The first section of the book pertains to theological prolegomena and hermeneutical questions. It serves as groundwork before Dr. Gentry lays the exegetical scaffolding of their biblical-theological argument. This section also has a substantial chapter devoted to articulating the best arguments – albeit in abbreviated form – for both Dispensational and Covenant Theology (51-107).

Wellum contests that covenants are central to the task of biblical and systematic theology (34). He describes the relevance to their work when he writes,

Definitionally, Wellum argues that biblical theology “seeks to do justice to what Scripture claims to be and to what it actually is” (46), and systematic theology “seeks to account for all that Scripture teaches in the way the Bible teaches it, in a coherent way, and in light of the church’s tradition and contemporary questions” (48). Therefore, he asserts that biblical and systematic theology are deeply interrelated but also distinct disciplines.

Biblical theology leads interpreters of the Bible to read texts on three horizons: textual, epochal/covenantal, and canonical. At the textual level, interpreters should examine the grammar, syntax, and literary context of the passage (119). This, however, is not the end of exegesis, and any biblical interpreter recognizes this implicitly. Considering the epochal level is to place the text in its place in redemptive history which is tied closely to the biblical covenants (120-125). At the canonical level, the interpreter considers the contribution of the text in light of the entire outworking of God’s revelation, the context of promises and fulfillment of those promises, as well as typological structures evident in the text (126-128). We, as interpreters, have the benefit of a whole Bible, and all 66 books assist us to understand the human and divine authorial intent of any one passage.

Peter Gentry’s contribution to Kingdom through Covenant consists in his exposition of the biblical covenants. This section is particularly technical, and some readers may choose to skip it, but it provides a look behind the curtain to show that their larger theological framework sits upon firm exegetical foundations. Prior to that, however, Gentry asserts that the biblical interpreter’s definition of a covenant ought to be informed by the practices in the Ancient Near East as well as inspired Scripture (161-178). Gentry tightly binds covenant to the idea of relationship (162). God’s relationship to his people is defined by covenant.

Gentry examines the Noahic Covenant first and concludes that the Noahic Covenant is largely a recapitulation of the original relationship between God and man that was established in the Garden (195-198). Regarding the Covenant with Creation, Gentry boils down the use of the term image and likeness to the following definition, “The relationship between humans and God is best captured by the term (obedient) sonship. The relationship between humans and the creation may be expressed by the terms kingship and servanthood, or better, servant kingship” (235). The definition of the nature of man as an image-bearer then gets applied as the objective for all of God’s covenant relationships with mankind. Mankind’s nature as an image-bearer, particularly in the pre-Fall created order, informs man’s function in the biblical covenants.

Gentry’s overview of the covenants profoundly illustrates a central theme in the Old Testament: God is faithful to His promises, but His human covenant partners are disobedient. Abraham and the patriarchs were called out of paganism to worship the true God by walking in his ways and communing in fellowship with their Covenant Lord (331). Israel was meant to be God’s obedient son and a beacon of His righteous rule to the nations of the earth (356-364). David and the Davidic kings were meant to be uniquely God’s son by ruling over Israel and leading the nation in obedience. Even post-fall, God’s objective of obedient sons and righteous regency did not die (449-456). Sadly, both nationally (as Israel) and representatively (as the Davidic king) God’s people failed to image Him rightly to the world.

The tension of the preceding covenants provides the necessary backdrop to correctly understand the New Covenant. Gentry devotes significant space to the explanations of the New Covenant found in Daniel and the Major Prophets. Putting together Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 65, and Daniel 9, Gentry makes some important arguments. Regarding the nature of the New Covenant, it is new and unlike previous covenants; it subsists in obedient covenant partners who fear and love Him (572). Regarding the fulfillment of sonship and regency, the New Covenant rests in a final Davidic King who rules in righteousness and ends the exile of God’s people (564, 626ff). This regency will ultimately be carried out in a new place where there will be no evil or sin (521-525, 596). Finally, membership in this New Covenant will not be constituted as a mixed community, but covenant members will be indwelt by the Spirit of the Lord and experience the full forgiveness of sins; I cite Gentry’s summary of continuity and discontinuity between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant here:

Standing upon the footing of the prior two sections, Wellum’s final contribution touches several areas of theological conclusions.

