Kingdom through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum[1]
Evangelical theologians have long wrestled with questions regarding (1) the proper relationship between biblical theology (BT) and systematic theology (ST), and (2) the overall shape and structure of the biblical storyline. In their book Kingdom through Covenant, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum tackle both these issues in a way that demonstrates their interrelatedness. In Kingdom through Covenant, the authors argue that the two disciplines of BT and ST are interrelated rather than opposed. Specifically, ST must rely upon BT to draw its conclusions (19). The authors demonstrate this interdependence through their work on the biblical covenants.
Gentry and Wellum articulate two main goals that they desire to achieve in Kingdom through Covenant. Their first goal is to demonstrate the centrality of the biblical covenants to the storyline of Scripture. The second is to reveal that many differences in Christian theology result from differences in how one puts the covenants together (31).
Gentry and Wellum have structured Kingdom through Covenant in three parts. Part 1 is entitled Prolegemena and is concerned with explaining the theological background necessary to understand the work’s importance and impetus. In it, Wellum writes about the importance of covenants in BT and ST, the differences between various theological systems (i.e., Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and their varieties) and how they put together the covenants, and some key hermeneutical issues in putting together the biblical covenants. The final chapter of Part 1 provides a robust reflection on how to practice BT, with Wellum discussing matters such as the progressive nature of revelation, typology, and the three contexts of a scriptural passage.
Part 2 represents the exegetical meat of the book, as Gentry goes through each of the biblical covenants in exegetical detail. Gentry authors the entirety of this section and seeks to draw biblical-theological conclusions from exegesis of key texts concerning each of the six biblical covenants: Adamic (or the Creation Covenant), Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant. Here, Gentry articulates his positions on several exegetical points that end up impacting his overall understanding of meaning of the canon. These include the necessity of the creation covenant for the storyline of Scripture, the Mosaic covenant’s provisional place in God’s plan of redemption, and the New Covenant’s restructuring of the covenant community.
For both Gentry and Wellum, the Creation Covenant is an integral place to start in order to put together the biblical covenants. Gentry says in a rebuttal to Paul Williamson, “Williamson’s argument that there is no covenant in Genesis 1–3 results in an emasculated biblical metanarrative that essentially begins with Noah and greatly endangers the parallels drawn by Paul between Adam and Christ from the larger story of Scripture” (213). Rather than seeing a disjunction between Genesis 1–2 and the rest of Scripture, there is a continuity that exists between these two parts of God’s plan to rule through His image-bearers in covenant-relation with them (236).[2]
The Mosaic Covenant is presented as a whole package that is given to the people of Israel on a provisional basis and is brought to an end by being fulfilled by Christ.[3] Gentry argues for the unity of the Mosaic Covenant by exegeting Exodus 19–24. His exegesis shows that the words of Exodus 20 and the judgments of Exodus 21–23 go together as demonstrated in Exodus 24. The whole of Exodus 20–24 is called the “Book of the Covenant”, and it is this covenant that Jesus fulfills (394).
Gentry’s analysis of the New Covenant takes up four chapters as he explores the Old Testament’s message about the New Covenant in the Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. In each of these chapters, Gentry draws out the unique contribution each prophetic book makes to our understanding of the New Covenant. One major concept that gets drawn out is the restructuring of the covenant community so that all who belong to the covenant community belong to God. This is true in Isaiah where God reverses the order of creation in the New Covenant: He first creates the people of the New Covenant and then creates the place of their dwelling (523). Jeremiah’s message about the new covenant states that members of the New Covenant will all know the Lord (555). Ezekiel speaks about the renewed Israel who is no longer defined by “ethnic parameters but is defined as those who are reconciled to the Lord and believing in him…” (592–593). Finally, in Daniel, Gentry demonstrates that the visions in the latter half of the book are more concerned with return from spiritual exile as God shows Daniel how He is going to make His people right with Him (642).
