Where We Have Been — And Where We Are Going

Up to this point, the argument has been deliberately foundational. We have not begun with baptism itself, but with the covenants that give baptism its meaning. Each covenant has been allowed to speak on its own terms—its ranking , its rules, its rewards, and its ratification—so that we are not importing assumptions from one into another. What has emerged is not a single covenant in varied outward forms, but a series of distinct divine arrangements, culminating in the New Covenant as the only covenant by which saving grace is native and actually provided within the terms of that covenant.

From there, the implication for the sign begins to come into view.

At a basic level, a plain reading of the New Testament is sufficient to lead many to credobaptism. The consistent pattern is belief, then baptism. The sign follows faith. For many, that observation alone settles the question. Additionally, a demonstration of the Apostolic practice under the New Covenant has been covered thoroughly and in depth elsewhere (i.e. Malone). I am seeking to supplement the work that has already been done for generations, not supplant it.

But that is not where the discussion typically stops.

The paedobaptist does not deny that faith precedes baptism in the New Testament narratives. The argument instead shifts beneath the surface—into the structure of the covenants themselves. Appeals are made to Abraham, to the continuity of the covenant of grace, to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, and to passages like Romans 4 and Hebrews 8. The question becomes not simply what do we see happening, but what must be true for those things to happen as they do?

This series has been aimed precisely at that deeper level. (Part 1. Part 2. Part 3)

The goal has not been to introduce Baptists to credobaptism—that conclusion is often already reached—but to introduce a covenantal framework that can withstand the strongest Presbyterian objections to it. If the covenants are misunderstood, the objections land with force. If the covenants are rightly distinguished from within the framework that the Scripture’s provide, the objections answer themselves.

Part 4 now turns directly to the sign itself—not in isolation, but as the necessary consequence of the covenantal structure already established.

Sacrifice, Sabbath, and the Shape of the Old Order

The Old Covenant world was filled with ordained structures—priests, altars, sabbaths, purification rites, animal sacrifices, and a temple made with hands.

Hebrews teaches:

The sacrifices purified only “the flesh” (Heb. 9:13). Christ’s sacrifice purifies “the conscience” (Heb. 9:14). The sabbath anticipated a greater rest fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 4:8–10). The priesthood was temporary and anticipatory (Heb. 7:23–28). The earthly sanctuary was a shadow of the true heavenly one (Heb. 8:5; 9:24).

These institutions were divinely ordained, but they were not final (Heb. 10:1–4).

Circumcision belongs to that same typological world1 (Gen. 17:7–14). It must be interpreted the way Hebrews teaches us to read the entire Old Covenant system: as shadow anticipating substance.

2. Abraham’s Circumcision Was Unique—Israel’s Was Not

Romans 4:11 appears in a soteriological argument about justification by faith, not in a discussion establishing the membership principle of the Abrahamic covenant. It records something that happened to Abraham—and to Abraham alone:

He received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Rom. 4:11).

Scripture never applies this “seal” language to Abraham’s descendants2. Paul’s argument depends on the timing and uniqueness of Abraham’s experience—received after faith—so that he might function as the father of believing Jews and Gentiles, not as a template for how the sign functioned for every covenant member (Rom. 4:9–12).

The Old Testament narrative confirms this:

Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:23–27) yet lacked saving faith. Esau was circumcised but was “profane” (Heb. 12:16). Nadab and Abihu were circumcised but died under judgment (Lev. 10:1–2). Korah was circumcised yet perished in rebellion (Num. 16).

If circumcision universally sealed righteousness, Scripture would contradict itself.

Abraham’s male descendants were circumcised because they were Abraham’s physical offspring (Gen. 17:9–14), not because they possessed faith, regeneration, or covenantal forgiveness. The difference is not incidental—it is structural.

Abraham and the patriarchs stand at the root of a covenant that operates in two directions at once. On the one hand, it establishes a genealogical line—a nation, a land, a people preserved through physical descent. This is the historical structure through which God’s redemptive purpose moves forward in time. On the other hand, it carries a promise that transcends that structure: a singular Seed through whom all nations will be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16).

The fleshly promise preserves the line. The spiritual promise fulfills it.

Circumcision belongs to the first. It marks connection to Abraham according to the flesh—the visible, historical structure that carries the promise forward. It does not mark participation in the saving realities promised to come into history through the One that structure will provide.

The genealogical order was never the end. It was the means. It carried the promise forward until the Seed arrived.

Only insofar as that order pointed beyond itself—to the coming Christ—did it bear witness to something greater than itself. But the sign itself marked the vessel, not the fulfillment.

3. Abraham’s Covenant Contains Both Flesh and Promise

The Abrahamic covenant carries two intertwined realities.

The Fleshly (Genealogical) Seed

• A great nation (Gen. 12:2; 17:6)
  Kings coming from Abraham (Gen. 17:6)

• Numerous physical descendants (Gen. 15:5)

• Land inheritance (Gen. 15:18–21)

• Circumcision marks this group (Gen. 17:10–14)

Genesis 17:19–21 explicitly establishes that the covenantal line runs through Isaac, not Ishmael—demonstrating that circumcision marks a genealogically defined, divinely selected bloodline, not a community of faith:

“I will establish my covenant with Isaac… But as for Ishmael… my covenant I will establish with Isaac” (Gen. 17:19–21).

The Promised (Messianic) Seed

• “In your Seed all nations shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18)

• Paul identifies this Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16)

• Salvation flows through this strand—the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:12, 16; Gal. 3:7)

Both realities are true. Both belong to the Abrahamic covenant. But they are not identical.

The physical seed preserves the genealogical line leading to the Messiah, while the promised seed inherits the saving blessings of God through faith.

Circumcision is tied to the first, and regeneration to the second. The sign marks the line, but salvation comes through the Seed.

And from that Seed, the blessing of God flows to all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8), so that in Him the ancient promise is fulfilled—the serpent crushed and the nations blessed.

At this point, an obvious question arises.

Objection: “But Proselytes Received Circumcision Without Being Abraham’s Descendants”

If circumcision was fundamentally genealogical, why did God command it for slaves, servants, and foreign sojourners (Gen. 17:12–13; Exod. 12:48–49)? These were not Abraham’s biological descendants, yet they received the covenant sign. Does this not show that circumcision marked covenant membership rather than genealogy—and therefore that baptism should be given to covenant children today?

Response

The inclusion of non-Israelites in circumcision does not negate the genealogical principle. It clarifies how that principle actually functioned.

First, we must understand what “household” meant in the ancient world. A patriarch’s household was not a loose collection of unrelated individuals, but a single, ordered unit. It included biological descendants, wives from other peoples, slaves and servants, and sojourners under the patriarch’s authority. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male in his house—whether born there or bought with money (Gen. 17:12)—He was not creating two kinds of covenant membership. He was requiring that everyone within that household be marked as belonging to it.

The household itself was genealogically structured, even when it included non-biological members. Slaves, servants, and sojourners were not parallel to the genealogical community—they were incorporated into it.

Second, this same pattern continues in Israel. Proselyte circumcision did not create a separate category of covenant membership; it brought outsiders into Israel’s existing structure. Exodus 12:48 is explicit: the circumcised foreigner “shall be as a native of the land.” Not adjacent to Israel, but counted as Israel.

Ruth the Moabitess provides a concrete example. When she joined herself to Israel, she did not remain a distinct “non-genealogical” member. She was brought into the people, into the line, into the history itself. Her son Obed was counted as an Israelite, and she stands in the genealogy of David—and ultimately of Christ (Matt. 1:5). She was not a second-tier covenant participant. She was grafted into the genealogical people.

Third, none of this altered the covenant’s substance or purpose. The Abrahamic covenant remained what it always was: genealogically structured, intentionally mixed in its membership, and typological in its aim. The line still ran through Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17:19–21). The community still included both believers and unbelievers. And the entire structure still existed to preserve the line through which the promised Seed would come.

Those who entered through circumcision—whether native-born or foreign—entered into that same reality. They joined a genealogical people, a mixed community, and a typological order awaiting fulfillment. What they did not receive was regeneration, heart circumcision, or justification by the sign itself.

Circumcision marked incorporation into Abraham’s household—a household designed to carry the promise forward, not to confer the promise itself.

Finally, the New Testament makes clear that this entire genealogical structure has now reached its end. Gentiles are indeed grafted in—but not by sign, and not by flesh. They are grafted in by faith (Rom. 11:17–24). As Paul makes explicit, it is “through faith” that one stands (v. 20). And John states the matter even more directly: the children of God are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh… but of God” (John 1:12–13).

The principle has changed.

Under Abraham, incorporation could occur through genealogy, with outsiders brought into that structure, or by faith. Under Christ, incorporation occurs through faith alone.

The genealogical order that defined the old covenant people has given way to a regenerate people defined by union with the Seed Himself. And the sign follows accordingly.

Conclusion:

Proselyte circumcision does not undermine the genealogical principle; it shows how that principle actually functioned. God established a genealogically structured community and, at times, grafted outsiders into that structure. But the structure itself remained what it was—genealogical, mixed, and typological. One could be connected to Abraham by way of the flesh or by way of the promise.

The fleshly seed preserved the genealogical line leading to the Messiah, while the promised seed inherited the saving blessings of God through faith. And once that Seed arrived in history, the fleshly order had fulfilled its purpose. The shadow gave way to the Light.

Like scaffolding removed once a cathedral stands complete, the typological community gives way to the reality it anticipated. Old Israel was not discarded, but invited forward—into True Israel, into union with the Son of God.

With that fulfillment, the principle of inclusion changes. The flesh no longer connects a person to the Abrahamic promise. Only those who are united to the Promised Seed by faith remain heirs of that promise.

If you belong to Christ—then, and only then—you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Incorporation into the promise of Abraham is no longer by flesh but by faith alone (Gal. 3:26–29). The children of God are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God (John 1:12–13; cf. Rom. 9:6–8). The principle that once governed covenant inclusion has given way to a new and final order.

And if the principle of inclusion has changed, then the administration of the sign must change with it. If you would be a child of Abraham, you must belong to the Son in whom the promise is fulfilled (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:10–17).

Therefore, the sign belongs not to those connected by birth, but to those united to Christ by faith, whose blood has made propitiation and secured their cleansing.

4. Why the Sign Was Never About Personal Faith

Common objections arise.

“Shouldn’t the sign of circumcision be seen as a seal of faith for all of its members?”

Only if the sign was given as a sign of the Covenant of Grace. It was not (Gen. 17:10–14).

“Shouldn’t the outward sign match the inward reality?”

Only if the Abrahamic covenant promised inward realities to all of its members. It did not. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was not a sign of the covenant of grace. It therefore was designed to point to inclusion in Abraham, not union with Christ.

The expectation behind these objections—that the sign must be a sign of the covenant of grace—assumes what must be proven3. It assumes that the Abrahamic covenant, in its total structure, is identical in substance with the New Covenant. But the promises themselves do not sustain that claim.

The standard rejoinder at this point is to appeal to the distinction between the substance and administration of the covenant of grace. It is argued that while the Abrahamic covenant administered the same saving substance later realized in the New Covenant, it did so outwardly and in mixed form. But this distinction assumes precisely what must be proven. The question is not whether Abraham himself possessed saving faith, nor whether the promise ultimately finds its fulfillment in Christ, but whether the covenant as covenant actually administered those saving realities to its members. If the covenant itself does not promise regeneration, forgiveness, and a new heart to all within it, then it cannot be said to be an administration of the covenant of grace in substance. The New Covenant, by contrast, explicitly does.

What the Abrahamic covenant actually promised is clear: land (Gen. 15:18–21), a nation (Gen. 12:2), kings (Gen. 17:6), physical descendants (Gen. 17:2, 6), and the coming Messiah (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16). These are real promises, divinely given, and essential to the unfolding of redemption. But they are not promises of regeneration, a new heart, or forgiveness of sins. They are not promises of union with Christ or peace with God for any covenant member—let alone for all of them.4

Those realities belong to the New Covenant, inaugurated by a better sacrifice (Heb. 9:15–26) and securing a better rest (Heb. 4:9–10). They are not features of Abraham’s covenant terms.

This is why circumcision cannot be a sign of the Covenant of Grace. It never signified the blessings that the Covenant of Grace provides (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:10–12; Heb. 10:14–18). It identified Abraham’s physical descendants (Gen. 17:10–14), marked the flesh (Rom. 2:28), and was applied indiscriminately—a reality incompatible with a covenant whose membership is entirely regenerate (Jer. 31:34; John 6:37–39).

Circumcision belongs to the shadow-order of land, nation, and lineage—not the fulfilled order of regeneration and union with Christ. It is part of the scaffolding, not the cathedral; a type, not the antitype.

And if the New Covenant truly is new—if it advances typological Israel into True Israel and takes down the Abrahamic scaffolding, leaving only the cathedral of faith—then the sign must follow that same movement.

