God to Us

If Fesko's Signed, Sealed, Delivered is the right place to begin and Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology is the place to go when you want a more academic treatment of the documentary and historical-critical questions, Myers's God to Us is the book you want when you are ready to sit down with the full architecture. It was, in my own reading, the second of the three, but it has become the one I would reach for first to hand to a theologically serious reader who wanted a single volume that covered the ground without cutting corners.

Myers teaches historical theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids and is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The book grew out of years of pastoral ministry and classroom teaching, and both influences are visible: the scholarship is disciplined and the footnotes are extensive, but Myers never forgets that he is writing for the people of God, not for the seminar room. He works through every major covenantal administration from Genesis to Revelation in sequence, engages the scholarly disputes where they matter for interpretation, and ends the book not at the cross but at the new Jerusalem. That choice alone tells you something about how he understands the scope of covenant theology.

Worth noting: Fesko read the manuscript and offered comments before publication, which signals something about how the two books relate: they are complementary, not competing. Myers covers more ground and at greater depth, and for a reader who has already had the introduction, the added weight is exactly what is needed. Chapter 1 alone, a sustained history of covenant theology from the apostolic church through the twentieth century, earns its place as essential groundwork before a word of the doctrine itself is laid out. Put this book at the front of the shelf on covenant theology and reach for it first when someone is asking for deeper understanding of the material; use Fesko's work as the primer that creates the appetite for how it all fits together.

Key Lessons

1. History Matters: The Doctrine Did Not Fall from the Sky

Myers devotes his opening chapter to the history of covenant theology, and it is not throat-clearing. Understanding where the doctrine came from clarifies what is genuinely at stake in current disputes. He traces the covenantal thread from the early fathers through the medieval period, through Zwingli and Bullinger, through the Westminster Assembly and into the twentieth century, where the debate between John Murray and Meredith Kline shaped much of what covenant theologians are still arguing about today. That debate centers on whether biblical covenants should be categorized as law covenants or promise covenants, a distinction Kline drew from ancient Near Eastern treaty forms. Myers gives Kline's contribution full credit and then subjects it to sustained critique, arguing that the distinction, however useful as a heuristic, ultimately distorts the biblical covenants by treating them as self-contained legal documents rather than as successive administrations of a single, developing relationship between God and His people. A Hittite treaty is a discrete document; a father's covenant relationship with his son is not. The two are not the same kind of thing, and applying the treaty categories too rigidly to the biblical covenants excludes the relational and redemptive context on which every individual covenant depends.

2. The Counsel of Peace Is Not a Footnote

Myers uses the term "counsel of peace" rather than "covenant of redemption" for the intra-Trinitarian covenant, and his reasons for doing so are theologically precise. The terminology matters because it shapes how one understands the relationship between that eternal covenant and the historical covenant of grace: Myers argues that the counsel of peace is best understood as part of the covenant of grace rather than as a separate, prior arrangement. This is not a minor organizational preference. It affects how one understands the unity of God's saving purpose across all of redemptive history.

His treatment of the trinitarian dimension here is the most careful of the three books. He observes that unlike every other covenant, the counsel of peace does not involve two distinct wills reaching an agreement; the triune God possesses one divine will shared by all three persons. What the counsel of peace represents, then, is that one divine will, in its trinitarian fullness, freely consenting to the distribution of redemptive tasks among the three persons: the Father electing and sending, the Son obeying and atoning, the Spirit applying and gathering. Myers draws on 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 to show that the fulfillment of this eternal counsel is the very frame within which the consummation of all things will occur: when the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father, the full purpose of the counsel of peace will be realized, and the triune God will be all in all. That eschatological arc gives the whole of covenant theology a doxological horizon it might otherwise lack.

3. The Covenant of Works Is the Foundation, Not a Technicality

Myers's treatment of the covenant of works follows the canonical argument that Fesko also employs: the absence of the word "covenant" in Genesis 1-3 is not decisive, because doctrine can be present where the term is not. What Myers adds is a more sustained engagement with the objections. He works carefully through John Murray's rejection of the covenant of works, taking Murray's exegesis seriously before concluding that the canonical and New Testament evidence, particularly Paul's argument in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, cannot be adequately explained without a covenantal representative structure in the garden. The Adam-Christ parallel requires that Adam was functioning as a covenant head; imputation requires a prior covenant arrangement under which representation was operative.

What comes through in Myers's treatment more clearly than in either Fesko or Horton is the love dimension. The covenant of works was not a probationary ordeal imposed on a reluctant Adam. It was given to a creature made in the image of God, fitted by creation for covenantal obedience, and placed in a garden of abundance where everything required for life was provided. Obedience was the natural expression of love for the God who had given all of this. The fall was not merely a legal infraction; it was a betrayal of the most fundamental covenantal love.