Firstly, regarding the debate of conditional and unconditional covenants, Wellum and Gentry conclude that this kind of distinction is reductionistic (662-665). This certainly has application concerning the way that Covenant Theology speaks to Law and Gospel covenants. Namely, every covenant has tension in that God makes promises (Gospel) and demands obedience (Law). He surmises, “In Christ alone, the covenants are fulfilled and this built-in tension is resolved” (665).

Both Dispensational and Covenant Theology – in their various forms – have made
substantial contributions to orthodox evangelical Christianity’s understanding of the Bible. However, Kingdom through Covenant has provided a needed biblical-theological corrective to both systems. One might describe its central thesis as a via media, but that does not quite do it justice. From the time of Geerhardus Vos to the present, biblical theology has been making exponential progress in our understanding of the Canon. That does not mean that Christians were unaware of certain realities for 2,000 years, but cogent articulation allows us to avoid some potential pitfalls like confusing the nature of the Church.

It is ironic that Wellum insists that both Covenant and Dispensational Theology are insufficiently Christocentric. Specifically, I conclude, in agreement with Wellum and Gentry, that both systems inconsistently apply typology to bolster their systematic theological conclusions. They are willing to say that all types find either their antitype in Jesus or their fulfillment through Him except the land promise (Dispensational Theology) or the genealogical principle (Covenant Theology).

Covenant Theology, in failing to recognize fulfillment in Christ as true and obedient Israel, assumes a one-to-one correlation between the nature of the New Covenant community with Old Covenant Israel. However, Israel is a type of Christ, not the New Covenant community. Just as with the Law of Moses applying directly to the believer today, a more Christological focus is missing in the traditional Covenant Theology paradigm.

Everything must pass through Christ and his work and then we must evaluate what He passes on to us and what remains finished in Him. Consequently, continuing a genealogical principle which chiefly pointed forward to the one prophesied through it is a category error. Christ is the Seed of the Woman (Edenic Promise), the Offspring of Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant), the Scepter-bearer of Judah (Patriarchal Promise), True Heart-circumcised Israel (Deuteronomic Blessing), the Son of David (Davidic Covenant), and Righteous Branch from the Stump of Jesse (New Covenant/Prophets). All of these promises and covenants fulfill the typological requirements that Wellum established in his first section. It shows a developmental trajectory of the genealogical principle which finds its end in Christ. Christians should now obey the genealogical principle by trusting in Christ and thereby being in the one whom the former principle pointed toward.

Kingdom through Covenant also serves as a helpful resource for the task of theological formulation in general. Recent centuries of evangelical theology have tended to detrimentally disentangle systematic and biblical theology, but they are inherently linked, since biblical theology has an obvious hermeneutical application. For example, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology - an evangelical staple - treats the task of systematic theology as a series of proof texts. If we base our systematic conclusions in such methodology, then settling disputes among different systems becomes a largely impossible task (just think of the perennial baptismal and eschatology debates). One side will present their list of proof texts, the other will present another, and each will color their texts by their implicit assumptions. Biblical theology allows us to address the area of implicit assumptions by engaging the entirety of the biblical text at its most foundational level.

Kingdom through Covenant shows that all the biblical covenants find their fulfillment in the Lord Jesus. This impacts the constitution of the church, Christian ethics, the way we interact with secular culture, and probably much more. Even the summary contained in this review fails to do justice to the breadth of exegetical insights, theological formulation, and matters of application set forth by Kingdom through Covenant. This volume, however, is intended as a slight corrective and much appreciation should be given to other biblical-theological frameworks that have impacted evangelicalism.

Gentry and Wellum are not entirely novel by emphasizing the connection between hermeneutics, biblical theology, and systematic theology. However, proponents of any theological system should evaluate their system in light of the hermeneutical presuppositions set forth by Wellum and see if those presuppositions are consistent with the exegetical work done by Gentry. Readers who patiently wade through the 838 pages of this work will find themselves praising the Lord Jesus for how all human history, all God’s covenants, all God’s purposes, and all God’s people hinge upon Him.