5. Why Baptism Is Not the Fulfillment of Circumcision

Paedobaptist theology operates on the basis of continuity between circumcision and baptism. But covenantal structure, biblical definition, apostolic interpretation, and typological-redemptive advancement all press in the opposite direction.

5.1 A Sign Cannot Outlive the Covenant It Signifies

Circumcision is tied to Abraham’s fleshly promises (Gen. 17:7–14).

These reached their telos when Christ—the promised Seed—arrived (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 9:5).

A sign tied to genealogy cannot be reborn as a sign of regeneration.

A sign that identifies the genealogically governed people of Abraham does not dictate the terms of who receives the sign of rebirth. When the fleshly scaffolding is removed, only the promised building remains.

5.2 A Fleshly Marker Cannot Fulfill a Spiritual Reality

Circumcision properly marked physical lineage—the visible line through which Christ would come (Gen. 17:10–14).

Baptism rightly marks something altogether different:

• union with Christ (Rom. 6:3–5)

• forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16)

• cleansing (Acts 2:38)

• regeneration (Titus 3:5)

• participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Col. 2:12)

These are not parallel categories.

A sign that primarily marks physical lineage cannot fulfill a reality defined by union with the risen Christ. Circumcision marked those from whom Christ would come. Baptism marks those who belong to Christ now that He has come.

5.3 The Recipients Themselves Prove the Signs Cannot Correspond

Circumcision was given to the children of Abraham according to the flesh (Gen. 17:10; Rom. 9:7–8). Every male in that line bore the sign because he belonged to Abraham’s household. The covenant it marked was intentionally mixed—believers and unbelievers together—by divine design.

Baptism belongs to a different order entirely. It is given to those who are Abraham’s children according to the promise (Gal. 3:7, 29)—those united to Christ by faith (Gal. 3:26–27). Everyone Christ represents is in His covenant (John 6:37–40; Heb. 9:15; Heb. 10:14), and that covenant secures forgiveness for all its members (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12).

A covenant that guarantees forgiveness to all its members ought not have its sign applied to those who have no claim to that forgiveness. The sign cannot outrun the promise it signifies.

Yes, false brothers may infiltrate (Gal. 2:4; Jude 4). But they enter by deceit, not by right. The church does not claim infallible knowledge of regeneration; it applies the sign on the basis of profession—because the covenant itself is defined by regenerate realities, realities presently possessed, not merely anticipated. This is the foundation of our peace according to Hebrews: we have peace with God now because the full blessings of the New Covenant have been secured and applied through union with Christ.

The sign fits the covenant.

Circumcision fit a covenant grounded in flesh (Gen. 17:13).

Baptism fits a covenant grounded in Spirit (John 3:5–8; Rom. 8:9) and perfectly secured by Christ.

5.4 Paul Explicitly Disconnects the Two

Paul never calls baptism “the new circumcision.”

Instead he declares:

• “Circumcision is nothing” (1 Cor. 7:19).

• “We are the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3).

Its fulfillment is not another external rite, but an inward reality:

• heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28–29)

• the work of Christ (Col. 2:11)

Circumcision is redefined—not transferred. Baptism does not continue circumcision. It signifies union with Christ.

The fulfillment of circumcision is regeneration—not baptism.

5.5 Colossians 2:11–12 in Context

Colossians 2:11–12 is often treated as the decisive proof that baptism replaces circumcision. On a surface reading, the proximity of the terms can give that impression. But the argument turns not on proximity, but on contrast.

The controlling distinction is not between circumcision and baptism, but between circumcision made with hands and circumcision made without hands5.

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands…” (Col. 2:11)

This is the long-promised circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; cf. Rom. 2:29). It is called “the circumcision of Christ” because Christ Himself was cut off in our place (Isa. 53:8), bearing the covenant curse (Gal. 3:13). In Him, the typology of physical circumcision reaches its end.

What circumcision pointed to, Christ accomplishes.

This circumcision “puts off the body of the flesh”—not the removal of physical skin, but the decisive break with the Adamic federal-nature. It is inward, effectual, and complete.

Only after this reality is established does Paul introduce baptism:

“…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith…” (Col. 2:12)

Baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, but the visible drama of union with Christ in His death and resurrection—accomplished in Christ and received through faith.

If baptism were the direct successor to circumcision, this would be the place to say so. But Paul does not move from old sign to new sign. He moves from shadow to substance, and then from substance to sign.

The fulfillment is not a handoff. It is a transcendence. If Paul intended to teach that baptism replaces circumcision, this is the one place we would expect him to say so directly. Instead, he explicitly contrasts the old, physical rite with an inward, Christ-wrought reality, and only then introduces baptism as the sign of that already-accomplished union.

Colossians 2 does not establish sacramental continuity. It announces typological completion. The old is not continued—it is buried. And those who belong to Christ are raised into newness of life.

Baptism marks that life—not as a successor to circumcision, but as the sign of a new covenant reality, accomplished in Christ and received through faith.

5.6 Christ Fulfills Circumcision; Baptism Marks Those in Him

Christ was “cut off” for His people (Isa. 53:8). He bore the covenant curse (Gal. 3:13). He fulfilled the Abrahamic promises (Gal. 3:16). Circumcision terminates in the circumcision of Christ.

Baptism belongs to the covenant inaugurated by His blood (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15). Baptism is not a continuation of circumcision. It is the sign of a different covenant—accomplished, not anticipated; spiritual, not genealogical; grounded in union with Christ, not connection to Abraham according to the flesh.

Circumcision marked the people from whom Christ would come.

Baptism marks those who belong to the ascended King.

6. Hebrews as the Interpretive Key

If we want to understand how the Old Covenant relates to the New, we are not left to speculation. Scripture itself gives us the interpretive lens.

The book of Hebrews does not merely describe the transition from old to new—it explains it. It teaches us how to read the entire Old Covenant system in light of Christ.

And the pattern is unmistakable:

• The priesthood fulfilled (Heb. 7:23–28)

• The temple fulfilled (Heb. 9:24)

• The sacrifices fulfilled (Heb. 10:1–14)

• The sabbath fulfilled (Heb. 4:8–10)

• The ceremonial cleansings fulfilled (Heb. 9:9–14)

• The covenant itself fulfilled and surpassed (Heb. 8:6–13)

• Access to God fulfilled (Heb. 10:19–22)

The old typological order is not carried forward in a new form. It is brought to its appointed end by way of fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Not continuation—but fulfillment.

Not preservation—but transcendence.

Not shadow extended—but shadow giving way to substance.

“The law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10:1).

“They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5).

The language is decisive. The Old Covenant institutions were real, God-ordained, necessary, good, just, and beautiful—but they were not final. They were preparatory, pointing beyond themselves to a greater reality.

And when that reality arrives, the shadow does not continue alongside it.

It gives way.

Applying the Pattern

Circumcision belongs to that same world.

It is not an isolated ordinance. It is part of the same typological system—bound up with land, nation, priesthood, temple, and sacrifice.

And if every other element of that system is fulfilled and brought to completion in Christ, then the burden of proof shifts.

Why would circumcision alone escape the pattern?

Why would the priesthood give way, the sacrifices cease, the temple be fulfilled, the sabbath find its rest in Christ—and yet the genealogical marker of that same covenant order continue under a new form?

The New Testament never says it does.

It says the opposite.

Circumcision, like the rest of the Old Covenant structures, reaches its telos in Christ. Its meaning is fulfilled. Its function is complete. Its role in redemptive history has ended.

The Hermeneutical Conclusion

The question, then, is not whether circumcision has significance.

It does.

The question is how that significance continues.

And Hebrews answers:

Not by repetition.

Not by transformation into another external rite.

But by fulfillment in Christ.

This is the apostolic method.

And once that method is applied consistently, the conclusion follows naturally:

Circumcision belongs to the shadow-order.

Baptism belongs to the fulfilled order.

7. The Foundational Question: Who Is in the Covenant?

The primary question is not: Who should be baptized?

The primary question is: Who belongs to the New Covenant?

Answer the question of the covenant, and the question of the sign answers itself.

Scripture answers with striking clarity:

“They shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34).

“I will write My law on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).

“Their sins I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34).

“By a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).

This covenant is not like the ones that came before it.

It is not genealogical (John 1:12–13).

It is not mixed (Jer. 31:34).

It does not contain those who do not know the Lord.

It does not include those whose sins remain unforgiven.

Its membership is defined not by birth, but by new birth.

Not by proximity, but by union.

Not by flesh, but by Spirit.

This is not an invisible ideal.

It is the stated nature of the covenant itself, and we must allow The New Covenant to define its own terms.

The Implication for the Sign

Because the covenant is defined by regenerate membership, the sign must correspond to that reality.

Not perfectly—because the church is not omniscient.

But truly—because the covenant itself is.

The church does not claim to see the heart. But it does claim to believe what God has said about His covenant. And so the sign is applied not on the basis of birth, but on the basis of profession. Not because profession guarantees regeneration, but because regeneration defines the covenant. This is why the New Testament consistently presents baptism as following faith:

“Those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41)

“If you believe… you may” (Acts 8:36–38)

“Can anyone withhold water…?” (Acts 10:47–48)

The pattern is not incidental. It is covenantal.

Conclusion

No longer by flesh, but by faith alone.

Not by physical descent, but by union with the One who became physical and descended from heaven.

No longer by connection to Abraham according to the flesh, but by connection to Abraham through the One who became physical, died, and rose again.

Only those who are in Christ are children of Abraham, and only those who are in Christ are part of God’s household and are entitled to the covenant sign of membership that belongs to it.

Therefore:

The sign belongs not to those connected by birth, but to those united to Christ by faith— by the blood of the new covenant.

Epilogue

To grasp the depth of humanity’s fall and the splendor of God’s redeeming grace, we must look beyond the ruins of Israel and the failures of Adam. We must go before covenants were cut in blood, before sabbaths circled through time, before a garden was planted in the east. We must look into eternity itself—into the counsel of Father, Son, and Spirit, where redemption was purposed before the world began.

There, in that eternal fellowship, God was not lonely, needy, or incomplete. He is the Self-existent One, infinite in glory and overflowing in delight. Yet from the fullness of that delight, the triune God ordained a plan: to create a people, to dwell with them, and to bring them into the joy that Father, Son, and Spirit have shared forever. This eternal pact—the Covenant of Redemption—stands behind every promise in Scripture and explains every covenant in history.

When God said, “Let there be,” creation became the stage on which this eternal purpose would unfold. Nothing compelled Him to work slowly or through fragile vessels. With a word, He could have undone the curse, raised the dead, and restored all things. But He chose instead to reveal His glory through a drama—a story of promise, shadow, anticipation, sacrifice, and finally, fulfillment in Christ.

And though humanity rebelled, though Israel forgot, though kings failed and priests faltered, God remained faithful. He preserved a remnant, upheld His promises, and carried forward His covenant word. He promised a new heart. He promised a better covenant. He promised a coming Messiah who would keep the covenant His people had broken.

At last, in the fullness of time, the Son took on flesh, bore the curse, fulfilled the law, and inaugurated the New Covenant in His own blood. What the historical covenants anticipated in shadow, Christ accomplished in substance. By His death and resurrection, He secured a people who truly know the Lord, whose sins are forgiven, whose hearts are made new, and who are kept by His intercession forever.

This is redemption’s goal—not merely forgiven sinners, but a redeemed and regenerate people dwelling with their God. A people formed not by flesh, nation, or lineage, but by the Spirit’s work and the Son’s covenant faithfulness. A people gathered from every tribe and tongue, united in Christ, and destined for the glory of the New Jerusalem.

One day, we will stand in that city whose builder and maker is God. The temple will be gone, for the Lord Himself will be our dwelling place. The sun and moon will fade, eclipsed by the radiance of the Lamb. And the scarred hands that formed the stars will welcome us into the fellowship that existed before the foundation of the world.

Until then, we read the Scriptures covenantally, as the unfolding of God’s eternal purpose. We see in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas, and David the shadows that pointed to Christ. And we receive the sign of the New Covenant—not on the basis of flesh, but on the basis of faith in the One who fulfilled every promise of God.

For the covenant Christ inaugurated is the Covenant of Grace in its fullness. Its people are those He redeemed. Its blessings are those He secured. Its membership is those He regenerates. And its sign belongs to all who belong to Him.

May we, with hearts made new, walk in the covenant He has cut with His own blood.

May the church bear the sign of that covenant faithfully.

And may God bring His people at last into the eternal joy prepared for them in Christ.

Amen.

Share

Subscribe now

This essay is drawn from a larger work currently in development. For clarity and readability in an online format, AI tools were used in an editorial capacity only. All theological content, arguments, and conclusions are the author’s own.

Works Consulted for Part 4: From Flesh to Spirit

• Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. (Chapters on typology, temple, sabbath, and fulfillment in Christ.)

• Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. Revised Edition. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017. (Sections on Abrahamic typology and circumcision.)

• Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018. (On covenant fulfillment, typology, and progression from shadow to substance.)

• Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. (On Abrahamic structure and finality.)

