Exegesis and Theology

Belcher acknowledges, “The Mosaic covenant is the most difficult covenant to understand” due to its multifaceted nature (75). He begins by noting that the Mosaic covenant is a means of fulfilling the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Exodus explicitly states that God delivered Israel in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

Belcher then turns to Exodus 19 and 24. His comments are disappointingly general and do not engage the question of whether or not these passages indicate the Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant or not.

Belcher then turns to Deuteronomy, which he argues is a renewal of the Sinai covenant. He argues that when Deuteronomy 5:2-3 said that God did not make the Sinai covenant with their fathers but with them, it means that God did not make the Sinai covenant with the patriarchs and that the second generation stands in solidarity with the first generation. In favor of this reading is that “fathers” in Deuteronomy universally refers to the patriarchs.

In the latter part of the chapter Belcher argues for the Mosaic covenant’s inclusion within the covenant of grace, while also recognizing its distinctiveness. First, he argues that the Mosaic covenant furthered the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. He thinks this points to both being part of a single covenant of grace. Second, he claims that the phrase “my covenant” applied to the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants (Gen 6:18; 17:2; Ex 19:5) indicates that these covenants are part of an overarching covenant.

Belcher rejects the claim that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. First, he holds that the necessity of perfect obedience to the law is universal. Since the law is prominent in the Mosaic covenant the Jews rightly understood it to require perfect obedience to the law to avoid condemnation, and everyone ought to keep the law. Belcher says that this was always true of Jew and Gentile and is not unique to the Mosaic covenant. Second, republication is an incorrect interpretation because Israel entered the covenant already fallen. Third, Belcher claims that both the second and third uses of the law are at work, and it depends on the state of the person as to which is foremost. In this Belcher wishes to distinguish the Mosaic covenant and the law that is contained within the covenant. He did not wish to define the covenant as a law covenant. Finally, Belcher argues that the physical blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are typological. They do not pertain to salvation.

Belcher’s overall argument for the inclusion of the Mosaic covenant within the covenant of grace suffers from a failure to examine whether or not the Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant or not. This is the fundamental issue. I would argue that Exodus 19 as well as several NT references back to the Mosaic covenant make it clear that the Mosaic covenant is a conditional, and thus a works, covenant.

Belcher’s arguments do not overturn this. The Mosaic covenant can further God’s covenant plan without being part of a covenant of grace. The phrase “my covenant” by no means clearly refers to a covenant of grace. It is not right to abstract the law from the covenant; the law defines the Mosaic covenant. Israel’s entrance into the covenant already fallen meant that it could never attain the covenant conditions and would therefore come under the covenant curses, which God states explicitly in Deuteronomy 28-30. However, Christ was born under this covenant and did fulfill its conditions. While there is typology at work in the Mosaic covenant, it is not correct to draw a sharp line between the physical blessings and curses and salvation.

John Scott Redd surveys Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22 in his treatment of the Abrahamic covenant.

Redd is aware that some argue for multiple Abrahamic covenants, usually seeing one in chapter 15 and another in chapter 17. Redd argues for a singular Abrahamic covenant, noting, “The Noahic covenant is singular and complete even though it is administered at different points and with different emphases before and after the flood” (134). He also claims, “the Mosaic covenant is delivered at Sinai (Ex. 19–24) and again renewed and updated on the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy).” Redd is correct to argue for a single Abrahamic covenant, but it is better to see the Noahic covenant as announced in Genesis 6 but cut on Genesis 8-9.

Redd also argues that every covenant is ordained by God and received in faith which then leads to faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant. With this in mind, he states, “The interplay between divine ordination and initiation in redemptive covenants is on display in the Abrahamic covenant, which itself is anticipated, inaugurated, amended, and confirmed over the course of the narrative of Genesis 12:1–25:11” (135).

Genesis 12 is the anticipation, Genesis 15 is the inauguration on the basis of faith, Genesis 17 is the amending to make clear that faithfulness is required, and Genesis 22 is the confirmation. Redd rightly notes that in Genesis 15 God “unilaterally” makes and guarantees the covenant. However, he says that Genesis 17 “includes helpful corrective to the previous emphasis on God’s unilateral participation in the covenant” (135). This is unhelpful wording. The unilateral nature of the covenant, clearly established in chapter 15, does not need to be corrected. Nor, in light of Galatians 3:15, is the language of covenant amendment ideal. Better is the statement, “In Genesis 17, the Lord revisits Abram and clarifies the terms of the covenant into which they have both entered. Lest the foregrounded unconditionality of the covenant ceremony in chapter 15 be misconstrued as a universalistic arrangement in which Abram has no responsibility, the divine instruction of chapter 17 outlines the expectations of the covenant for Abram” (141).