4. Every Covenant Administration Contains Both Law and Promise

This is Myers's most pointed constructive contribution. Against the Kline-derived tendency to classify each covenant as either a law covenant or a promise covenant, Myers argues that every divine covenant contains both elements, though in different proportions and in different logical relationships. The Mosaic covenant is not simply a law covenant; it contains within itself the promissory foundation on which it rests, and those who approached it by faith in the Abrahamic promise were not under it as a covenant of works. The Abrahamic covenant is not simply a promise covenant; it carries real obligations and the possibility of being cut off. What distinguishes the covenants from one another is not the presence or absence of law or promise but the particular way in which each administration deploys both within the progressive unfolding of the one covenant of grace.

This matters practically for reading the Mosaic covenant, which is the most frequently misread of the major administrations. Myers's chapter on the Mosaic covenant in the New Testament is among the best things in the book. He argues, drawing particularly from Matthew 5 and 1 Timothy 1, that the moral law of the Decalogue retains its full authority in the new covenant era: not as a means of justification, which it never was, but as a revelation of God's holy character, an unmasker of sin, and a guide for the sanctified life. The law did not pass away with Moses; what passed away was the Mosaic administration as a covenant. The law itself remains, and it will outlast this present heaven and earth.

5. The Blood of the New Covenant Is the Blood of the Covenant

Myers's treatment of Hebrews 9:13-22 is one of the most clarifying sections in the book and worth the price of admission on its own. The passage creates an apparent tension: the Old Testament sacrifices brought real forgiveness, yet Hebrews declares that animal blood never could take away sin. Myers resolves this by showing what Hebrews 9:15 actually says: Christ died for the redemption of transgressions committed under the first covenant. The animal sacrifices of the old covenant brought genuine forgiveness, but they did so because they pointed forward to and derived their efficacy from the blood of Christ that they represented. The old covenant saints were forgiven on credit, secured by the atoning work of the Mediator who was to come. This means that the blood of Christ is not merely the blood of the new covenant; it is the blood of the covenant, singular, the blood that has underwritten every administration of the covenant of grace from Genesis 3:15 forward. The move from old covenant to new covenant is not a change in the economy of forgiveness; it is the arrival of the reality to which the economy had always been pointing.

6. The New Jerusalem Is Covenant Theology's Final Chapter

No other book in this reading path does what Myers does in his closing chapters. He traces the covenant of grace not simply to Calvary or to Pentecost but all the way into Revelation 21-22, showing that the new Jerusalem is the full realization of what the Abrahamic promises always pointed toward: a land, a seed, and a worldwide blessing. The city descending from heaven is the land Abraham saw in the promise and could not yet touch. The worshiping people who serve God and see His face are the seed, gathered from every nation. The uncreated light of God's presence illuminating the city is the blessing that has spread to all families of the earth. What Genesis 3:15 announced, what the Abrahamic covenant promised in shadow, what the Mosaic and Davidic covenants administered in type, what the new covenant accomplished in history: all of it arrives at last in that city. Covenant theology does not end with soteriology. It ends with the triune God dwelling with His people forever, and the whole of redemptive history is the story of how He brought them there.

---

The Shift in Perspective

Common Starting Point	What Myers Argues
Covenant theology is primarily a Reformed distinctive.	It is the architectonic structure of Scripture itself, attested across the whole history of Christian interpretation.
The covenant of redemption is a distinct, prior covenant.	The counsel of peace is best understood as part of the covenant of grace, not a separate arrangement before it.
Covenants can be cleanly categorized as either law or promise.	Every divine covenant contains both law and promise; what varies is the proportion and logical order.
The Mosaic covenant's passing means the law's passing.	The Mosaic administration passed; the moral law of the Decalogue retains full authority in the new covenant.
Old covenant sacrifices were provisional and ineffective.	They brought real forgiveness, derived from the messianic blood to which they pointed.
Covenant theology is essentially about soteriology.	It encompasses creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, ending in the new Jerusalem.

Key Quotes

"Each biblical divine covenant is like a father's interaction with his child, and thus to treat those covenants as real-estate closing papers is to distort them by excluding the very foundations on which they operate."

"One will. One purpose. Three different sets of tasks joyfully undertaken by the three persons of the Trinity in order to accomplish the redemption of the people of God."

"In Adam's covenant of works there is death and in Jesus's covenant of grace there is life. And all of humanity is located in one covenant head or the other."

"The blood of Jesus is the blood of the new covenant in which all of these previous administrations find their fulfillment. It is the blood of the covenant of grace, the one blood that has saved throughout that eternal covenant."

"The new covenant does not so much make the former covenants irrelevant; rather, it makes startlingly clear what their relevance always had been."

"Redemption always has been covenantal. And it always will be."