• Malone, Fred A. The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003.

• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vols. 5–7. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991. Reprint. (Especially on Old Covenant shadows, sacrifices, priesthood, temple, sabbath rest, and New Covenant superiority.)

• Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019. (On Abrahamic dual strands, circumcision typology, and fulfillment in Christ.)

• Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980. (Overview of covenant progression and typological fulfillment.)

• Schreiner, Thomas R. Hebrews. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015. (On Hebrews’ teaching regarding Old Covenant institutions and their fulfillment.)

• Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1956. (Classic treatment of typology in Hebrews.) https://archive.org/details/biblicaltheology0000vosg_h0a4/page/8/mode/1up

• Warfield, B. B. “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 7 (1896): 254–262. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ia.ark:/13960/t88h4f89g&seq=5

• White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part I).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1, no. 2 (July 2004): 144–168.

• White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 83–104.

You have prayed. You have waited. And God, it seems, has not answered. The promises you once held like solid ground now feel like words on a page — true for someone else, perhaps, but not for you. Not now. These are the moments of silence that burn your ears as you cry out for even the faintest response from heaven. “Lord? Do you hear me?”

Dear saint, know this: you are not alone in this struggle. Your temptations are the very same kind that your Savior experienced when He took on human flesh. But where you fail, your Savior was victorious. Where you stumble, He stands ready to lift up His saints as the Spirit conforms them into His image.

Often our difficulty runs deeper than the situation or struggle itself. Our deepest difficulty is believing God’s promises in the midst of those trials.

God works all things together for the good of those who love Him.

Do you believe Him?

You are currently seated in heavenly places in Christ.

Do you believe Him?

Our God established the end from the beginning. He holds His saints in His nail-pierced hands in such a way that nothing can snatch them away—not even you.

Do you believe Him?

And now the hard one: It has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer. Do you believe Him?

I urge you to believe Him.

Because it is our suffering that the Lord most often uses to wake us up to our profound need. It is our suffering that reminds us that we are wholly inadequate to face this world without Him. It took the suffering and death of the God-man to finally defeat the enemy. Do you believe that? If so, why do you think the Lord will not use the same methods to shape you into the image of His Son?

Most who name the name of Christ do not doubt the truth claims of God. The question is far more personal: “Even the demons believe. The fact that I know these things are true does not change my position before God. If anything, I am more culpable. I know these things are true. I just don’t know if they are true for me. Lord, am I Yours? Because it doesn’t feel like it.”

Our God is good. He is just. And He loved us while we were still sinners. Christian, He loved you while you were still a sinner. Do you believe that?

If so, why then in our moments of grief do we look away from our Savior and look at ourselves? Is that not the very thing that first drove you to the foot of the cross? Remember the gospel of your salvation. I implore you—remember Christ.

There is good news for you, my friend. Sweet and refreshing news: How you feel does not change anything about how God feels toward you. If you are looking to yourself, to your misery, or to your wavering circumstances and unsteady emotions to be the final arbiter of your salvation, you are looking in the entirely wrong place.

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

Do you not remember those early days when you first experienced the grace of God? Do you not remember your complete helplessness and the simple prayers that flowed from your heart without effort? Do you not remember your Savior?

Your hope is in Him. Your assurance is in Him. Your peace, comfort, life, death, trials, victories, and defeats are all centered on Him. He alone is sufficient to bring your heart to peace. He alone is your comfort in life and in death.

If you are in the midst of doubt, you do not need secret knowledge or a deep dive into your problems. You need the simple message of salvation that brought you peace and forgiveness when you first called upon His name. Return to it. Cling to Christ.

The fact that you care about your salvation and your relationship with Christ is evidence that the Spirit is working in you. That you wish He were near is something only His child would desire. This is not the experience of an enemy of God. Christian—He has not gone anywhere. He has not left you nor forsaken you. And He bids you, “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and you will find rest.” You are indeed a great sinner; of this there is little doubt. But Christ is a far greater Savior. Do you believe Him?

If this is you, dwell on the simple truths of this message. Believe them. And find peace for your soul.

Heidelberg Catechism Q1:

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,

and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.

He also watches over me in such a way

that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven;

in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.

Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life

and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Share

Subscribe now

A Call to Faithful Proclamation

I far prefer the way that some Christians evangelize over the way that most Christians don’t even care to try. Typically, the struggle that us moderns have regarding the public proclamation of God’s word is not methodological—the problem we have is complete unwillingness. Nevertheless, once you have worked up the courage to deliver a message of life and death to a world that worships at the feet of her father the devil, another problem soon shows its teeth: To whom do I deliver this message, and is there ever a time to stop proclaiming the victory of King Jesus?

To the Faithful Who Proclaim

For those who have freely received and choose to give that message to others, I am not here even addressing the issue of method. Some opt to hit the streets and preach from corners, others knock on doors, hand out tracts, or sit at a coffee shop with a warm scone and an open Bible. To all of these I simply say, “Godspeed.” They are neither ignorant nor complacent. The talents they have been given are neither being hidden nor squandered.

Some will double their investment; others will see stadiums come to Christ. Ultimately, and this is vital to grasp, the results are not up to you. Our task is faithfulness.

It is the Spirit of God alone who accomplishes the work. And that work may accomplish one of two things. For some the gospel is a message of life. Equally so to others, it is a message of death and condemnation (2 Cor 2:14-17 ESV). In both, it is the Spirit of God accomplishing His work in the hearer.

One of the biggest struggles faithful Christians face is this:

“How do I know if I’m being successful?” The answer to that is beautifully simple. Are you sharing the gospel? Then you are successful; or to be more accurate, God is successful. We do not measure our success by counting hands. Rather, we believe God when He tells us that His word does not return void (Isa 55:11 ESV).

We believe God when He says that He works all things according to His will (Rom 8:28 ESV). Christ was not lying when He said that His sheep will hear His voice (John 10:27 ESV).

If you are speaking the words of the shepherd, then His sheep will hear His voice. Likewise, if you are speaking His words and the listener refuses to receive the message, then you can have confidence that, at least for the moment, they are not supposed to. They reject your message because they have rejected Him (John 15:18-25 ESV). Our God is in the heavens and He does whatever He pleases (Psa 115:3 ESV). He has established the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10 ESV). This is enough to know that success in the field is measured by our faithfulness to proclaim His word, not by the audience’s reception. Do you want to be a successful evangelist? Deliver the message of Christ.

Is There Ever a Time to Stop?

As to the question of do you ever stop proclaiming the King? In practice no. He is worthy of proclamation. In particular application? Still no. There are certainly times when the enemy seeks to bog you down in an argument with one of his minions. We ought not cast pearls before swine. Trust the Spirit. There are certainly moments when you should stop engaging with one person so you can actually give the message to somebody with ears to hear.

This is a question for group number one. This is not the question that the next group needs to be asking however. The next group doesn’t need to worry about listening to the Spirit about when to stop, but rather obeying the Spirit who has already told you to start.

To Those Who Do Not Regularly Share the Gospel

Speaking now to those who do not regularly share the gospel (whatever method or location you may choose): Why? It can be only one of a few reasons. Either you do not know that you are supposed to “be ready in season and out of season” (2 Tim 4:2 ESV). You do know but you are afraid (1 Pet 3:14; cf. his own earlier denial in Mat 26:69-75 ESV). Or you do know but simply chose to not obey.

For the latter group—those who know the call but refuse—I leave you with a simple message; may the Spirit do His work in you as you hear the voice of the Shepherd.

And again,

My challenge to you is this. Not are you doing enough to inherit the kingdom of God. You can never do enough. But do you actually believe that Christ has done enough on your behalf. If so, why do you refuse to do the good work that is set before you out of the overflow of Christ’s work in you? If you are in Him, this is not a message of condemnation. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1 ESV). Please keep in mind the chapter that comes before this statement. It is not a message about the goodness of Paul, it is a message about where his hope truly lies in the midst of his failures. May you remember that goodness in the midst of whatever providential situation you find yourself.

To the Ignorant or Fearful

For the first group—the ignorant or fearful—allow me to help. You’re commanded to share the gospel; to “be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15 ESV). It’s not optional. Nor is it necessarily an occasion driven by a peculiar event in your specific world. But it most certainly is event driven. I happen to spend a lot of my time spreading the gospel to my Mormon neighbors. Others primarily interact with their coworkers. Stay-at-home mothers are spreading the good news to eternal souls every day of the week.

Much of the location is determined by providence, some by desire, but each and every one of these is event driven—the event of the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the God-man. Because this event has happened, once for all time, we have been drawn into that narrative as representatives of the King.

And He did not simply suggest that the message of the Kingdom was a good idea to tell others about. He said, “Go make disciples of all nations” (Mat 28:19 ESV). And then, He was intimately involved when His people “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6 ESV).

These commands were given to the church, and as part of the body, you are to function accordingly. If you are a foot, walk. If you are a hand, grasp. If you are a tongue, speak (Rom 12:4-6 ESV, 1 Cor 12:12-27 ESV). Note that not all are called to the office of a full-time evangelist, yet every Christian is called to speak the truth in season and out of season as opportunity arises. You may not be the one on the corner with a bullhorn. That’s okay. I promise. But you are a part of the body. As such, you are commanded to do what is good. And if you know what is good but faint in the day of adversity (Pro 24:10 ESV), may this be a strengthening message for you. The gospel isn’t about you. It never was. It’s about Christ, and he is worthy of your faithfulness where you have been called. If you know what is good for you to do, yet do not do it, that is sin for you (James 4:17 ESV). But you have good news. You worship a powerful savior. He was already humiliated for this message. Any humiliation you may face for your faithfulness is His humiliation, not yours.

Go Forward in His Victory. Godspeed and onward Christian soldier. Christ’s victory was already secured 2000 years ago. “Therefore, go.”

Share

Subscribe now

Part 1 & Part 2

Two installments have been given to the covenants. A third is now given to the sign.

This is not a detour—it is the destination the series has been building toward. The covenants were never the point in themselves. They were always moving somewhere. And where they were moving was here: to the question of who belongs to the covenant community Christ has purchased, and what sign marks their membership in it.

How God constitutes His covenant people determines how His covenant signs are administered. Get the covenants right, and the sign follows. Get the covenants wrong, and the sign will be given to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong theology beneath it.

The debate over circumcision and baptism is not, at its root, a debate about infants. It is a debate about the architecture of redemptive history—about what kind of covenant God is now administering, what kind of people He is now forming, and whether the genealogical principle of a former covenant still governs the new covenant community.

The covenants have been examined. Each has been allowed to define its own ranking, its own rules, its own rewards, and its own ratification. What has emerged is not a single covenant in varied dress, but a series of distinct divine arrangements—each serving its appointed purpose, each pointing forward to the covenant that would finally and fully secure what the others could only promise and picture.

That covenant has now been cut. Its sign has been given.

If you belong to Adam, you bear his covenant curse.

If you belong to Abraham, you receive Abraham’s sign.

If you belong to Israel, you receive Israel’s sign.

If you belong to Christ, you receive His—and with Him, life.

Only one question remains:

Who belongs to Christ?

Circumcision, Baptism, and Covenant: The Heart of the Disagreement

Every major theological debate eventually circles back to the same question: How does God relate to His people across time?

The answer is covenant.

This is the question that hovered over Eden’s groves, where the first covenant shattered like brittle clay. It echoed in Abraham’s starry promise, thundered amid Sinai’s smoke, and found its quiet fulfillment in a blood-sealed upper room. It pulses through the prophets’ visions of a law etched not on stone but on beating hearts.

If covenant is the framework of Scripture’s story, then the signs attached to those covenants are never arbitrary. They reveal what kind of people God is forming, what kind of kingdom He is building, and how He brings His redemptive purposes to completion.

Few debates expose this more clearly than the disagreement over circumcision and baptism. On the surface, the dispute appears to concern the proper subjects of a ritual. In reality, it concerns the architecture of redemptive history—how God structures His covenants, fulfills His promises, and brings the Old Testament types to their appointed telos in Christ.1

What follows is a covenantal, redemptive-historical case demonstrating that circumcision cannot function as a model for Christian baptism. If, as established in parts one and two, the New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace—composed exclusively of regenerate members—then its sign cannot be administered on the genealogical principle of a different covenant.

We begin not with water or blade, but with the eternal counsel where Father, Son, and Spirit decreed the salvation of the elect.

We begin not with signs, but with the reality to which they point.

We begin where God begins: with Himself.

A Covenantal Overview: A Brief but Necessary Foundation

Before we ever get to the disagreement about who should be baptized, we have to settle a far more foundational question: What exactly is the New Covenant, and how does it relate to everything that came before it?

Scripture unfolds redemptive history through a series of divinely imposed, oath-bound arrangements—covenants. Each one has its own ranking, rules, rewards/retribution, and ratification. None of them are arbitrary, and none of them can be flattened into the others without doing violence to the text.