Redd explicitly rejects Kline and sides with John Murray in denying the claim that some covenants are conditional and others unconditional. In doing so, Redd wrongly concludes that all covenants have both unconditional and conditional elements.

In chapter 5 Belcher turns to the Abrahamic covenant. He understands Genesis 12 to enumerate the promises of the Abrahamic covenant: blessings of land, a great nation from his seed, a great name, and the bringing of blessing to all the families of the earth. Though the promises are given in chapter 12, the covenant is not cut until Genesis 15. The way God cuts the Abrahamic covenant shows it to be a unilateral covenant. Chapter 17 does not add conditions that Abraham must meet in order for God to fulfill the covenant. Rather, Abraham is instructed as to the way he should live within the covenant. The sign of the covenant, circumcision, is also given in the Mosaic covenant. Belcher understands this to signify the fulfillment of the seed promise, the importance of covenant representation (only the males were circumcised, but females were part of the covenant), and the danger of being cut off from the covenant. He also notes that not everyone who was a covenant member was circumcised in the heart, that is, not all were in a “spiritual relationship with God” (71).

I find myself in substantial agreement with Belcher on these points.

Miles Van Pelt contributed the chapter on the Noahic covenant. This chapter exposits Genesis 6-9 and had many helpful exegetical insights not directly related to the Noahic covenant. For instance, he defends the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings, addresses the theological issues connected with God’s “regret” in 6:6-7, argues that Noah’s righteousness was not sinlessness, describes the word play in Genesis 6:11-13 in which a violent and corrupt world is judged by God’s violence which corrupts or destroys the earth, etc.

More to the point, Van Pelt follows Meredith Kline in arguing for two Noahic covenants. He identifies a conditional covenant made with Noah individually in Genesis 6:18 and an unconditional, universal, common grace covenant made in chapter 9.

Van Pelt also appeals to the use of heqim with reference to both covenants to conclude that both Noahic covenants are confirmations of the covenant of grace given in Genesis 3:14-19. However, as I’ve noted before, that argument does not withstand scrutiny: Can heqim berit refer to the making of a covenant?

In his fourth chapter Belcher discusses the Noahic covenant. He begins by tracing the biblical story, with its emphasis on human sin from Genesis 4 to Genesis 6. Belcher does not think that the covenant referred to in 6:18 is a renewal of the creation covenant, since that was a works covenant and the Noahic covenant is part of the covenant of grace. He does not think that the use of qûm in this passage necessarily means that the Noahic covenant is the renewal of an existing covenant, though he does think this terminology may be used to highlight that the Noahic covenant is continuing the purposes God had for humanity under the creation covenant.

As the covenant is spelled out in Genesis 8-9 Belcher sees both redemptive and common grace elements to the covenant. Belcher claims that even though the “Noahic Covenant deals with all the creation order, including human beings and animals, while the Covenant of Grace deals with believers and their seed,” it is still proper to see the Noahic covenant as part of the covenant of grace because it is ensuring the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of the covenant of grace.

Belcher is correct in his interpretation of Genesis 6:18. This verse refers forward to the Noahic covenant that is spelled out in chapters 8-9; it is not a distinct covenant. I also agree with Belcher’s claim that the use of qûm to describe the establishment of the Noahic covenant means that the Noahic covenant not is the renewal of an existing covenant. Against the progressive covenantalists, who hold the Noahic covenant to be a renewal of the Adamic covenant, Belcher correctly observes that the Adamic covenant is a covenant of works while Noahic covenant is not.

On the other hand, Belcher struggles to make the Noahic covenant cohere with the covenant of grace. To be sure, the Noahic covenant ensures the necessary conditions for the plan of redemption to move forward. Those who see a unified redemptive plan instead of a unified covenant of grace would agree. However, it remains difficult to understand how a covenant made with all creation is an administration of a covenant made with Christ and all the elect in him.

