Like lots of young Christians who grew up in Australian evangelicalism, Graeme Goldsworthy’s biblical theology showed me the unity of the Bible. I read the Bible with the framework of Gospel and Kingdom for twenty years. Then I started to understand the covenant theology in the Westminster Confession — mainly because I was teaching it at College. But it left a question: what is the relationship between the two? Over the years I started several documents on my computer in which I began to write something to make that clear to me (and then maybe to others). Most of those did not see the light of day, though I did feel that I was slowly getting to grips with the two views and how they worked together as well as where they don’t seem to. [1]I have published a more technical study of one aspect of the discussion, though it does not deal with Goldsworthy. See  “Of covenant and creation: a conversation between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology”, 156-99 in An Everlasting Covenant ed. J. Davies and A. Harman  (Doncaster, Reformed Theological Review, 2010).

I’m not alone with this puzzle. I’ve met people who have decided they have to go one way or the other — affirm Goldsworthy’s biblical theology against Covenant Theology or vice versa. More often I think people (including students I teach) are left wondering about the two views? Are they alternatives,  even rivals, or do they fit together? If they do fit together, how does that work? Even in the last couple of days I’ve had students talk to me about these kind of questions, so I thought I’d try to lay out my answer.

Graeme Goldsworthy is not the only proponent of biblical theology. There are other approaches which are quite similar to his, as well as some that are widely divergent. Since his is the influential local version (and internationally as well), I’ll focus on his approach and call it Gospel and Kingdom Biblical Theology (GKBT).

Gospel and Kingdom Biblical Theology  overview

GKBT seeks to study the Bible in its own terms.[2]The fullest explanation of the rationale for GKBT is in G. Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (Downers Grove: IVP, 2013). The page references in brackets at from this book. It emphasises how much Goldsworthy was influenced by  influenced by Donald Robinson, former Vice-Principal of Moore College and Archbishop of Sydney Anglican Diocese, 1982 to 1993. When it does so, it finds a ‘big picture’ of the Bible in the history of the kingdom of God (God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule) and traces the revelation of the kingdom through the history of Israel into its fulfilment in Christ. It suggests that this unfolds in three stages, as in the diagram below (26). In Genesis 1-1 Kings 10 the kingdom is revealed in Old Testament history (1); in 1 Kings 11-Malachi the kingdom revealed is in the prophets (2) while it fails in Israel (2a); and in the New Testament the Kingdom is revealed in Christ.

Although the diagram above brackets Genesis 1-3 with the history of Israel, Goldsworthy’s explanation is that Gen 1-11, including creation and the fall, is foundational and that “Genesis 1 – 11 provides the rationale and backdrop to the calling of Abraham and the covenant of grace that God establishes with the patriarch of Israel” (27).

 

Covenant Theology overview

Covenant Theology (CT) is also interested in the ‘big picture’ of the Bible. It is, however, a more systematic proposal. That is, it operates as Systematic Theology seeking to articulate a coherent and comprehensive understanding of revelation in Scripture, answering a wider set of questions which arise as Christians reflect on Scripture. It also operates with greater freedom than GKBT to make use of terms and concepts which are not directly taken from Scripture but which help in a systematic exposition.

CT views the Biblical story as shaped by the basic structure of sin and salvation, and so historically as structured around  creation/fall and redemption in Christ. It takes its lead from the Adam-Christ parallel (Rom 5, 1 Cor 15) and describes biblical revelation as telling of the fall of all humanity in Adam and the restoration of the people of God in Christ. The notion of ‘covenant’ is used to explain how humanity falls in Adam and the elect are restored in Christ. Adam is the head of humanity in a covenant with God which demands obedience, promises eternal glorified life and threatens death (the covenant of works or the Adamic covenant). His disobedience brings the curses of the covenant on all his descendants. Christ is then mediator of the covenant of grace for all those the Father has given him. He represents them and acts as their substitute, living the life they should have lived, dying the death they deserved and being raised and exalted to glorious new life which he shares with them.

In CT the covenant of grace in Christ is established in Christ and embraces all God’s people from Adam onwards. God’s people shared in the covenant of grace through the various arrangements of the Old Testament in that era, and then more clearly and with greater “spiritual efficacy” in the New Testament. The covenant of grace is, in turn, based in the eternal purposes of the Triune God, which in some versions of covenant theology are described in terms of the ‘covenant of redemption’.