Yet all paths trace back to eternity past, where the members of the Trinity covenanted among themselves—the Covenant of Redemption. In this eternal agreement, the Father elects and gives a people to the Son; the Son redeems them, satisfying divine wrath; the Spirit applies that work, sealing and sanctifying the elect. This intra-Trinitarian pact, rooted in divine unity, sets the stage for all that follows, ensuring that every historical covenant serves this redemptive purpose (Ephesians 1:3–14; Psalm 110:1–4; John 10:27–30).

1. Creation & Adam

God orders the cosmos as His cosmic temple and places Adam in a garden-temple as vice-regent. Adam is given a covenant of works: perfect, personal, perpetual obedience would bring him and everything he represented into eternal sabbath-rest enthronement. He fails. The world falls with its federal head. Yet in the very curse God promises a coming Seed who will crush the serpent (Gen 3:15) —not the Covenant of Grace ratified, but the promise of the One who would cut that covenant in history with His own blood— the protoevangelium, the first glimmer of the Covenant of Grace.

2. Noah after the flood

God does not cut (kārat) a brand-new saving covenant. Because it is universal and preservative rather than narrowly redemptive, the Noahic covenant is never said to be ‘cut’ (kārat) anew but ‘upheld’ (hēqîm) toward Noah (Gen 6:18; 9:9). He affirms (hēqîm) with Noah the original Adamic arrangement, now graciously adjusted to a cursed world. While hēqîm can be used in various covenantal contexts, the point here is that the Noahic arrangement is creational and preservative in scope, not redemptive in substance.

The Noahic covenant is with Noah, his sons, every living creature, and the earth itself. Its purpose is preservation, not redemption. God promises seasonal and creational stability (never again a global flood, seedtime and harvest continue) so that the stage remains set for the promised Seed. This is common grace in service of redemptive grace—the lapdog, not the master.

An unavoidable reality

Before turning directly to the question of circumcision and baptism, one more step is necessary. The issue before us is not merely what the covenants say, but how they are being read.

At this point, the question of method can no longer be avoided. Both sides in this discussion bear a burden of proof. The issue is not whether a system can be constructed that accounts for the data, but whether that system arises from the data itself2. In Parts 1 and 2, I have attempted to do precisely that—identifying the pattern provided by scripture and examining each covenant in turn according to its own terms: its ranking, its rules, its rewards and retribution, and its ratification. The argument has not been that the covenants cannot be related, but that they must first be allowed to speak in their own categories before any synthesis is imposed upon them3.

The Presbyterian approach, however, begins at a different point. It states that the covenants share one underlying substance while differing only in administration. But this is not a category supplied by the text. Presbyterian theologians are not thereby abandoning Scripture as their sole infallible rule of faith and life. The question is not whether they appeal to scripture, but whether the categories by which they organize the covenants arise from Scripture itself or are brought to it from without. Historically, this framework has been expressed in terms that are indebted to Aristotelian distinctions between substance and accidents45. That does not make it false; the use of categories is unavoidable. But it does mean it must be justified. The burden lies with those who employ such categories to demonstrate that Scripture itself warrants them, rather than assuming them as a starting point and reading them back into the covenants. The question then is whether these categories are derived from the covenant texts themselves or imposed upon them?

Until that justification is done, the Baptist is not rejecting a biblical conclusion, but declining to grant an unproven premise. The covenants must first be read as they are given. Only then can we ask how they relate.

The question is not whether the covenants can be made to fit a system. The question is whether the system has first been drawn from the covenants themselves.

3. Abraham

Here God does cut (kārat) a new covenant (Gen 15). It is one covenant with two intertwined (but not identical) modes of inclusion: by flesh (preserving the genealogical line) and by promise (anticipating spiritual blessing through the coming Seed).

• a physical seed, a land, a nation, kings—all typological and earthly;

• a promised singular Seed (Christ, Gal 3:16) through whom all nations will be blessed.

Circumcision is given as the sign of this covenant. It marks entrance into the fleshly, genealogically defined community from which Messiah will come—not the spiritual community that belongs to Messiah now that He has come. Its typological significance is real (see Section 4 below), but its administrative function was genealogical. The sign itself makes the point. Ishmael was circumcised (Genesis 17:23–27). Ishmael was explicitly excluded from the covenant promise — 'through Isaac shall your offspring be named' (Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:7). The sign did not make him a member of the promissory strand. It marked his inclusion in the genealogical community, the physical line through which the Messiah would come. Paul draws this conclusion explicitly in Romans 9:6–8: 'not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.' The sign and the spiritual reality were separable from the beginning — it was a feature, not a bug—which is precisely what the New Covenant eliminates.

Yes, there is one people of God united in Christ across time. But the covenantal form of that people pre-Christ is typologically entangled with a national, genealogical structure that is not itself the Covenant of Grace in substance. Presbyterian theology maintains that the Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, differently administered across redemptive history, therefore grounding the continuity between circumcision and baptism as visible signs of the same Covenant of Grace under different administrations. This is of course the central point of the first two installments of this series.6 The New Covenant differs from every prior covenant not merely in administration, but in substance—its ranking, rules, rewards, and ratification are all distinct. Most decisively, it is the only covenant in Scripture that secures the full forgiveness of sins for all of its members (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12). Therefore, it alone is the Covenant of Grace. Unlike the sacrifices of the Aaronic priests, when the Great High Priest intercedes for his covenant people with his own blood, that intercession actually forgives their sins (Heb 10:11-14). Where forgiveness is not secured, covenant membership in Christ’s blood is not present.

4. Moses

Another new covenant is cut (kārat) at Sinai—national, conditional in its retention of Canaan, typological, and intentionally mixed. Obedience brings temporal blessing in the land; disobedience brings exile. It is a covenant of works at the national level, superimposed on the prior gracious promise, designed to expose sin and function as a guardian until Christ (Gal 3:19–24).

5. Phinehas

One might object: “But the Phinehas covenant is merely a subset of the Mosaic covenant—an internal administration within the Sinai framework. It does not directly address the Abrahamic covenant or its sign. Therefore, its termination proves nothing about whether circumcision continues as baptism.”

At first glance, this objection seems plausible. But it ultimately exposes a deeper issue—one that lies beneath the entire paedobaptist argument.

The question is not merely how one covenant relates to another. The question is: What governs our interpretation of covenant continuity?

Is it the exegesis of each covenant in its own context, or a prior commitment to a theological system that determines, in advance, how those covenants must relate?

The Phinehas covenant functions as a test case.

If the Mosaic covenant is, as Westminster theology asserts, an administration of the Covenant of Grace, then what occurs within that administration cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. It becomes a controlling example of how covenantal language—particularly terms like “everlasting”—actually functions within redemptive history.

And here the dilemma emerges:

Either the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, or it is not.

If it is not, then the Westminster framework collapses at a foundational point, since it explicitly teaches that the covenant after the fall “was differently administered in the time of the law” (WCF 7.5).

But if it is, then the Phinehas covenant—embedded within that administration—must be allowed to inform how covenantal language, covenant continuity, and covenant signs are interpreted across redemptive history.

You cannot appeal to the Mosaic covenant as an administration of grace when it supports your system, and then dismiss elements within it when they threaten it.

The Phinehas covenant forces the issue. It does not introduce a new principle—it exposes whether a consistent one is actually being applied

The Substance of the Priesthood

The priesthood given to Phinehas was not merely a different administration of the same realities fulfilled in Christ. Its substance was fundamentally distinct.

Phinehas and his sons:

• mediated ceremonial cleanness,

• offered sacrifices for ritual defilement,

• guarded the tabernacle from profanation,

• preserved Israel’s standing before God within the land.

This was their covenantal function: maintaining ceremonial holiness sufficient for dwelling in God’s earthly sanctuary (Lev. 10:3; Num. 18:1–7).

Christ mediates a different order entirely:

• not cleansing of the flesh, but of the conscience (Heb. 9:14),

• not repeated sacrifices, but a once-for-all offering (Heb. 10:10),

• not access to an earthly tent, but entrance into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 10:19–22).

The Aaronic priesthood, including the line of Phinehas, was typological. It pointed forward to Christ. But its primary function was not the administration of New Covenant realities in earthly form. It maintained Israel’s ceremonial standing under the Mosaic covenant.

And here a basic principle must be stated:

A type, by necessity, cannot be the antitype it signifies7.

A type is not the reality itself. It is a God-ordained correspondence that anticipates, prefigures, and points beyond itself to something greater. To treat the type as though it were the same in substance as the antitype—merely administered differently—is to collapse the very distinction that makes typology intelligible.

And if that principle holds everywhere else in redemptive history, it must hold here as well.

And yet—this typological priesthood, with its distinct and earthly substance, was called “everlasting.”

What “Everlasting” Does—and Does Not—Mean

This is the critical point.

The language of “everlasting” covenant, as applied to Phinehas, does not guarantee:

• identical substance continuing unchanged,

• administrative forms persisting in the same mode,

• genealogical succession as a permanent principle,

• or covenantal structures outlasting their appointed purpose.

The priesthood endured—not by continuation in its original form, but by fulfillment in its antitype.

Therefore:

If “everlasting” covenant language can apply to a typological priesthood that truly gives way8 to its antitype in Christ9, then such language cannot, by itself, establish the perpetuity of genealogical covenant membership under Abraham.

The Pressure on the Presbyterian System

This creates a direct challenge.

The Presbyterian argument depends on reading Genesis 17’s “everlasting covenant” as requiring the continuation of its administrative (accidental) form—namely, genealogical inclusion under the covenant sign.

But Phinehas demonstrates that “everlasting” covenant language can function within a typological structure that is:

• real in its time,

• necessary for its purpose,

• and yet temporary in its form.

The dilemma sharpens:

Why is typology allowed to terminate the priesthood, but not circumcision?

Why is it accepted that a perpetual priesthood, which is explicitly typological, gives way to its antitype in Christ,

yet denied that a covenant structured around genealogical descent could do the same?

A Consistent Hermeneutic

The Reformed Baptist position is not introducing a new principle. It is applying one consistently across all of covenant history:

• Aaronic priesthood → its antitype in Christ (Heb. 7–10)

• Physical circumcision → heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28–29; Col. 2:11)

• Genealogical Israel → spiritual Israel (Rom. 9:6–8)

• Mosaic covenant → New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34)

In each case:

• the type is real,

• divinely instituted,

• and necessary,

• yet gives way when the antitype arrives.

Phinehas is not an exception. He is a pattern.

What this means.

Phinehas had a real priesthood with real substance serving real purposes. But it was typological. It was not the final reality. It endured only as long as its role as a type required.

So too with circumcision.

It marked the genealogically governed line through which the Messiah would come. It distinguished the covenant people. It carried real meaning and real purpose.

But it was a type.

And a type, by necessity, cannot remain once the antitype has come.

God did not fail to keep His promise to Phinehas. He fulfilled it—in Christ.

God has not failed to keep His covenant with Abraham. He has fulfilled it—in Christ.

The question, then, is unavoidable:

If we recognize this pattern everywhere else in covenant history,

on what exegetical grounds is it applied everywhere else, but not here?

6. David

Again God cuts (kārat) a new covenant, promising an everlasting throne to David’s greater Son. It too is typological and finds its substance in Christ, requiring an obedient son to claim its eternal rewards (2 Sam 7:12–16; 1 Kgs 6:11–13).

7. The New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Hebrews 8–10 announce something beautifully different: a covenant that God will cut (kārat) with the house of Israel and Judah that is “not like” the one He made when He brought them out of Egypt.

• All members know the Lord (no evangelism of covenant members needed).

• All have the law written on their hearts (regeneration).

• All enjoy true forgiveness (“I will remember their sins no more”).

• There is no possibility of being in this covenant and perishing (Heb 10:14–18).
This is the first covenant in history whose native membership is exclusively regenerate10. Every previous covenant—Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Phinehas, Davidic—contained both elect and non-elect, believer and unbeliever, wheat and tares, by divine design. The New Covenant does not. It is the first purely spiritual, inwardly efficacious, unbreakable covenant.

Here is the decisive point:

The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace in its fulfilled, unveiled form. Every prior covenant was gracious in its own way, but none of them was the Covenant of Grace in substance. The Covenant of Grace is not Genesis 3:15 in embryonic form, nor Genesis 6, 9, 12, 15, nor 17. The Covenant of Grace is Jeremiah 31, inaugurated by the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20), mediated by our great High Priest at God’s right hand right now (Heb 8:6).

Why does this matter for baptism?

Because the sign must fit the covenant to which it belongs. The Presbyterian argument depends heavily on reading circumcision and baptism as successive signs of the same covenantal principle. Appeal is often made to Colossians 2:11–12 as decisive proof that baptism has taken the place of circumcision in the New Covenant. But this reading assumes precisely what must be proven11. Circumcision fit a covenant that included unbelievers by birth, pointed to physical descent, and served a typological purpose. Baptism belongs to a covenant whose native constituency is regenerate, forgiven, indwelt by the Spirit, and destined never to fall away. You do not administer the sign of a regenerate-membership covenant to those who have given no credible profession of the realities that define that covenant.