John Currid begins chapter four of Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives by examining the consequences of Adam’s sin. 1. Human nature becomes totally depraved, and this depravity was passed on to Adam’s descendants. 2. The creation mandate is “warped by sin” (100). 3. “Man has been alienated from God” (101). And, “man and woman have been alienated from one another” (101). 4. “Adam and Eve…are alienated from their original, perfect physical environment” (101). 5. Man is “alienated from eternal life (102).

Currid follows this with a section labeled “Commencement of the Covenant of Grace.” However, there is no argument made in this section in defense of the heading. Currid simply quotes O. Palmer Robertson to the effect that in Genesis 3:14-19 “God chose to obligate himself to the sinner” (103).

In the final section of the chapter, Currid provides exegetical insights into Genesis 3:15. In the course of his exegesis he claims that in the statement “I will put enmity…,” “God is acting as the king in a suzerain-vassal covenant.” However, this assertion is not developed or defended exegetically.

In the end, though containing numerous exegetical insights into Genesis 3, Currid does not provide an exegetical defense of the covenant of redemption. Currently, the best recent exegetical defense that I’ve encountered is by Stephen Meyer in God to Us.

In his third chapter Belcher introduces the covenant of grace. He notes that after their sin, God covers Adam and Eve with animal skins, which “foreshadow the necessity of blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sin” (38). He asserts that in the statement “‘I will put enmity between you and the woman’ (NIV)” “God established the Covenant of Grace” (38).

Belcher understands that there is a corporate aspect to the seed of the women as seen in Genesis 4 and succeeding passages, but he also argues that in Genesis 3:15 the singular pronouns points to a singular Seed.

In closing this chapter Belcher distinguishes the covenant of works from the covenant of grace, and he elaborates on several issues related to the covenant of grace.

He first lists similarities between the two covenants: “God is the author of both, He initiated both covenants. God entered into both covenants with Adam and they both include his descendants. The promise of both covenants is to receive eternal life and the general aim of the covenants is the glory of God” (41).

He then notes the differences: the former was made with innocent man the latter made to redeem sinners. The former required “prefect, personal obedience” while the latter requires faith in Christ. There was no mediator between man and God in the former, but there is in the latter. Adam failed to fulfill “the principle of works” in the former, but Christ fulfilled it in the later.

Belcher holds that the covenant of grace is conditional upon faith, and that God grants faith to the elect. He holds that there is one covenant of grace administered differently at different times. The substance of the covenant, which remains constant across administrations is “the same promise of eternal life, the same mediator Jesus Christ, and the same condition of faith” (43).

Belcher notes that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect in him. This raises a problem since the sacraments of the covenant of grace are administered to “believers and their children.” This leads Belcher to assert that “a person can be part of the Covenant of Grace legally but not in relationship with God” (46). He asserts that this is just as true under the New Covenant as it was under preceding administrations, and he supports this claim with an appeal to Romans 11: “Romans 11:16-24 sets forth a holiness that comes from being engrafted into the tree that is not the inward holiness that is a result of the Spirit’s work in the life of a believer” (46). He argues that the fact that Israel and the church are pictured as an olive tree shows continuity in “this principle of covenant administration” (46).

This chapter does a good job explaining the position of covenant theology regarding the covenant of grace. But Belcher does not make exegetical arguments for these points; he simply asserts them. This lack of argumentation reinforces my perception that the covenant of grace is the week point of pedobaptist covenant theology.

Chapter 2 of Belcher’s book and chapter 2 to Covenant Theology are identical treatments of the covenant of works. Belcher begins by adducing evidence for a covenant in Genesis 1-3. He observes that though the word covenant is not used in these chapters, the elements of a covenant are present: two parties, conditions, blessings and curses, a covenant representative, and a covenant sign (the tree of life). Belcher also argues that Hosea 6:7 refers to Adamic covenant. He is aware of the three proposed translations (“like Adam,” “like mankind,” and “at Adam”), and he prefers “like Adam.” Nonetheless, he notes that the Adamic covenant could be in view with any of the three translations, observing that some interpreters think that Hosea is punning in his reference to a broken covenant at Adam such that the breaking of the Adamic covenant is also in view.

