewed as the true, eschatological Israel who receives all of the promises, including the inheritance of the land fulfilled in the new creation. So, when Jeremiah addresses “the house of Israel and Judah” (31:31) but in the NT it is applied to the church, many dispensationalists explain this by appealing to inaugurated eschatology. In the already, the new covenant is spiritually applied to the church, but in the not yet, the new covenant will be applied literally to national Israel in the land. In the future, Israel, as a nation, will receive her distinct promises (tied to the land) different from believing Gentile nations.
This view has two problems. First, it assumes a faulty understanding of the Israel-church relationship because it does not properly follow the Bible’s covenantal progression. It does not start with creation and Adam and then situate Israel and her role within the covenantal storyline. It does not consistently see how Christ, as David’s greater Son is the true Israel and last Adam, and how he fulfills all of God’s promises. In turn, it fails to view Messiah’s people, the church, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, as the recipient of all of the OT promises equally as the one new man. Second, regarding inaugurated eschatology, dispensationalism fails to see how all new covenant realities are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle. We cannot simply apply spiritual blessings to the already and physical blessings to the not yet. Both are present now, although the fullness of both still awaits the consummation.
On the other hand, covenant theology insists that the church, like Israel, is mixed. But this view conflicts with the OT expectation that Messiah’s people will be a regenerate people. Some covenant theologians admit that Jeremiah 31:31-34 anticipates such a people, yet they explain the mixed nature of the church by appealing to inaugurated eschatology: presently, the church is mixed, but in the future it will be regenerate.
This view also has two problems. First, it does not sufficiently account for the relationship of Christ to his people. Through covenantal progression, the relationship between the covenant mediator and his seed is transformed in the new covenant. In the previous covenants, the relationship is more biological/physical, but now in Christ, the relationship is spiritual, that is, of the Spirit. One is in Christ and the new covenant, not by physical circumcision but by spiritual rebirth and faith. Second, covenant theology fails to see how all new covenant realities are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle. Now that Christ has come, one is either in the new covenant or not, and to be in the new covenant entails that one now knows God, is forgiven of their sins, and is circumcised in heart, even as we await the not yet.
In Christ, the Church Receives All of God’s Promises
The relationship between Christ and his people is inseparable. For this reason, the church receives all of God’s promises in Christ. Two entailments follow. First, the church is part of the one people of God (elect) across time, but covenantally new and constituted as a regenerate people (pace covenant theology). Second, the church is God’s new creation that remains forever, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all of God’s promises. The church is not a parenthesis in God’s plan or a present-day illustration of what national Israel and Gentile nations will be in the millennium and (or) consummation as recipients of distinct blessings (pace dispensationalism). Three points warrant these entailments.
First, there is only one people of God over time who are saved by grace through faith in God’s promises grounded in Christ alone. Evidence of continuity between OT and NT saints (Rom 1:1-2, 11; Phil 3:3, 7, 9) is in the language used to describe each. Descriptions of Israel as God’s covenant people are applied to the church through Christ (Ex 19:6; Deut 32:15; 33:12; Isa 43:20-21; 44:2; Jer 31:31-34; Hos 1:6, 9-11; 2:1, 23; see Rom 9:24-26; Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:12, 19; 3:4-6; 1 Thess 1:4; Heb 8:6-13; 1 Pet 2:9-10). Also, the language of “assembly” is applied to Israel and the church (Deut 4:10; Isa 2:2-4; Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 11:18; Heb 10:25), and the church, comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers, is described as the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Second, the church is covenantally new and constituted as a regenerate people. Alongside Jeremiah’s depiction of a transformed new covenant people, which the NT applies to the church (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Heb 8-10), are other truths that underscore the church’s newness. For example, the church is viewed as an eschatological and gathered community—identified with the age to come—that has arrived in Christ and is consummated at his return. Her identity is not with this present age but with the saving reign of Christ that is now here. Those who have placed their faith in Christ are now citizens of the new (heavenly) Jerusalem, transferred from being in Adam to being in Christ with all the benefits of that union (see Heb 12:18-29). Thus, to participate in these realities now is another way of saying that the church is, by definition, part of the new creation; consisting of people who are raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13; 3:3)—which is only true of regenerate people.