Part 3 concludes the volume with Wellum offering a theological summary along with some implications of the exegesis done in Part 2. First, Wellum summarizes the storyline of Scripture while drawing together some of the major biblical-theological emphases laid out in previous chapters. Next, he explains how all of the Old Testament themes are fulfilled in Christ. For example, Wellum states that the church “is new and at present constituted as a regenerate people in contrast to Israel” (749; italics original). This is picking up the anticipated restructuring of the New Covenant community in the Old Testament prophetic message concerning the New Covenant. The last two chapters of the book then make theological conclusions in the areas of Christology, the Christian life, ecclesiology, and eschatology all based on the exegetical and biblical theological work done prior.
Gentry and Wellum have attempted a massive undertaking in writing Kingdom through Covenant. Each of the three parts could be a book unto itself but Gentry and Wellum have intentionally authored one volume to demonstrate an important point: systematic theology needs biblical theology to draw right theological judgments from the Scriptures. This is an enduring contribution from their work. Instead of focusing on the singular realm of BT, they have written and demonstrated how BT should be used and how it relates to other disciplines, particularly ST. Their work also reveals the major problems with certain theological systems that have attempted to put the Bible together (i.e., dispensationalism and Covenant Theology). Gentry and Wellum show that these systems or theological traditions have misused BT in ways that directly impact their theological conclusions.
Another unique contribution of Kingdom through Covenant is the place it gives to the biblical covenants. These covenants correlate to God’s unfolding plan of redemption. So, when BT wants to do its work, it must respect these God-given covenants. They are not just another theme in the storyline; they are the storyline! Any biblical-theological investigation must follow the covenantal progression throughout the OT and then to its fulfillment in Christ as described in the NT.
This author whole-heartedly and without reservation commends the approach to BT advocated in Kingdom through Covenant. Tying together the work of BT to the biblical covenants is an invaluably important insight. If one fails to ground his or her biblical-theological work in the biblical covenants, it is likely that some missteps may be taken or some improper theological conclusions may be drawn as one seeks to investigate various biblical-theological themes. One notable example of this is Covenant Theology’s understanding of circumcision and paedobaptism. Here, the theme of circumcision is developed independently of the covenantal storyline which then leads to theological conclusions that are deleterious for the church.
In addition to tying BT to the covenants, Kingdom through Covenant offers rigorous reflection on some key elements of BT. Wellum’s discussion of the nature of typology and the competing models is an example of this. In addition, the chapter dedicated to explaining fulfillment in Christ is crucial. Each of these elements is necessary and will aid the student of BT to think more clearly when they go to the biblical text.
Though this volume advocates for the position known as Progressive Covenantalism, anyone can benefit from the work presented by Gentry and Wellum even if they do not, in the final analysis, agree with this theological system. At the very least, those who disagree will be challenged to investigate each biblical text more thoroughly and to think more clearly and precisely about how they are exercising their own BT as they begin to put the biblical texts together.
Bijan L. Mahlouji
Trinity Bible Church (September 2025)
TL;DR
The book argues that BT and ST go hand-in-hand; ST relies upon BT for its conclusions while BT relies upon exegesis for its conclusions.
BT is not just a development of themes but rather the unfolding of the storyline of redemptive history. This storyline unfolds through the biblical covenants and so BT must rightly relate the covenants as it does its work.
Gentry argues for the foundational importance of the Creation Covenant for the rest of the biblical covenants, the temporary nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and the distinct character of the new covenant community in the New Covenant.
Wellum posits that critiques of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology must be made at the level of BT.
Gentry and Wellum contend that Progressive Covenantalism is the system that best fits with the biblical data; however, readers do not need to be adherents to this system to benefit from book.
[1] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018).
[2] It is important for the reader to be aware that this bifurcation also exists within Covenant Theology, which schematizes redemptive history with Covenant of Works (Genesis 1–2) and the Covenant of Grace (Genesis 3–Revelation). Gentry and Wellum are actively rebuffing these claims and noting that God’s plan is built on the foundation of the Creation Covenant rather than in opposition to it.
[3] This is, again, in contrast to other views that want to divide the Mosaic Covenant into civil, ceremonial, and moral elements. Those who hold to a threefold division in the Law argue that Christians relate to the Mosaic Law Covenant by being bound to the moral law while being freed from the ceremonial and civil laws.