Complementarity: historical development and Adam-Christ structure

The most obvious relationship between GKBT and CT is that they are complementary, as highlighted in the diagram below. GKBT traces the revelation of God’s redemptive kingdom through biblical history; CT highlights the basic Adam-Christ structure of that history. Each era of the kingdom described by GKBT is part of God’s response to the sin of Adam and they lead to the fulfilment of God’s purposes in Christ. (There is an internal debate in CT about the status of the Mosaic covenant, and how fully it is part of the covenant of grace. Here, I will take what I judge to be the mainstream position that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace). [3]For a detailed discussion see the OPC report on  Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Adamic Covenant https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html).

GKBT emphasises the revelation of the kingdom as God’s people, in God’s place under God’s rule. CT views the Covenant of Grace as the instrument by which God redeems and rules his people in Christ and so establishes his kingdom. Each of the biblical redemptive covenants is an expression or administration of the covenant of grace. While the terminology may be different, and this reflects different emphases and interests, the substance of the two positions is complementary. (Wellum and Gentry emphasise the complementary relationship of the biblical covenants and kingdom in their Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, Crossway, 2012. Though they do not accept all the conclusions of CT).

An integration runs like this. The first promise of redemption to Adam (Gen 3:15) and each of the redemptive covenants in the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and the prophetic New Covenant) were the ways in which God presents redemption in Christ to his people. Although far less explicit than the revelation of redemption in the gospel, each of these was the way in which God applied the benefits of the work of Christ to his people in anticipation of the fulfilment and full revelation in Christ. (The diagram below has been developed with David Hayes, a student at Christ College).

 

It is true the CT has, historically, had less to say about the progressive development of covenants through the Old Testament than has GKBT, but it has  not been unaware of development. Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), one of the first systematisers of CT, had a strong sense of progress through the Old Testament economy into the New. Jonathan Edward’s “A History of the Work of Redemption” divides the Old Testament into 6 eras with divisions at the Flood, Abraham, Moses, David, the Babylonian Captivity and the Coming of Christ, each era with its own character [4]J. Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 9. J.F. Wilson ed. (New Haven: Yale UP, 1989). Since the rise of Biblical Theology in the 19th century, CT has included a closer consideration of the development of the biblical covenants. Geerhardus Vos (1862 –1949) may have been the first scholar to give a detailed exposition of the progress of biblical revelation within a CT framework.[5]J.G. VoS Biblical Theology: Old and New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), and see J.H. Wood, Jr. “Neo-Calvinism at Old Princeton: Geerhardus Vos and The Rise of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary”, ZNThG 13 (2006): 14-15 for a discussion of how Vos developed an approach which viewed salvation history organically, in contrast William Henry Green his predecessors at Princeton. After Vos, Clowney, Kline, Robertson and McComiskey have all developed descriptions of the Old Testament which describe development through the different Old Testament eras in harmony CT. (They do not all agree with each other in detail, but all use the same general CT framework).

 

The Fall and sin

One difference in emphasis is that CT highlights more fully the ruin of sin and so the need for grace, which comes in Christ. That pattern of fallen creation and redemption in Christ sets the structure of many other doctrines in Reformed theology: revelation (with the difference between general and special revelation; providence (with the common grace/special grace distinction); decrees and election; anthropology; regeneration; justification and church.

GKBT often leaves the rupture of the fall as implicit. Goldsworthy draws an OT history timeline which flows from creation through the fall, with deviations at the period in Egypt, the division of Israel and the subsequent removal of the ten northern tribes and the Babylonian exile. This kind of presentation which flows from creation on to Israel is quite common in Goldsworthy’s books (the box diagram above is similar).

However at points, BGKT makes the issues of sin and the fall more explicit.  Gospel and Kingdom has a discussion about the Fall, showing how serious it is.[6]G. Goldsworthy,  Gospel and Kingdom, Exeter: Paternoster, 1981, 53-55. Not surprisingly (and quite appropriately), he primarily explains it in terms of the kingdom. Adam and Eve reject God’s rule which means they must face judgement, since God cannot be true to himself and tolerate his dethronement by the creatures. The consequence is death, which is the equivalent of being expelled from the garden. Goldsworthy explains “Dead man is sinful man, man who has rejected the kingdom of God. Dead man is man outside the garden”. He goes on to say that all humans now are helpless rebels who find themselves outside the garden. Later he offers a diagram which makes the impact of the fall far clearer. [7]Gospel and Kingdom, 103.