Belcher also defends the label “covenant of works,” noting that this terminology is foundational for understanding the work of Christ that is imputed to us for our salvation. While wishing to reserve the term grace for God’s redemptive work, Belcher is willing to say that in a wider sense the covenant of works was graciously given.

Belcher argues that the covenant of works is foundational to the gospel. First, all people are born sinners and are in need of the gospel because of Adam’s violation of the covenant. Second, it established the principle of “do this and live” which no one can attain, showing the need for the gospel. Finally, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works so that we can be saved.

Belcher closes by examining four deviations from the standard view, starting with the terminological differences of O. Palmer Robertson and moving through John Murray and W. J. Dumbrell to the serious errors of the Federal Vision.

Guy Richard ably defends the covenant of redemption, which he defines as “a pretemporal agreement between the persons of the Trinity to plan and carry out the redemption of the elect” (43).

After briefly tracing the historical development of this doctrine, Richard noted that language that portrays the Son buying a people, propitiating the Father, and being sent by the Father to do his work all imply a covenant between Father and Son. In addition, the Son is said to be appointed to his Messianic office. Furthermore, the Scripture speaks of the elect being given to the Son by the Father. Passages like Hebrews 10:5-10, in which the Father and Son “dialogue” with one another about the provision of redemption, also point to an intra-Trinitarian covenant.

Richard begins with this wide sweep of biblical revelation before coming to three specific proof texts. He finds that these texts more persuasively testify to a covenant of redemption in light of the previous biblical evidence. The first text is Zechariah 6:13 in which he sees a covenant of peace between the Branch, who is Christ, and Yahweh, whose throne the Branch is seated upon as both priest and king. The second text is Psalm 110:4, which testifies to “a covenant between Yahweh and Christ, one in which the latter is appointed as a priest who will intercede on behalf of God’s people forevermore” (54). The third text is Psalm 2:7 in which a covenant decree is renewed when the Son is resurrected and enthroned.

Richard then turns to theological arguments. He notes that the Bible presents Jesus as the last Adam, who achieves what Adam failed to achieve. Since Adam’s failure to keep the covenant was known to God, a preexisting covenant between Father and Son is implied. He also reasons to the existence of the covenant of redemption from the existence of the covenant of grace.

Richard closes the chapter by responding to the charge that the covenant of redemption implies three wills in God.

I found most persuasive the initial exegetical arguments that were rooted in the Scripture’s teaching about the interactions between the Father and Son in eternity regarding redemption. Of the three prooftexts, I found Psalm 110:4 to be the most persuasive, but I found the arguments regarding Zechariah 6:13 and Psalm 2:7 to be worth considering. I found the theological arguments unpersuasive.

Richard Belcher, Jr.’s The Fulfillment of the Promises of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology is another recent introduction to covenant theology.

In chapter 1 Belcher briefly states why covenant theology is an important topic of study: (1) Many churches confess the Westminster Standards, which teaches covenant theology. (2) Covenant theology is fundamental to the structure of Scripture. (3) Covenant theology is central to the “outworking of God’s plan of salvation.”

Belcher also defines the term covenant in this chapter. “The word ‘covenant’ (běr’t) refers to a legal agreement between two parties that is ratified by certain rituals that emphasize the binding nature of the agreement” (18).

He also briefly defines the covenant of redemption: “The Covenant of Redemption, also called the pactum salutis (a counsel of peace), is a pre-temporal agreement between the members of the Trinity concerning the different roles each member would perform to bring about the salvation of God’s people” (19). He defends the doctrine: “The biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption is found in passages that describe the relationship between the Father and the Son as conditioned on the obedience of the Son with the promise of reward (John 10:18; 12:49; 14:31: 15:10; 17:4; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8; 10:5-10). Covenantal language of being bound by oath is used to describe this relationship (Isa. 45:23 used in Phil. 2:10-11; Ps. 110:1, 4).”

Belcher closes the chapter by recognizing the variety that exists among covenant theologians. He notes that his purpose is” to set forth standard reformed covenant theology” (21) which he understands to be the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards.

This was a good, basic introductory chapter. I would note that his treatment of the covenant of redemption is significantly shorter than Myers’s treatment in God to Us. However, Belcher will conclude his book with several chapters surveying alternate versions of covenant theology, something Myers chose not to include as part of his book’s scope.