Everything hangs on getting the covenants right. If you use Aristotelian categories to flatten them into “one covenant of grace under different administrations” then paedobaptism seems natural. However, when you let each covenant define its own terms, its own membership, and its own trajectory toward Christ, then the credobaptist conclusion follows naturally. The New Covenant is new. Its reality is new. Its sign must be new as well.

Share

Subscribe now

This essay is drawn from a larger work currently in development. For clarity and readability in an online format, AI tools were used in an editorial capacity only. All theological content, arguments, and conclusions are the author’s own.

Works Consulted for Part 3: The Real Baptism Debate

Adams, Brandon. Calvin vs. 1689 Federalism on Old vs. New (2016), available at: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/calvin-vs-1689f-on-old-vs-new_051616.pdf.

Barcellos, Richard C. “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11–12.” In Recovering a Covenantal Heritage. Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2014.

Barcellos, Richard C. The Covenant of Works: Its Confessional and Scriptural Basis. Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2017.

Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 4.16–4.17.

Coxe, Nehemiah. “A Discourse of the Covenants.” In Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005.

Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. 2nd ed. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017.

Fowler, Stanley K. More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Sacramentalism. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2015.

Fowler, Stanley K. Rethinking Baptism: Some Baptist Reflections. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015.

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Naperville, IL: A.R. Allenson, 1963. https://archive.org/details/originsofinfantb0000jere/page/14/mode/1up

Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Johnson, Jeffrey D. The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism. Free Grace Press, 2010. https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Flaw-Theology-Behind-Baptism-ebook/dp/B071JQ6J68

Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Kline, Meredith G. Images of the Spirit. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999

Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Kline, Meredith G. “Oath and Ordeal Signs—I.” Westminster Theological Journal 27 (1964–65): 115–139. https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/oath-and-ordeal-signs-part-1/

Kline, Meredith G. “Oath and Ordeal Signs—II.” Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1965–66): 1–37. https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/oath-and-ordeal-signs-part-2/

Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Sacred Hermeneutics) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950), [147], https://dn721201.ca.archive.org/0/items/principlesofbibl00berk/principlesofbibl00berk.pdf.

Malone, Fred A. The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003.

Marcel, Pierre Ch. The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. 1959. https://archive.org/details/biblicaldoctrine0000unse_a4y8/page/n1/mode/1up

Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955. https://archive.org/details/lawcovenantinisr0000mend/page/3/mode/1up

Micah Renihan and Samuel Renihan, “Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology” (presentation to students at Westminster Seminary California, n.d.), https://thelogcollege.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2024.

Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace. London: Tyndale Press, 1954.

Murray, John. Christian Baptism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980. https://gereformeerd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Murray-J-Christian-Baptism.pdf

Owen, John. Communion with God. E4 Group, 2017.

Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vols. 5–7. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980.

Schreiner, Thomas R., and Shawn D. Wright, eds. Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006.

Van Dorn, Douglas. Waters of Creation: A Biblical-Theological Study of Baptism. 2012.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1956.

Walker, Austin. Hot Water: A Baptismal Controversy from the 1690s and Its Relevance for Today. Broken Wharfe, 2024.

White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part I).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1, no. 2 (July 2004): 144–168.

White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 83–104.

Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Translated by William Crookshank. Reprint, CrossReach Publications, 2017.

Downloadable catalogue PDF

This resource is a comprehensive, text-driven catalogue of covenant terminology across Scripture, designed to let the biblical data speak on its own terms before any theological system is imposed upon it. By tracing how words like covenant (bᵊrîṯ / diathēkē), cut (kāraṯ), and establish (qûm) are actually used—from Genesis through the New Testament—it provides the raw material needed to observe patterns, distinctions, and developments within redemptive history. It is best used as a working reference alongside careful exegesis: consult it when evaluating claims about covenant continuity, comparing how different covenants are formed and described, and testing whether theological conclusions genuinely arise from the text itself rather than being assumed and read back into it.

Where We Have Been and Where We are Going.

In Part 1 we established the vocabulary necessary for what follows: covenant as an oath-bound arrangement defined by its ranking, rules, rewards, and ratification; grace as a spectrum in which only saving grace justifies and secures; and the New Covenant as the singular arrangement in which God guarantees every term. With those tools in place, we can now trace the covenantal thread through Scripture's unfolding drama — not to catalogue covenants for their own sake, but to ask the question driving this entire series: who are the people of God, and what signs mark their membership?

The messiah is coming indeed. But when? When will the mother of the living look upon her seed as her Savior? Somewhere to the west, an angel was swinging a fiery sword. Judgment came. But more judgment remained. The man and his wife were exiled from paradise. The path to the tree of life was completely cut off. There was no hope. There was no victory. Except for a promise that was sealed with blood. The enemy would be crushed. The deceiver laid bare. But not before that woman’s seed passed through the hot wrath of God, defeated the dragon, died, and came back victorious, clutching in his pierced hands the fruit that, without, would forever be out of reach to the race of Adam.

Where would this messiah arise? When would He come and cleanse humanity of the poison running through their veins? Could it be this child? Could it be Abel? Could he be the one to bring life to the world? No. His lifeblood was poured out and the rocks cried out for justice. Perhaps his replacement; maybe Seth would crush the enemy beneath his feet. Alas, he too came to an end. This pattern continued for ages and for most of that time God remained relatively silent. And when the poison had corrupted the whole of humanity, God saw fit to show favor to a single man. Noah. Could this man be the long awaited seed? Or would he, like those before him, succumb to the venom of the asp?

This is where we find ourselves in the story of God’s redemption of the cosmos. A covenant broken. Humanity cursed. The world— baptized in judgment rather than mercy. And a single man and his household left to hold the reins.

The Noahic Covenant: Preserving the Stage

At last, when the waters subsided, and Noah peered through ascending smoke to the heavens, God delivered yet another promise; a promise not to redeem, but to preserve1 (Genesis 9:8–17). (Remember the distinction from Part 1: this is not a groundbreaking ceremony but a maintenance contract. God is not inaugurating a new covenant with Noah — He is affirming the created order so the redemptive drama can continue. The stage is being preserved.)

Ranking: God as sovereign over creation; Noah and all living creatures as subjects.

Rules: Be fruitful. Multiply. Exercise dominion. These affirm the original mandate, applying the foundational rules to a world now stained by judgment (heqim berit—establishing/affirming rather than cutting anew) (Genesis 9:1, 7).

Rewards/Retribution: The world will endure. Seasons will continue. Never again will a flood destroy all flesh. Yet bloodshed demands justice—blood for blood (Genesis 9:5–6).

Ratification: The rainbow, arcing across storm-darkened skies, God’s oath written in light and water (Genesis 9:12–13).

Nowhere does this covenant’s terms promise redemption. It does however promise preservation— common grace serving redemptive grace. God maintains the stage so the drama of salvation can unfold.

The Abrahamic Covenant: Promise and Flesh Intertwined

With Abraham, the redemptive plot thickens. Once again, the heavens were silent for hundreds of years. As people spread across the land, they carried the traditions and the stories of their fathers with them. Not a full message. Perhaps they had no account of the exact ordering of the creation week; we simply do not know. But murmurs of something far sweeter could still be heard when smoke rose and when rain fell. “A messiah is coming! The seed of the woman will prevail.” From the midst of a pagan land, God called forth a single man. And from the womb of his barren wife, the sure promise of God would roll forth. This too would be sealed by the oath of a covenant. The terms of that covenant promised three specific rewards: lineage, land, and lords—initially fulfilled in Canaan and ultimately in Christ (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; Galatians 3:16).

Genesis 12: The Promise

In Genesis 12, God appears to Abram in Ur and speaks a word that will echo through millennia:

“I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1–3).

This is a sure promise. A divine intention. But no oath has been sworn. No covenant yet cut. These were sure promises, but no formal covenant existed (Genesis 12:1–3; Hebrews 6:13–15).

It is Genesis 3:15 in sharper focus—a hint, a beacon, a pledge. But as of chapter twelve, the covenant awaits its moment.

Genesis 15: The Ratification

The oath comes in Genesis 15, where a covenant is cut (karat) in flesh. God reiterates His promise, and Abram believes: “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” (v. 6).

Then comes the covenant ceremony—strange, solemn, unforgettable.

Animals are slaughtered, their bodies severed and arranged in ghastly rows. In ancient treaty ceremonies, both parties would pass between the pieces, invoking upon themselves the fate of the slain beasts should they break the oath. But here, something astonishing occurs:

Only God passes through.

A smoking firepot and flaming torch—symbols of divine presence—move between the pieces while Abram sleeps (v. 18). God alone accepts responsibility. God alone bears the curse should the covenant fail. The covenant is ratified (Genesis 15:6–21).

Ranking: God as sovereign; Abraham and his descendants as subjects.

Rules: God unilaterally guarantees the Rewards (Genesis 15:13–21).

Rewards/Retribution: Lineage, land, and lords, with individuals subject to exclusion for disobedience (e.g., Genesis 17:14).

Ratification: God’s oath through the animal ceremony, sealed in blood and fire (Genesis 15:17–18).

Genesis 17: The Sign and the Dual Nature

In Genesis 17, when Abram is ninety-nine, God appears again:

“Walk before Me and be blameless, that I may make My covenant between Me and you” (v. 2).

God expands the reward to include many nations and declares: “I will establish [heqim]2 My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (v. 7). (Notice the verb. God is not cutting a new covenant here — He is affirming and extending what was already ratified in Genesis 15. Circumcision enters not as the sign of a new arrangement but as the sign of an existing one. This distinction will matter enormously when we ask what baptism signals).

Circumcision is given as the covenant sign3. Every male, eight days old, must bear this mark in his flesh. Individuals neglecting it face Retribution (v. 14). The corporate Rewards are secure, but individual participation requires adherence to the Rules, reflecting the covenant’s dual aspects (Genesis 17:1–14).

We must let the text guide our interpretation. While categories like conditional and unconditional covenants are helpful, the Abrahamic Covenant has both aspects4: God guarantees corporate Rewards, but individuals must follow the Rules to partake, and some face Retribution5 (Genesis 17:9–14; 18:19).

Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution in the Abrahamic Covenant:

• Ranking: God, Abraham, and his offspring (Genesis 17:7; 22:17–18)

• Rules: God secures corporate Rewards, but individuals must follow Rules (e.g., circumcision) or face Retribution (Genesis 17:9–14)

• Rewards/Retribution: A lineage (offspring and the Offspring), a land (Canaan and a heavenly country), and lords (kings and the King of kings). Disobedience leads to exclusion (Genesis 17:6–8, 14; Hebrews 11:8–10)

• Ratification: God’s oath in Genesis 15, affirmed in Genesis 17 (Genesis 15:17–18; 17:7–14)

The Abrahamic Covenant is gracious—God ensures its fulfillment. Yet it requires adherence to Rules, and those who fail to comply face Retribution (Genesis 17:9–14; Romans 4:11–13).

The Abrahamic Covenant is cut with Abraham and affirmed with Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 17:19–21; 26:2–5; 28:13–15). The promise marches forward, carried on the shoulders of a chosen lineage, moving inexorably toward the hill where the Seed will be pierced.

The Mosaic Covenant: Law and Limitation

This is not the only divine-human covenant God cuts (karat). In fulfillment of Genesis 15:13–14, God rescues Abraham’s offspring from Egypt, remembering His covenant with the patriarchs (Exodus 2:24; 6:5; 12:40–41).

At Sinai’s base, having brought them through the sea on dry ground, God speaks:

“If you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5–6).

This builds on the Abrahamic covenant—Israel remains under it (Exodus 19:3–8; Deuteronomy 7:7–9). Yet something new is about to be cut.

However, in Exodus 34:10 and Deuteronomy 5:2–3, a new covenant is karat at Horeb, distinct from the patriarchal covenant:

“Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today” (Deuteronomy 5:3).

The “fathers” are the patriarchs mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:316. Context may allow for the previous generation7 as well. Regardless, Israel stands under multiple covenants simultaneously (Exodus 34:10, 27–28; Deuteronomy 5:2–3).

Ranking: God as sovereign King; Israel as His vassal nation.

Rules: Obey God’s voice. Keep His covenant—the Ten Commandments and all attendant laws (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21).

Rewards/Retribution: Treasured possession and priestly nation for obedience; curses for disobedience—drought, defeat, exile, death (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26).

Ratification: God’s oath at Sinai, sealed with blood sprinkled on the altar and the people (Exodus 24:7–8).

The rules aim to ensure Israel’s holiness, setting them apart as a light to the nations (Deuteronomy 6:24–25). Joshua 23:14–16 affirms God’s faithfulness but warns that disobedience, such as idolatry, brings Retribution.

Deuteronomy 27 and 29 note Israel’s lack of a circumcised heart (29:4) yet expect temporal obedience (Deuteronomy 10:16; 29:4).

