Chapter 7, and the first part of chapter 8 of Belcher’s The Fulfillment of the Promises of God and chapter 8 of Covenant Theology are identical treatments of the Davidic covenant.

Belcher begins with an exegesis of 2 Samuel 7, noting that even though the term for covenant does not occur in 2 Samuel 7, covenant language is used of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 23:5; Pss. 89:3, 28; 132:12. Belcher traces the context for the covenant from David’s proposition to build a temple for Yhwh to Yhwh’s covenant promise to build a house for David. He observes that the blessings outlined in 7:9-11 are blessings that David already enjoys to some extent, but the Davidic covenant will guarantee them for future generations.

Belcher sees that Davidic covenant as the culmination of previous covenants, and he documents the many links between them. For instance, he thinks that the use of Adonai Yhwh, unique in Samuel to these verses, is an allusion to Genesis 15:2, 8 and thus to the Abrahamic covenant. He follows Walter Kaiser’s interpretation of 7:19, “This is the Charter for mankind, O Lord God,” which picks up on the universal blessing aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Belcher traces the idea of kingship back through the Abrahamic and Mosaic to Genesis 1:26-28. He also argues that specific covenant promises from the previous covenants find their fulfillment through the Davidic covenant. For instance, the promise of numerous seed is fulfilled in Solomon’s reign (Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 2 Sam. 7:0-10; 1 Kings 4:20) as is the promise of blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:3; 1 Kings 4:34). Solomon’s reign also saw rest in the land (Dt. 28:1-14; 1 Kings 4:25) and Israel’s witness to the nations (Dt. 28:10; 1 Kings 4:30). The promise of God’s dwelling with his people is furthered by the construction of the temple (1 Kings 8:54-61).

Belcher argues that the Davidic covenant also highlighted the role of the king as covenant mediator for the people and the significance of Zion as the location from which God will reign over the nations.
Finally, Belcher, looking at the specific wording of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, the outworking of the covenant in redemptive history, and the commentary upon the Davidic covenant in Psalms 89 and 132, argues that the covenant is conditional with respect to “each individual king” but that “the promises of an enduring dynasty and kingdom” are unconditional because they are not “ultimately dependent on the obedience of individual kings” (176-77).

J. Nicholas Reid contributed the chapter on the Mosaic covenant. He observes that there are two main positions with regard to the Mosaic covenant. The dichotomist position holds that there are two covenants: a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. A trichotomist position holds that there are three categories: a covenant of works, a covenant of grace, and the Mosaic covenant which is subservient to the covenant of grace. Reid holds the dichotomist position, but he does describe other positions fairly in the course of the chapter.

According to the dichotomist position, all of the post-Fall covenants are in substance part of the covenant of grace but as to their accidents differently administered. He holds the substance of the covenant to be “forgiveness of sins and salvation” through Jesus (152).

Reid claims that the Mosaic covenant was unilateral in that God unilaterally established it and fulfills its promises of atonement (promises signified in the sacrificial system). But it is bilateral in the expectations for obedience to the law laid down. Further, though an administration of the covenant of grace, it is an “inferior administration” in that it is “Jewish” (rather than universal), “shadowy,” “temporary,” “condemning,” “weak,” and “preparatory” (154-55).

Reid also claims that the law which was part of the covenant of works was included in the Mosaic covenant as “a perfect rule of righteousness” (WCF 19.2). While granting that the Old Testament does not make the ceremonial, judicial, moral law distinction, Reid holds that this distinction emerges by observing how the New Testament writers handle the law.

Reid then discusses the threefold use of the moral law: to restrain sin, reveal sin, and serve as a rule for life. He looks to these distinctions to distinguish how the law functions with relation to justification and sanctification. This the Christian is set free from the law with regard to its function of condemnation but still under the law as a rule of life. Legalism happens when people attempt to keep the law apart from Christ and the Spirit. This is why love for God and others is so important to the law.

Reid grants that the exile shows there is some conditionality to the Mosaic covenant. However, he argues that the exile did not occur because Israel failed to perfectly obey the law. Though the law required perfect obedience, as an administration of the covenant of grace of also provided sacrifices and covenant mediators to deal with the sin problem. Rather, Israel went into exile because of idolatry, a failure to love God. Finally, Reid argues that God’s wrath under the Mosaic covenant is only temporary.

In the final section of the chapter Reid deals with Meredith Kline’s republication thesis. While acknowledging that there are different interpretations of Klinean republication, and that Kline’s view may have developed over time, Reid holds that in the end Kline taught that the Mosaic covenant was part of the covenant of grace rather than teaching substantial republication. Kline holds that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works only on the typological level and that the merit required was also only typological. Furthermore, typological obedience was imperfect, though it pointed forward to Christ’s perfect obedience. Reid notes that Leviticus 18:5 is the key verse for republication since it articulates the works principle. Some argue that Leviticus 18:5 and its use in the NT demonstrates that there was a works principle within the Mosaic covenant, even though the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace and even though the works principle was not tied to eternal salvation. In favor of this view, in addition to its use in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, is Jeremiah 31:33 which says the Mosaic covenant had been broken. Others argue that in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 Paul is responding to false teachers who are misusing Leviticus 18:5. A key verse for this interpretation is Romans 9:32, which indicates that by not pursuing the law by faith but by works, the Jews stumbled. Proponents of this view argue that Leviticus 18:3-4 indicate that this command is given to those who are already God’s people, meaning that the law as a guide to righteous living is in view.

Reid offers a fair summary of the various covenantal views regarding the Mosaic covenant.

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.