Furthermore, in Christ, the church is God’s new temple (1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 3:6; 1 Pet 2:5). As God’s temple, we have direct access to the Father by the Spirit (Eph 2:18; Heb 10:19-22), something new in contrast to Israel. As God’s temple, the Spirit indwells each person, but this description is only true of regenerate people (Rom 8:28-39; Eph 1:13-14).
Third, the church is God’s new creation or humanity that remains forever, comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, who equally and fully receive all of God’s promises in Christ. Ephesians 2:11-22 teaches this truth. Gentiles, who were once outside of Israel (vv. 11-12), now in Messiah Jesus are recipients of all of God’s promises. By Christ’s work, the law-covenant, which purposely separated Jews and Gentiles, is fulfilled. Result? Both Jews and Gentiles are now reconciled to God and each other by entering a new covenant (vv. 14-18), who together inherit the same promises. Paul is forthright: the church is new (see 1 Cor 9:19-23). The church transcends the old entities, although unbelieving Israel and disobedient Gentiles continue to exist. The church is not simply a replacement of Israel or a “renewed” instantiation of it, or one phase in God’s plan to end in the future when God returns to his previous plan for Israel and the nations. God’s eternal plan always anticipated the creation of the church (Eph 3:8-13). What makes this possible is Jesus, who fulfills God’s promises and applies them to his people.
Further evidence that the church receives all of God’s promises is how OT restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church in Christ (Acts 1:6, 2, 8, 10-11). That is why in Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are now being fulfilled (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9-10). The church is Abraham’s offspring (Rom 4:9-22; Gal 3:6-9); true Jews by heart circumcision (Rom 2:25-29; Phil 3:3); the one new man (Eph 2:11-22); from the same olive tree (Rom 11:17-24); and part of the 144,000 who symbolically refer to the entire church (Rev 7:1-8; 14:3). Captured in Scripture’s final vision, the church is Christ’s bride, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose foundation is the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles (Rev 21:9-14), an international people (Rev 5:9-10) who inherit the new creation (Rev 21-22).
Does this mean that God is finished with ethnic Israel? In Romans 9-11, Paul says, no. Although people debate over whether ethnic Jews are now being converted throughout church history, or we still await a mass conversion at the end of history, pace dispensationalism, this text says nothing about Israel as a nation receiving outstanding promises in the millennium (and eternal state) distinct from believing Gentiles. Instead, what Scripture teaches is that all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ and his people, the church.
Conclusion
In summary form, this is the view of progressive covenantalism. On gospel issues, although there is more agreement than disagreement with covenant and dispensational theology, progressive covenantalism insists that at the center of God’s plans and purposes is Christ Jesus. In him, all of God’s promises are “yes and Amen” (2 Cor 1:20), and by grace, we, as the church, are the beneficiaries of his glorious, triumphant work.
[1] For a detailed exposition of progressive covenantalism, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018).
[2] See Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 259-311.
[3] See Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical TUPOS Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1981), 397-408.
[4] Graeme Goldsworthy, “Kingdom of God,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Alexander T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 618.
[5] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 41.
[6] For example, the rest concerning the seventh day (Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:8-11) and salvation rest in Christ (Heb 3:7-4:13); Eden as a temple sanctuary that is fulfilled in Christ as the new temple; and marriage which points to a greater reality, namely, Christ’s relationship to his people (Gen 2:24-25; Eph 5:32).
[7] For example, see Isa 14:1-2; 19:23-25; 42:6, 20; 49:6; 55:3-5; 56:4-8; 66:18-24; Jer 16:19; 33:9; Ezek 36:36; 37:28; Amos 9:11-12; cf. Ps 47:9; 87:3-6; 67:2-3; 117:1.