Covenant lawsuits against the northern kingdom (Amos) and southern kingdom (Jeremiah 2; 7:30) cite false worship, not uncircumcised hearts, as the basis for Retribution. While a circumcised heart is commanded of all image-bearers, the Mosaic Covenant’s Retribution focuses on external disobedience, not lack of saving faith (Amos 2:4–8; 5:21–27; Jeremiah 7:30–34).

Comparing the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants

The Abrahamic Covenant has dual aspects, while the Mosaic Covenant focuses on corporate obedience. Both involve the same Ranking (God and Israel) but have different Rules and Rewards/Retribution, indicating distinct substances (Exodus 19:5–6; Genesis 17:7–14; Galatians 3:17–18).

They are related but distinct, each serving a unique role in God’s unfolding plan.

The Priestly Covenant: Zeal and Perpetual Intercession

In the midst of Israel’s covenantal drama, God cuts a focused affirmation within the Mosaic framework—a covenant with Phinehas, son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron (Numbers 25:10–13).

This arises from a moment of crisis: Israel, encamped at Shittim, falls into idolatry and immorality with Moabite women, provoking a plague that slays thousands. Phinehas, jealous with God’s jealousy, pierces the offenders with a spear, turning back divine wrath and making atonement for the people.

God responds: “Behold, I give [natan] to him My covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood” (Numbers 25:12–13).

Ranking: God as sovereign; Phinehas and his line as faithful priests within Israel.

Rules: Uphold holiness and priestly duties—work and keep the sanctuary, guarding against unholy intrusion (Numbers 3:7–8; Deuteronomy 6:14–15).

Rewards/Retribution: Covenant of peace (divine favor, protection from wrath); perpetual priesthood (stable mediation for Israel). Retribution implied for unfaithfulness, as in other priestly lines (1 Samuel 2:22–30).

Ratification: God’s direct oath to Moses—His word binding the promise.

Here, nātan běrît functions within the broader Mosaic economy—not identical to the national covenant, but granted as a blessing that secures a faithful priesthood for the people formed under it—thereby enabling the ongoing mediation and atonement essential to that covenant8.

This covenant, though narrow, plays a pivotal role: it ensures priestly intercession amid Israel’s failings, bridging to the eternal Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:23–25). More importantly it reminds us of our greatest plight and God’s faithfulness. We are a people who were created to dwell with our Creator, yet our entire race has been doomed by sin. Yet God’s faithfulness and purpose remains on full display. In the midst of wickedness, God promised to provide a method for ceremonial holiness. This ceremonial holiness served two roles. Not only is it a reminder of our need, but it was a provision for restoration— that restoration was real and repetitious and ultimately pointed forward to the true king-priest who would come. (Only a brief mention is warranted here, but a further treatment of this covenant and its drastic implications will be addressed more fully later in the series)

The Davidic Covenant: The King Who Will Reign Forever

Centuries pass. Israel enters the land. Judges rise and fall. Then comes a shepherd boy anointed king, a man after God’s own heart.

The Davidic Covenant (karat, 2 Samuel 7) involves:

Ranking: God, David, and his obedient son (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalm 89:3–4).

Rules: Obedience to God’s law. The throne remains contingent on faithfulness (2 Chronicles 6:16; Psalm 132:11–12).

Rewards/Retribution: A perpetual throne for obedience, ultimately fulfilled in Christ (Psalm 89:28–37; Luke 1:32–33). Disobedience brings discipline, though the covenant line will not be cut off (2 Samuel 7:14–15).

Ratification: God’s oath to David, sworn with divine solemnity (Psalm 89:3–4). Its distinct rewards mark it as a separate covenant (Acts 13:22–23).

This covenant’s distinct reward—an everlasting throne—marks it as separate from both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It finds its fulfillment in Jesus, the Son of David, who sits enthroned at the Father’s right hand, reigning over an unshakeable kingdom.

Distinct Covenants and Their Fulfillment in Christ

We stand now amid a forest of covenants, each one planted by divine decree:

• The Adamic covenant of works—demanding perfect obedience.

• The Noahic covenant—preserving creation’s order.

• The Abrahamic covenant—promising seed, land, and blessing.

• The Mosaic covenant—exposing sin, pointing forward.

• The Priestly covenant with Phinehas—securing faithful intercession.

• The Davidic covenant—securing an eternal throne.

The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants are each established by karat berit—cut, ratified, sealed with oath—not as affirmations of a single covenant (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 34:10; 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Jeremiah 31:31–34). The Priestly covenant with Phinehas uses natan berit, affirming the Mosaic framework (Numbers 25:12). Allowing Scripture to define their terms, these are related yet distinct covenants, each finding fulfillment in Christ (Luke 24:44–47; 2 Corinthians 1:20).

Westminster theologians suggest these covenants are administrations of a single Covenant of Grace, sharing the same substance9. This view emphasizes redemptive continuity, but the distinct Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution of each covenant suggest they are separate, with unique roles in God’s plan, culminating in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6–13).

The New Covenant: The Covenant of Grace Unveiled

Jeremiah 31:31–34 describes the New Covenant, explicitly karat berit, as distinct from the Mosaic Covenant:

Ranking: God and the house of Israel/Judah (fulfilled in the elect; Romans 9:6–9).

Rules: God writes His law on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26–27; Hebrews 8:10).

Rewards/Retribution: All know God, and their sins are forgiven; no Retribution for covenant members, as God ensures fulfillment (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:11–12; 10:14–18).

Ratification: Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15–22).

Unlike the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, which included elect and non-elect, the New Covenant is exclusively for those with circumcised hearts10, provided by God (Ezekiel 36:26–27; John 6:37–39; Hebrews 8:10–12).

New Covenant members must obey (John 14:15), but God fulfills the Rules by granting a new heart and forgiveness through Christ (Hebrews 8:10–12; Ezekiel 36:26–27). Unlike prior covenants, all requirements for eternal Rewards are accomplished by God (Hebrews 10:10, 14; Philippians 2:13).

The Ranking remains consistent: God and Israel, from Abraham to Christ. However, the Rules and Rewards/Retribution differ, reflecting distinct substances (Romans 9:6–8; Galatians 3:16–18).

Old Testament saints (e.g., Adam, Abraham, Moses) believed God, and it was credited as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:24–26). However, their covenantal terms did not provide the new heart required for faith. They pointed to the coming Seed (Genesis 3:15), the Offspring (Galatians 3:16), and the eternal Priest (Hebrews 7:23–25).

Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith, looking to the promised Messiah and the New Covenant that he would cut in history (Hebrews 11:13; John 8:56). Their covenants, while gracious in their own right, could not justify sinners before God on their own terms. They required prospective faith in the coming Mediator. The shadowy covenants were typological, pointing to the New Covenant’s better Rewards (Hebrews 8:6).

Old Testament covenants did not forgive sin or cleanse consciences in the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 10:1–4). Their sacrifices cleansed the flesh for everybody who was represented by the priest. Cleansing of the conscience came by way of faith alone; reception of the New Covenant’s benefits came only to those who possessed what was promised by the terms of the New Covenant(Hebrews 9:15; Romans 3:25–26). No God-given faith? No God given salvation. That new heart, faith, and forgiveness of sins is only covenanted and secured to people in the terms of one Divine-human covenant. All of the others remained but a shadow begging for the Light of the World. It is those people— and only those people— who belong to Christ and receive, in Him, the rewards of the Covenant of Grace. (Romans 8:9; Hebrews 8:10–12).

The long awaited Messiah has come. The covenant he provides has been cut. The redemption of his people— secured. His never-ending kingdom has been established.

Every week when his blood bought saints gather to celebrate God’s victory, they do so by tangible means of extraordinary grace. We hear his Word preached, we give thanksgiving for his body and his blood, and we participate in the reception of new saints who have been covered not only by the blood, but by the cleansing waters of grace— but the question remains. To whom do these things belong? Who should receive the ordinances of the Kingdom?

Part 3

Share

Subscribe now

This essay is drawn from a larger work currently in development. For clarity and readability in an online format, AI tools were used in an editorial capacity only. All theological content, arguments, and conclusions are the author’s own.

Works Consulted for Part 2: The Historical Covenants and Their Fulfillment in Christ

Barcellos, Richard C. Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017. (Background on covenant of works and continuity to later covenants.)

Batzig, Nick. “Jesus and the Flaming Sword at the East Gate.” Feeding on Christ, March 13, 2015. https://feedingonchrist.org/jesus-and-the-flaming-sword-at-the-east-gate/.

Coxe, Nehemiah, and John Owen. Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ. Edited by James M. Renihan, Ronald Miller, and Francisco Orozco. Appendix by Richard C. Barcellos. Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005. Kindle edition.

Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. Revised Edition. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017. (Especially chapters on the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.)

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018. (Detailed treatment of Noahic as preservative, Abrahamic dual strands, karat/heqim distinctions, and progression to the New Covenant.)

Gill, John. An Exposition of the Old Testament. Comment on Deuteronomy 5:3.

Horton, Michael. Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009. Originally published as God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Baker Books, 2006). Kindle edition. ISBN: 978-0-8010-7195-9.

Kline, Meredith G. “Deuteronomy.” In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, 155–204. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. (Covenant ratification and oath-bearing elements.)

Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. (On covenant structure, Noahic as common grace preservation, and Abrahamic ratification; also addresses grant-type covenants including priestly elements within the Mosaic administration.)

Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vols. 5–7. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991. Reprint. (Especially on New Covenant superiority, fulfillment of Old Covenant types, and Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8.)

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019. (Historical covenants, their distinct substances, and fulfillment in Christ.)

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980. (Classic overview of progression through Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.)

Van Dorn, Douglas. Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer. Waters of Creation Publishing, 2014. (Especially p. 103 on the Levitical/priestly covenant as reinforcing the Mosaic covenant by surrounding it like the Tabernacle surrounds the Ark, securing faithful priesthood within the broader Mosaic economy.)

Vos, Geerhardus. The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology. Monergism Books, 2012. Kindle edition. ISBN: 978-1-61979-414-6.

White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part I).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1, no. 2 (July 2004): 144–168.

White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 83–104.

Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. New Studies in Biblical Theology 23. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. (Especially ch. 5 on the national/Mosaic covenant and its closely related priestly elements for maintaining relationship through mediation and atonement.)

Introduction

The earliest full systematic expression of covenant theology in the Reformed tradition did not arise in abstraction, but under explicit institutional pressure to defend infant baptism against Anabaptist critique. Bullinger’s 1534 treatise—written at the direction of Zürich’s magistrates and approved for publication—represents not a neutral theological development later applied to baptism, but a system forged in direct response to that controversy.⁴

The Irony

Allow me to wear my polemics on my sleeve for a moment. One of the greatest ironies of all time is that some of the most articulate, nuanced, and theologically precise Christians on the planet have been known to throw all of that nuance and precision out the window on one topic: the topic that led Heinrich Bullinger to lay its foundation—covenant—for the expressed purpose of defending infant baptism. Were others in Bullinger’s realm already addressing the topic in response to Anabaptist claims? Certainly. However Bullinger’s argument was the first truly systematic treatment of covenantal baptism of infants.⁴

Why This Matters

It’s not as if infant baptism did not exist prior to this point. It certainly did. But the work of Bullinger influenced and was expanded upon by Calvin⁵ who in turn influenced Knox and others. The foundational elements of continental and English expressions of paedobaptist covenant theology run, at least in part, back to Zurich, and differ in substantial ways from every form of infant baptism that came before.

Does this mean that Bullinger is wrong? No (Nicaea was also formed as a response to real world happenings). What it does mean is that we have direct evidence of what led to its systemization. Moreover, the categories of thought utilized by Bullinger (De Testamento)⁴ while not yet formalized, are likely the very same categories that developed into the Westminster verbiage of substance and administration.⁶ While others ultimately contributed to this formalization process (both historically and theologically) it is without question that they drank heavily from Bullinger’s works.

From Zürich to Westminster

From Bullinger’s assertion of one eternal covenant administered in diverse ways⁴, through Calvin’s emphasis on the same grace under differing forms⁵, to Ursinus’s explicit distinction between substance and administration⁷—finally codified in Westminster⁶—the Reformed tradition did not invent a new idea, but progressively formalized categories already present in its earliest systematization.

Bullinger’s Formulation

“Testamentum Dei unum est atque aeternum… quamvis variis temporibus variis modis administretur.”⁴

“The covenant of God is one and eternal… although it is administered in different ways at different times.”

A Final Question

In light of this history, a quiet but important question remains: was Heinrich Bullinger’s covenant theology simply applied to the question of baptism, or was it, at least in part, shaped in the very process of defending it? Recognizing how these categories emerged does not settle the debate—but it does remind us that the system itself must be examined, tested, and grounded in Scripture, rather than assumed as a neutral starting point. Might we ask if it is appropriate to throw the baby out with the ex opere operato waters³ and allow the scriptures to be the ultimate proving ground of our religious and theological practices.