In Christ-centred Biblical Theology, Goldsworthy makes explicit use of CT concepts in his approach. He writes that the sin of Adam “is clearly presupposed in the whole New Testament account of the sin of humanity and the need for redemption” and that “what Adam perpetrated as the federal head of a sinful race, Christ redresses as the federal head of the redeemed race” (154). The significance Adam and the Fall does not dominate KGBT the way it does CT; but the two are not at odds.

Even more, KGBT has a strong stress on redemption in Christ. Goldsworthy’s approach is explicitly about thinking from the gospel, the kingdom established in and by Christ.

So my point is not that KGBT says nothing about the fall and redemption in Christ; just that the major structuring motif is the progressive revelation of the kingdom, while CT is structured around fall in Adam, redemption in Christ. From the point of view of both approaches, the other emphasis is complementary.

Redemption grounded in eternity

CT also emphasises the unity of God’s redemptive purposes from eternity. Some versions of CT include this by positing a “Covenant of Redemption” — the mutual agreement of the Father and Son (or better the Triune God) in which the Father gives a people to the Son and the Son is appointed as the mediator of redemption for them and the Spirit is appointed to apply and perfect the work of the Son in his people.[8]L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Eerdmans, 1996), 298. The term “Covenant of Redemption” is not used in the WCF, since the terminology was only just coming into use at the time.[9]Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the origins of a concept” MJT 18 (2007): 16, 23-25 says that the term is first recorded in a speech by David Dickson to General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1638, it was later used extensively by the Dutch theologians Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) and Herman Witsius (1636-1708). See the discussion in J. V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, (Mentor: Fearn, 2016). The substance of the doctrine is present in WCF 8:1 which says that God chose and ordained the Son to be mediator and “did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified”.

Goldsworthy accepts the importance of the doctrine of election. After noting that “The Fall … is a catastrophe from which we are totally powerless to recover ourselves”, he adds that the doctrine of predestination “reinforces the seriousness of sin” (155). This is true, as people who are dead in sin, we never respond to God unless he brings us to life in his sovereign grace.  In Gospel and Kingdom he writes “from God’s point of view we know that the coming of Christ … was the pre-determined factor even before God made the world”. [10]Gospel and Kingdom, 104. CT makes more of the foundational importance of election: the whole of redemptive history is based in God’s plans, and particularly in the Trinue God’s commitment to save a people, this is not the major perspective of GKBT, but Goldsworthy certainly does take that point of view at times. Most of the time, however, he works from the perspective of unfolding redemptive history.

The emphasis in Old Testament history

A further difference is where we place the emphasis in our reading of the Old Testament. Goldsworthy argues that paying attention to the Bible’s own presentation of history leads to an emphasis on David and Solomon and prophetic eschatology, rather than Moses. He takes issue, to some extent, with Vos and Clowney who are more influenced by classic CT. He suggests that the commitment to CT might be one reason why they take a different, and in his view less satisfactory approach (169, n. 11). He argues that “it is more natural to the biblical accounts to understand the watershed in revelation to be David and Solomon, not Moses.” He favours “a more basic and useful framework of narrative from creation and Fall, through a new beginning with Abraham, to the climax in David and his son’s building of the temple”. He fears that “an epoch from Moses to Christ tends to overshadow this redemptive zenith” (132).

Again, I think these approaches are complementary. The complex of events which takes place with Moses — the exodus, the Rea Sea, the giving of the law, the building of the tabernacle and the wilderness wanderings — are foundational for Israel’s self understanding. They especially involve the establishment of Israel as a nation (since much of the Mosaic material looks forward to the occupation of the land, so we can include the conquest as a part of the start of this era).

Goldsworthy is right to see this leading through to David and Solomon as the zenith of the establishment of the kingdom in Israel. But the place of Moses in this process is equally important. In Galatians, Paul treats the introduction of the Law with Moses as a significant marker (Gal 3:16–18, 23–24; 4:1–2, 24–31), though his assessment of the introduction of the Law is negative.