Historic Influences on Presbyterianism Covenant Theology

Zürich Mandate of March 18, 1532

“The Council has decreed that all preachers in the city and countryside shall submit a written defense of infant baptism against the Anabaptists, who claim the baptism of children is unbiblical.”⁸

Bullinger’s Own Report to the Council, 1533

“As Your Graces have commanded, I am working on a treatise on the one covenant of God to refute the errors of the Anabaptists, especially concerning the baptism of children.”¹

Council Minutes (Ratsprotokoll) – June 14, 1534

“Heinrich Bullinger has submitted the book on the one covenant and infant baptism, as ordered. The Council commends the work and orders it printed.”²

Bullinger’s Treatise

This 1534 work by Heinrich Bullinger—De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno (A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God)—is widely recognized as the first major Reformed treatise devoted to covenant theology.⁴ It was explicitly developed in response to Anabaptist challenges, arguing for the unity of God’s covenant across the Testaments as the basis for continuing the practice of infant baptism (drawing continuity from Abrahamic circumcision to New Testament baptism of households).

Share

Subscribe now

Sources:

1. Bullinger’s Report (1533). Bullinger Correspondence Collection, StAZH E II 341, fol. 87. Published in: Swiss Reformation History, Vol. 2 (1920), p. 214.
   “Wie Euer Gnaden befohlen haben, arbeite ich an einer Abhandlung über den einen Bund Gottes, um die Irrtümer der Wiedertäufer zu widerlegen, besonders was die Kindertaufe betrifft.”

2. Council Minutes (June 14, 1534). State Archives of Zurich, B II 5, p. 412. Published in: Zurich Council and Marriage Court Protocols, ed. Strickler (1905), #1892.
   “Heinrich Bullinger hat das buch vom einigen testament und kindertoufe, wie im befolen, übergeben. Der rat lobt das werck und ordnet es zu trucken.”

3. Council of Trent, Session VII (March 3, 1547), Decree on the Sacraments, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Canon VIII.
   “If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [Latin: ex opere operato], but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.”

4. Heinrich Bullinger, De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno (Zürich, 1534); see also Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, eds., Fountainhead of Federalism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991).

5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.x.2 (1559).

6. Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.5–6 (1646).

7. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, on Q&A 74.

8. Zürich Mandate (March 18, 1532). State Archives of Zurich, B VI 237, fol. 112r–113v. Published in: Egli, Collection of Documents on the History of the Zurich Reformation (1879), #1428.
   “Der Rat hat beschlossen, dass alle Prediger in der Stadt und auf dem Lande eine schriftliche Verteidigung der Kindertaufe gegen die Wiedertäufer einreichen sollen, welche behaupten, die Taufe der Kinder sei unbiblisch.”

Note:

The English translations above were generated into modern English using Grok and lightly smoothed for readability. The original German texts are provided for accuracy and reference.

A brief note on this series:

Why another exploration of Covenant Theology? Hasn’t this already been done?

Yes, it has—many times.

My goal is not to offer anything new or revolutionary. Instead, I simply want to present the key highlights of Covenant Theology in a clear, compiled form that doesn’t require a theological lobotomy to understand the heart of the discussion. (Although I assume that if you are reading about Covenant Theology you already have a general theological understanding and enjoy the study)

If you’re looking for the remaining 10%—the deeper nuances, detailed debates, and scholarly depth—I’d encourage you to read the books I’ll list at the end of each post.

However, if you’re seeking a concise yet substantive treatment of the topic, I pray this series will be a blessing to you and to the church.

S.D.G.

The Question Before the Question

Before water touches flesh—before we ask who should descend beneath baptism’s surface, what circumcision meant for Abraham’s seed, or how this relates to covenants—we must ask a more ancient question, one that echoes through every corridor of Scripture:

How does the Holy God relate to sinful humanity across the ages? How could He possibly dwell with a species that has fallen so far from grace?

This is the question that trembled in Eden’s twilight when fig leaves proved too thin to hide naked shame. It thundered from Sinai’s summit when Israel begged Moses: “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” It pulses through Jeremiah’s prophecy of a covenant written not on stone but on flesh.

And it finds its answer—its only answer—in the scarred hands of a risen King.

This opening movement lays the theological foundation necessary for understanding the covenantal arguments that follow. We begin not with circumcision or baptism, but with the Bible’s own covenantal grammar—grace, covenant, ranking, rules, rewards, ratification, and fulfillment. Only after the structure is in place can we meaningfully evaluate how covenant signs function.

We begin not at the Jordan River, but in eternity past, with the perfect plan of the Triune God.

We begin not with ceremony, but with purpose.

We begin where God begins: with Himself.

Defining Grace and Covenant: The Foundation Stones

Grace: Kindness That Saves

Let us establish bedrock. Two words, simple on the tongue yet infinite in consequence: grace and covenant.

Grace is unmerited favor—God’s kindness poured out on those who have earned only wrath (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 3:24). Yet not all grace is identical. Not every form of divine kindness justifies sinners before the throne of infinite holiness.

Consider common grace:

The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike (Matthew 5:45). This is truly grace—humanity does not summon the clouds or command the harvest. The rebel and the righteous both drink from God’s provision. Yet this common grace, though real and kind, does not reconcile the sinner to God. It does not write the law on hearts of stone. It does not grant forgiveness, adoption, or eternal life.

Or consider Adam:

Grace comes in many forms. But only one kind of grace justifies the ungodly. Only one kind writes the law on hearts and remembers sins no more. Only one kind secures what it promises with divine guarantee, leaving no room for failure, no possibility of forfeiture.

In this series I will be arguing from a Reformed Baptist perspective and seeking to show that membership within the Covenant of Grace has always been, is, and will always be reserved for the elect alone (John 6:37–39; Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29–30). Saving grace belongs to the New Covenant alone.1 (Though its benefits were applied to Old Testament saints by way of promise). New Covenant church practice flows as a natural outworking of this theological conclusion.

But before we trace that golden thread through Scripture’s tapestry, we must understand the loom itself: covenant.

Covenant: The Architecture of God’s Promises

Much like grace, the word covenant spans a spectrum of meaning across Scripture (Genesis 21:27, 32; 2 Samuel 7:12–16). Not all covenants are cut from the same cloth.

There are covenants between human parties—David and Jonathan clasping hands in friendship’s bond (1 Samuel 18:3). There are covenants between God and humanity—the rainbow arcing over Noah’s altar, God’s oath never again to drown the world (Genesis 9:8–17). And there is the Covenant of Redemption among the members of the Trinity—the eternal counsel where Father, Son, and Spirit decreed the salvation of the elect before the world’s foundation (John 17:2, 6, 9, 24; Hebrews 13:20; Ephesians 1:3–14).

Each of these covenants involves a different Ranking—a different relationship between the parties. A covenant is defined by its parties and the terms that bind them. Like walls that mark one house from another, these are not flexible but fixed boundaries. When those defining parties or essential terms are fundamentally altered, you have not modified a covenant—you have created a different one. Different ranking means different covenant.

Types of Covenants

Across ancient lands, where empires clashed and tribes forged fragile peace, covenants bound souls and societies with sacred weight. Whether inscribed on clay tablets in Mesopotamian palaces or sworn over blood-stained altars in Hebrew camps, these pacts bore distinct marks—hallmarks that defined their very existence.2 These four hallmarks give us a consistent lens through which to examine every biblical covenant3 — and, ultimately, to understand the function of its signs.

Ranking: Who are the parties? (Creator/Creature, King/Subject, Father/Son).

Rules: What are the conditions? (Do this and live vs. Live and do this).

Rewards/Retribution: What is the outcome? (Blessing for obedience, curse for failure).

Ratification: How is it sealed? (Blood, oath, sign, ceremony, public display)

Covenants may exist between equals—two kings clasping hands, each bearing mutual duties. Or they may exist between a greater party (God) and a lesser party (humanity), reflecting a hierarchical Ranking (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 19:3–6).

If covenants have a different Ranking, they are distinct covenants. Solomon’s covenant with his first wife was separate from his covenant with his seven hundredth (1 Kings 11:3). Different parties, different covenants. Different ranking, different substance.

Covenantal Rules and Rewards/Retribution

Some covenants grant rewards to the lesser party solely through the greater party’s kindness, no strings attached (2 Samuel 9:1–7—David’s grace to Mephibosheth). Others require the lesser party to follow specific rules to receive rewards or avoid retribution (Deuteronomy 28:1–2, 15—“If you obey… blessed. If you disobey… cursed”).

If covenants have different Rules, they are distinct covenants.

The rule of “do this and live” (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12) differs fundamentally from “live and do this” (Ezekiel 36:27; John 14:15). One demands obedience as the condition for life. The other grants life as the fountain from which obedience flows.

Different rules. Different substance. Different covenants.

Some covenants, even with the same Ranking and Rules, have different Rewards or Retribution. Two contracts with the same banker, bearing identical terms, may concern different properties—one a vineyard, another a field (Genesis 23:16–20; Jeremiah 32:9–12).

Same structure. Different substance. Different covenants.

If covenants have different conditions, they have different substances and are distinct covenants (Deuteronomy 28:1–2, 15).

Covenantal Framework in Reformed Theology

Much ink (and on occasion, blood) has been spilled on this topic across centuries of Reformed reflection. While nuances exist—debates flourish, distinctions sharpen—there is broad agreement among Reformed theologians that covenants are oath-bound arrangements comprising a Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution, sealed by Ratification (Hebrews 6:13–17; Psalm 89:3).

Ratification is essential. Without an oath, a covenant is not yet binding.4 There may be a sure promise of a future covenant, but it remains a promise until the solemn moment of ratification.

Consider marriage: an engagement is a promise, beautiful and binding in its own way. But the covenant begins with the oath ceremony—the vows spoken, the ring exchanged, the witnesses gathered (Galatians 3:15–17; Genesis 15:9–18).

No ratification, no covenant. The promise may be certain, but the covenant awaits its sealing moment.

Defining the Covenant of Grace

So then: What is the Covenant of Grace?

The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 30) speaks with precision and beauty: it is the oath-bound arrangement, ratified by God’s promise, that “brings the elect into a state of salvation” (Genesis 3:15; Romans 5:15–19; Titus 1:2).

And who is included in this covenant?

As the Catechism continues (Q. 31), it is made “with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed” (Galatians 3:16, 29; Romans 8:9).5

Not with humanity in general.

Not with Abraham’s physical descendants.

Not with a mixed multitude of believers and unbelievers.

With Christ. And in Him, with all—and only—the elect.

This is how the Holy God dwells with sinful humanity: through Christ, the faithful covenant keeper, the obedient Son who fulfills every demand and shoulders every curse. In Him, and in Him alone, rebels become beloved. Slaves become sons. Exiles come home.

Hermeneutical Principles: Reading Scripture Covenantally

To trace this golden thread through Scripture’s unfolding drama, we must apply the same interpretive principles used throughout God’s Word. We must learn to read covenantally.

First, we recognize genre—the literary forms Scripture employs. Covenants are not random. They follow patterns, bear structures, declare terms (Luke 24:27; Hebrews 1:1–2).

Covenants may stand alone or be embedded within other forms—narrative, poetry, prophecy. But wherever they appear, they demand careful attention.

The Interpretive Method:

1. First, identify the covenant’s immediate context: What is its Ranking? Its Rules? Its Rewards and Retribution? Its Ratification? (Exodus 24:3–8; 2 Samuel 23:5)

2. Next, consider its place in the broader redemptive narrative: How does this covenant advance God’s plan? What does it promise? What does it anticipate? (Romans 15:4)

3. Finally, observe how the apostles interpret it: How does the New Testament read these texts? What shadows do they see finding substance in Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:1–11; Galatians 4:21–31)

If we impose our conclusions on the text before careful analysis—if we adopt a framework foreign to the apostles—we risk twisting Scripture to fit tradition rather than letting Scripture shape our theology (Colossians 2:8).

Key Linguistic Terms: Cutting and Establishing

Two Hebrew phrases illuminate the path through covenant history, like torches held aloft in a darkened corridor: (see Gentry & Wellum— Kingdom Through Covenant)

כָּרַת בְּרִית (karat berit) — “to cut a covenant”

This phrase marks the establishment of a new covenant, sealed often with blood, inaugurated through solemn ritual (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18). The imagery is visceral: animals severed, parties passing between the pieces, an oath sealed in blood and fire.

הֵקִים בְּרִית (heqim berit) — “to establish/affirm a covenant”

This phrase typically indicates the affirmation of an existing covenant, its continuation or application to a new generation (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 17:7).

Watch for these terms. They are signposts marking covenant boundaries, indicating when God inaugurates something new and when He reaffirms what already stands.

Think of Karat Berit as the groundbreaking ceremony for a new building, while Heqim Berit is the maintenance contract for an existing one. Exhaustive study confirms this idiomatic distinction holds true across the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls, with karat berit signaling the cutting of a fresh covenant and heqim berit its establishment or affirmation (Gentry & Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed., 607–615). While heqim can bear a stronger escalatory force in rare contexts—such as expansions of existing pacts (e.g., Deut. 29:1)—the overarching pattern favors covenantal distinctiveness, ensuring we let each arrangement define its substance without imposition.