 

Old Testament and typology

One slight difference may lie in the way the two views describe the relationship between revelation in the Old Testament and in Christ. GKBT says the OT is “typological”. Goldsworthy describes this as a “prefigurement” which “(1) … is based on historical (or narrated) events including persons, institutions and ceremonies; (2) … involves some kind of intensification from the type to its antitype; and (3) … involves some kind of eschatological perspective” (174-75). He suggests that he offers a unique approach to typology when he argues that everything in the Old Testament is typological of Christ when it is understood “in biblical categories”, that is as God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule. Everything he says, is typological, since all things are summed up in Christ (Eph 1:10). This might be the basis for a Jonathan Edwards style typology [11]See McDermott, Gerald R. 2009. Understanding Jonathan Edwards : An Introduction to America’s Theologian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 91-112. Goldsworthy, however, sets a far tighter limit to typology since “the typological value of a person, event or institution is governed by the role that each plays in the theology of the redemptive revelation within the stage of revelation in which it occurs” (184-87).

I’m not convinced that this approach to typology is broader than is traditionally supported by CT, though Goldsworthy claims that it is. CT affirms that Christ is the substance of the covenant of grace (WCF 7:6) and he was presented in the Old Testament by “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come” (7:5). This seems to be much the same as the GKBT view of typology, that Old Testament is about God and his people and that all of this is a sign of Christ. The WCF does not discuss a limitation of typology, but the principle that any part of Scriptures has a ‘full and true sense’ but only one sense not many — and this is found through the Scriptures (1:9) suggests the same approach. Patrick Fairbairn applies this kind of view to biblical typology when he says that a typology requires

“that in the character, action, or institution which is denominated the type, there must be a resemblance in form or spirit to what answers to it under the Gospel; and … that it must not be any character, action, or institution occurring in Old Testament Scripture, but such only as had their ordination of God and were designed by Him to foreshadow and prepare for the better things of the Gospel”. [12]Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967),  46.

CT sees Old Testament revelation as a type, but also an administration of the covenant of grace and so doing more than revealing the kingdom, but also giving Old Testament saints a real participation in redemption (i.e. the kingdom in Christ). To a certain extent GKBT agrees. Gospel and Kingdom explains that God pre-figured  the Christ event for two purposes, first as “progressive revelation” and also as “the means whereby the Old Testament believer embraced the gospel before it was fully revealed.  He explains that the Old Testament believers were to believe God’s promises “concerning the shadow” and so could “grasp the reality”. Yet it seems that GKBT is more cautious about attributing the reality itself to Old Testament revelation. The types of the Old Testament did, somehow, make it possible to grasp the reality; but do not directly offer that reality. (I think this is a fair summary of what are only brief comments in Goldsworthy’s writings).

One example of this approach be can be found in the discussion of a biblical theology of resurrection in According to Plan. Goldsworthy writes that for the patriarchs “the blessings of God are promised in this life”, and in the exodus and in the historical kingdom “the promises are for a long life in the land … Life after death is not promised” (316). That is the blessings in the land were the type of resurrection, a proleptic revelation. Presumably, thought Goldsworthy does not say this, those who truly accept the promises of the the land come to share in resurrection life. But the connection between the two is not entirely clear, beyond the first being a typological revelation of the second. CT takes the view that resurrection is actually promised to Old Testament believers and given to them in Christ. WCF 7 explains that the revelation in Christ has “more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy”, but that revelation in the Old Testament was “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation”. That is, Old Testament believers did not understand their salvation in all the depth that we do after Christ, but they were promised the same salvation (including eternal life) and understood it to some extent. On the particular question of resurrection and the hope of eternal life Alexander makes the case that Old Testament believer had a “lively expectation of life after death” (Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1-18; Ps 16:10; 17:15; 49:15; 73:24).[13]See T. D. Alexander,”The Old Testament View of Life After Death” Themelios 11/2 (1986):41-46. The phrase comes from R. Mason, “Life before and after death in the Old Testament”, in Called to one hope : perspectives on the life to come, J. Colwell. ed (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 68; who repeats the standard view that the OT offers no “lively” expectation for the godly.

Van Dixhoorn explains that the ceremonies and signs of the Old Testament

“were used by the Holy Spirit to communicate the great gospel of grace to God’s people of old. … Perhaps that is why Abraham could rejoice to see Jesus’ day (John 8: 56). That is why the faithful in the earliest eras of God’s covenant community could see and ‘welcome’ the promises of God ‘from a distance’ (Heb. 11: 13). … For the faithful, the feeding of many thousands in the wilderness … was a foretaste of a spiritual food from God and a spiritual drink that reminded them of the Rock of Ages, the Rock that is Christ … it is by the working of his Spirit that each and every believer discovered ‘eternal salvation’. And all believers today are the spiritual ‘children’ of those believers from long ago; we share in their blessings (Gal. 3: 7-9, 14).” [14]C. van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2014), 105-5.

This is, again, a very slight difference. Both positions view Old Testament as typological revelation of Christ and hold that Old Testament believers are saved through Christ by means of the types. If there is a difference it seems to lie in how fully and directly Christ is know in the types. This topic was dealt in detail in a debate between Goldsworthy and Paul Blackham on the extent to which Old Testament believers knew Christ.[15]See the whole discussion at www.theologian.org.uk/bible/blackham.html

 

The ongoing significance of Israel

There is one surprising element of GKBT that is not explicit in most of Goldsworthy’s works, but is present in Christ-Centered Biblical Theology where he makes it clear that he follows Robinson in affirming a distinct and theologically significant place for Israel after Christ. His concern is to counter any view that “Gentiles would one day replace Israel as the people of God”. He quotes Robinson asserting the continuing distinction.

God’s distinctive promises to Israel are in the New Testament fulfilled, not to all believers, but to Jewish believers who constitute the restored remnant of Israel … Gentile believers are the inheritors of other promises altogether, that is, the promises made in the Old Testament to the nations who should come to Israel’s light.

Goldsworthy is right to think that such statements could seem to be dispensationalist, but as he points out Robinson proposes another horizon of fulfillment.

These two sets of promises, though distinct, are closely related, and are both finally transfigured by a new disclosure of God’s purposes, namely that both Israel and the Gentiles should lose all their distinctiveness in the one new man which will be the end-product of the salvation of God in Christ.[16]D. Robinson, “Jew and Greek: Unity and Division in the Early Church”, in Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson, vol. 1, p. 81;  quoted in Goldsworthy, 204.

In another place Robinson explains that Israel and the Gentiles are united so that they lose their distinctive identities in “a new mankind, the church in its spiritual and heavenly reality”. Robinson is referring to Eph 2:14-18 in which Christ has made the two one and formed a new humanity in himself. Robinson understands that this unity is expressed in the “visible church” (to borrow a term for classic Reformed theology). He described New Testament assemblies as “the place of reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in Christ i.e. a demonstration of mankind (Adam) renewed in Christ”.[17]D. Robinson, “ ‘The Church’ Revisited: an autobiographical fragement”, RTR 48/1 (Jan 1989): 12.

Goldsworthy, on the other hand, asserts that the New Testament writers are concerned “to maintain a real distinction between Jew and Gentile” (205). It seems (though he is not entirely clear), that for him the end of the theological distinction of Jew and Gentile is eschatological — now in heavenly union with Christ and finally in the new creation.

The CT view is different. It is not “supercessionism”, the idea that the church replaces Israel, rather it views the church as the organic “fruition” of Israel which is in continuity with Israel but takes on a new form and expression as all the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and given to all those who are his.[18]Horton, Introduction to Covenant Theology, 129-32 So, in contrast to the GKBT schema there are not two different sets of promises (if very closely related) but one set. The first Christian believers, Jews, enjoyed these in Christ; Gentiles who turned to Christ come to enjoy the same blessings in fellowship with Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ.

The difference between these two views is very slight, and Goldsworthy is reticent to claim any great practical significance for them (205-6). It does seem that there will be some difference though. The GKBT view has a stronger sense of discontinuity between Old Testament Israel and the Gentile Church while the Jewish church will have stronger continuity since it receives directly the Old Testament promises to Israel. This probably explains why GKBT sometimes seems to be closer to New Covenant Theology. [19]See M.J. Vlach, “New Covenant Theology compared with Covenantalism”, TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007) 201-219; J.G.Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, Md.: New Covenant Media, 1998); Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant

Baptism is often the test case for these views, and Goldsworthy follows Robinson in suggesting that baptism is “a gesture of repentance on the part of an Israelite turning to his God” and that Paul “did not consider baptism to be part of his essential apostolic mission to the Gentiles. [20]Robinson, “Towards a Definition of Baptism”, in Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson, 2:267-68. Goldsworthy comments “John’s baptism was for repenting Jews. There is no suggestion at any point that baptism was considered an initiation into the church” (212). Goldsworthy also agrees with Robinson that baptism is an adiaphoron, not required of Christians (at least Gentile Christians) but that “if we are going to practice water baptism, it is perfectly in keeping with its covenant connections that it be applied to the children of believers”.

CT, of course, sees baptism as the sacrament of initiation into the new covenant; usually on analogy with circumcision and replacing that. As such, the baptism which Christ instituted for his Jewish followers is equally and rightly applied to Gentiles, since there is “one baptism”. (Robinson would see this as more likely Spirit baptism than water baptism.) Water baptism is not adiapharon but part of the obedience of the church. For CT, since the children of Israel were part of the covenant and received the covenant sign; then the same is true of the people of God in the New Testament.

 

Supplementary insights

It seems that almost all the differences between GKBT and CT are slight and largely lie in matters of emphasis or perspective. The biggest difference is in the place of Israel and some of the implications which might flow from that and that is only apparent in the discussion of Robinson where Goldsworthy is cautious in the conclusions he draws.

The wo approaches can not only complement one another but also be supplementary and add something to one another. GKBT highlights the importance of Israel in the Biblical story. In particular it reminds us how important prophetic eschatology is for setting up our understanding of Christ. Both of these are important and related insights. Covenant theologians can benefit greatly from thinking about how the kingdom in prophetic eschatology is the immediate background for the kingdom coming in Christ. Personally, I have found this immensely helpful in appreciating the depth and extent of redemption in Christ. CT highlights the way in which redemptive history is grounded in God’s eternal purposes and is structured around Adam and Christ. It also stresses that the Old Testament is not only typological revelation of Christ, but truly exhibited Christ to believers. This can be a basis for applying the Old Testament more directly to believers than is sometimes done on the basis of GKBT.

I don’t think you have to choose between CT and GKBT. They come from different angles but make similar claims. They highlight different aspects and can build together to give an enriched view of biblical revelation.

 

References   [ + ]

1.I have published a more technical study of one aspect of the discussion, though it does not deal with Goldsworthy. See  “Of covenant and creation: a conversation between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology”, 156-99 in An Everlasting Covenant ed. J. Davies and A. Harman  (Doncaster, Reformed Theological Review, 2010).
2.The fullest explanation of the rationale for GKBT is in G. Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (Downers Grove: IVP, 2013). The page references in brackets at from this book. It emphasises how much Goldsworthy was influenced by  influenced by Donald Robinson, former Vice-Principal of Moore College and Archbishop of Sydney Anglican Diocese, 1982 to 1993.
3.For a detailed discussion see the OPC report on  Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Adamic Covenant https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html).
4.J. Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 9. J.F. Wilson ed. (New Haven: Yale UP, 1989).
5.J.G. VoS Biblical Theology: Old and New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), and see J.H. Wood, Jr. “Neo-Calvinism at Old Princeton: Geerhardus Vos and The Rise of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary”, ZNThG 13 (2006): 14-15 for a discussion of how Vos developed an approach which viewed salvation history organically, in contrast William Henry Green his predecessors at Princeton.
6.G. Goldsworthy,  Gospel and Kingdom, Exeter: Paternoster, 1981, 53-55.
7.Gospel and Kingdom, 103.
8.L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Eerdmans, 1996), 298.
9.Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the origins of a concept” MJT 18 (2007): 16, 23-25 says that the term is first recorded in a speech by David Dickson to General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1638, it was later used extensively by the Dutch theologians Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) and Herman Witsius (1636-1708). See the discussion in J. V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, (Mentor: Fearn, 2016).
10.Gospel and Kingdom, 104.
11.See McDermott, Gerald R. 2009. Understanding Jonathan Edwards : An Introduction to America’s Theologian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 91-112
12.Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967),  46
13.See T. D. Alexander,”The Old Testament View of Life After Death” Themelios 11/2 (1986):41-46. The phrase comes from R. Mason, “Life before and after death in the Old Testament”, in Called to one hope : perspectives on the life to come, J. Colwell. ed (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 68; who repeats the standard view that the OT offers no “lively” expectation for the godly.
14.C. van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2014), 105-5.
15.See the whole discussion at www.theologian.org.uk/bible/blackham.html
16.D. Robinson, “Jew and Greek: Unity and Division in the Early Church”, in Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson, vol. 1, p. 81;  quoted in Goldsworthy, 204.
17.D. Robinson, “ ‘The Church’ Revisited: an autobiographical fragement”, RTR 48/1 (Jan 1989): 12.
18.Horton, Introduction to Covenant Theology, 129-32
19.See M.J. Vlach, “New Covenant Theology compared with Covenantalism”, TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007) 201-219; J.G.Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, Md.: New Covenant Media, 1998); Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant
20.Robinson, “Towards a Definition of Baptism”, in Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson, 2:267-68.