Historical Covenants in God’s Plan

Now we descend from eternity into time. From the counsel chamber of the Trinity into the dust and drama of human history. Here, God’s eternal purpose unfolds through a series of historical covenants, each with its own ranking, rules, rewards, and ratification.

The Covenant of Works with Adam

In fulfilling His eternal plan, God condescended to make a Covenant of Works with Adam (Genesis 2:15–17; Romans 5:12–14).

Ranking: God as sovereign Creator; Adam as representative head of humanity.

Rules: Work. Keep. Guard what has been entrusted. And above all: avoid the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:15–17).

Rewards/Retribution: Life for obedience—entrance into eternal rest, unbroken fellowship with the living God. Death for disobedience—exile, curse, corruption spreading like poison through creation’s veins (Genesis 2:17).

Ratification: God’s oath-bound commitment, His word as binding as the stars He spoke into being.

Adam broke this covenant. And as humanity’s federal representative, he plunged himself and all his posterity into guilt, corruption, and death (Romans 5:12).6

Yet even in the curse, God promised hope. In Genesis 3:15, God spoke of a coming Seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head, reversing the curse and restoring what was lost (Romans 16:20; Galatians 4:4). While 3:15 is not the Covenant of Grace proper, it is the promise of the One who would cut that covenant in history with His own blood.

The first covenant failed. But God’s purpose would not. The Messiah is coming!

Part 2

Share

Please stay tuned:

This is the first installment of a five-part series.

Works Consulted for Part 1: The Covenant Before the Question

• Barcellos, Richard C. Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017.

• Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. Revised Edition. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017.

• Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

• Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

• Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

• Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012. (Original: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.)

• Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955.

• Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

• Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Report on Justification and Republication. 2016. (Especially pp. 12–29.)

• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. 7. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991. Reprint.

• Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Many men have been murdered, in many ways, for millennia. What is the big deal about some itinerant Middle Eastern preacher named Jesus being nailed to a tree?

If that is all He was, it wouldn’t even be worthy of a footnote.

But the One who was cut off was not like the others.

The One who was cut off spoke the tree, the dust, and the soldiers into existence with a word. The very sun that refused to give light to the world when the Savior was slain was the same sun that rests in the all-powerful grasp of the One with nail-scarred hands.

He was no mere footnote.

The Word is the central plot.

Everything in the past was looking forward to Him. All of eternity is focused back upon Him. Creation is beyond our comprehension. How much more unfathomable is the reality that the One who is without beginning took on human flesh to provide a new beginning?

How marvelous that the One prophesied to be born to a virgin in Bethlehem was the self-same One who knelt in the dust and breathed life into Eden’s virgin clay.

The One who suffered is the One who will wipe every weary tear.

And the Author of life Himself died, conquered hell, and ascended to the Ancient of Days, having earned the kingdoms of this world as His possession.

How dreadful that the race He came to save refused life and delivered the Source of life to death.

These things are beyond our capacity to understand.

How merciful.

How gracious.

How powerful.

That the One placed in the tomb is the same One who defeated death itself.

This Middle Eastern preacher was not merely a preacher.

He was, and is, the very sermon of God.

His murder was a direct attack upon heaven itself.

Yet, who can reach the heavens?

It has been tried by many and failed by all but One; ask Babel if you remain unconvinced.

Only the One who came down from heaven is able to return to that place in glory.

And forever, with the host of heaven, those whom He brought with Him from death to life will sing:

“Holy! Holy! Holy!”

to the Lamb who was slain, yet stands again.

Share

Membership within the Covenant of Grace has always been, is, and will always be reserved for the elect alone (John 6:37–39; Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:29–30).

Defining Grace and Covenant

Let’s establish a basic understanding of two terms: grace and covenant.

Grace is unmerited favor (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 3:24). However, not all grace is identical. Not every form of grace justifies sinners before a holy God.

The grace shown by God in sending rain upon the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45) is truly gracious; humanity does not earn this favor. Yet, it is not the type of grace that justifies sinners before God (Romans 3:24–26).

God’s condescension to establish a covenantal relationship with Adam (Genesis 2:15-17) is genuinely gracious. However, this condescension alone did not secure Adam’s eternal fellowship with God (Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:12–14).

Much like grace, the term covenant can be used in various ways (Genesis 21:27, 32; 2 Samuel 7:12–16).

Types of Covenants

There are covenants between human parties, covenants between God and humanity, and the Covenant of Redemption among the members of the Trinity (1 Samuel 18:3; Genesis 9:8–17; John 17:2, 6, 9, 24; Hebrews 13:20).

Each of these covenants involves a different Ranking and represents distinct types of covenants.

Covenants may exist between equals or between a greater party (e.g., God) and a lesser party (e.g., humanity), reflecting a hierarchical Ranking (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 19:3–6).

If covenants have a different Ranking, they are distinct covenants. For example, Solomon’s covenant with his first wife was separate from his covenant with his 700th wife. A different Ranking means different covenants with distinct substances (1 Kings 11:3).

Covenantal Rules and Rewards/Retribution

Some covenants grant Rewards to the lesser party solely through the greater party’s kindness (2 Samuel 9:1–7). Others require the lesser party to follow specific Rules to receive Rewards or avoid Retribution (Deuteronomy 28:1–2, 15).

If covenants have different Rules, they are distinct covenants.

For instance, the Rule of “do this and live” (e.g., Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12) differs from “live and do this” (e.g., Ezekiel 36:27; John 14:15), reflecting different ways of receiving covenantal Rewards. Different Rules indicate different substances and, thus, different covenants.

Some covenants, even with the same Ranking and Rules, have different Rewards/Retribution. For example, two covenants with the same bank, with identical Rules, may involve different properties. Same Ranking and Rules, yet different Rewards mean different covenants (Genesis 23:16–20; Jeremiah 32:9–12).

If covenants have different conditions, they have different substances and are distinct covenants (Deuteronomy 28:1–2, 15).

Covenantal Framework in Reformed Theology

Much ink has been spilled on this topic. While nuances exist, there is broad agreement among Reformed theologians that covenants are oath-bound arrangements comprising a Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution, sealed by Ratification (Hebrews 6:13–17; Psalm 89:3).

Ratification is essential. Without an oath, a covenant is not yet binding. There may be a sure promise of a future covenant, but it remains a promise until Ratification. For example, a marriage engagement is a promise, but the covenant begins with the oath ceremony, its Ratification (Galatians 3:15–17; Genesis 15:9–18).

Defining the Covenant of Grace

What is the Covenant of Grace? As the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 30) states, it is the oath-bound arrangement, ratified by God’s promise, that “brings the elect into a state of salvation” (Genesis 3:15; Romans 5:15–19; Titus 1:2).

Who is included in this covenant? As WLC 31 notes, it is “with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed” (Galatians 3:16, 29; Romans 8:9).

Hermeneutical Principles

In examining this topic, we must apply the same hermeneutical principles used throughout Scripture. We recognize the genre of literature, such as covenants, and interpret accordingly (Luke 24:27; Hebrews 1:1–2).

Covenants may stand alone or be embedded within other literary forms.

We first identify the immediate context of each historical covenant: its Ranking, Rules, Rewards/Retribution, and Ratification (Exodus 24:3–8; 2 Samuel 23:5).

Next, we consider how the covenant fits into the broader redemptive narrative (Romans 15:4).

Finally, we analyze the apostles’ typological use of these texts to form our covenantal system (1 Corinthians 10:1–11; Galatians 4:21–31).

If we impose our conclusions on the initial analysis or adopt a metaphysic different from the apostles, we risk misinterpretation. This would reflect tradition rather than exegesis (Colossians 2:8).

Key Linguistic Terms

Two terms are vital for understanding historical covenants. When a new covenant is established, Scripture uses karat berit (“to cut a covenant”) (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18). When an existing covenant is affirmed, we typically see heqim berit (“to establish/affirm a covenant”) (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 17:7).

Historical Covenants in God’s Plan

In fulfilling His eternal plan, God condescended to make a Covenant of Works with Adam (Genesis 2:15–17) (Romans 5:12–14).

• Ranking: God as sovereign, Adam as representative.

• Rules: Work, keep the garden, avoid the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:15–17).

• Rewards/Retribution: Life for obedience, death for disobedience (Genesis 2:17).

• Ratification: God’s oath-bound commitment. Adam broke this covenant, and as humanity’s federal representative, he and his posterity faced its Retribution (Romans 5:12).

In Genesis 3:15, God promised to bring the seed of the woman to reverse the curse (Romans 16:20; Galatians 4:4).

With Noah, God promised to maintain order in creation (Genesis 9:8–17).

• Ranking: God as sovereign, Noah and creation as subjects.

• Rules: Be fruitful, have dominion (affirming Adamic Rules, heqim berit) (Genesis 9:1, 7).

• Rewards/Retribution: Preservation of the world, with Retribution for bloodshed (Genesis 9:5–6).

• Ratification: The rainbow as God’s oath (Genesis 9:12–13).

The Abrahamic Covenant

With Abraham, we see three specific Rewards: lineage, land, and lords, initially fulfilled in Canaan and ultimately in Christ (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; Galatians 3:16).

In Genesis 12, God promises to make Abram a great nation, bless him, and bless all families through him. These were sure promises, but no oath was made, so no formal covenant existed (Genesis 12:1–3; Hebrews 6:13–15).

The oath comes in Genesis 15, where a covenant is karat. God reiterates His promise, Abram believes, and it is credited as righteousness (v. 6). God passes through the animals alone, accepting full responsibility (v. 18), ratifying the covenant (Genesis 15:6–21).

• Ranking: God as sovereign, Abraham and his descendants as subjects.

• Rules: God unilaterally guarantees the Rewards (Genesis 15:13–21).

• Rewards/Retribution: Lineage, land, and lords, with individuals subject to exclusion for disobedience (e.g., Genesis 17:14).

• Ratification: God’s oath through the animal ceremony (Genesis 15:17–18).

In Genesis 17, when Abram is 99, God says, “Walk before Me and be blameless, that I may make My covenant between Me and you” (v. 2). God expands the Reward to many nations and says, “I will establish [heqim] My covenant… for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your offspring” (v. 7). Circumcision is the covenant sign, and individuals neglecting it face Retribution (v. 14). The corporate Rewards are secure, but individual participation requires adherence to the Rules, reflecting the covenant’s dual aspects (Genesis 17:1–14).

We must let the text guide our interpretation. While categories like conditional and unconditional covenants are helpful, the Abrahamic Covenant has both aspects: God guarantees corporate Rewards, but individuals must follow the Rules to partake, and some face Retribution (Genesis 17:9–14; 18:19).

Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution in the Abrahamic Covenant

• Ranking: God, Abraham, and his offspring (Genesis 17:7; 22:17–18).

• Rules: God secures corporate Rewards, but individuals must follow Rules (e.g., circumcision) or face Retribution (Genesis 17:9–14).

• Rewards/Retribution: A lineage (offspring and the Offspring), a land (Canaan and a heavenly country), and lords (kings and the King of kings). Disobedience leads to exclusion (Genesis 17:6–8, 14; Hebrews 11:8–10).

• Ratification: God’s oath in Genesis 15, affirmed in Genesis 17 (Genesis 15:17–18; 17:7–14).

The Abrahamic Covenant is gracious, as God ensures its fulfillment, yet it requires adherence to Rules, and those who fail to comply face Retribution (Genesis 17:9–14; Romans 4:11–13).

The Abrahamic Covenant is cut with Abraham and affirmed with Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 17:19–21; 26:2–5; 28:13–15).

The Mosaic Covenant

This is not the only divine-human covenant God cuts (karat). In fulfillment of Genesis 15:13–14, God rescues Abraham’s offspring from Egypt, remembering His covenant with the patriarchs (Exodus 2:24; 6:5; 12:40–41).

In Exodus 19, God says, “If you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession… a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (vv. 5–6). This builds on the Abrahamic Covenant, as Israel remains under it (Exodus 19:3–8; Deuteronomy 7:7–9).

However, in Exodus 34:10 and Deuteronomy 5:2–3, a new covenant is karat at Horeb, distinct from the patriarchal covenant: “Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us” (Deuteronomy 5:3). The “fathers” are the patriarchs (Deuteronomy 4:31). Thus, Israel is under multiple covenants simultaneously (Exodus 34:10, 27–28; Deuteronomy 5:2–3).

• Ranking: God as sovereign, Israel as subjects.

• Rules: Obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (e.g., Ten Commandments, Deuteronomy 5) (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21).

• Rewards/Retribution: Treasured possession and priestly nation for obedience; curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26).

• Ratification: God’s oath at Sinai (Exodus 24:7–8).

The Rules aim to ensure Israel’s holiness (Deuteronomy 6:24–25). Joshua 23:14–16 affirms God’s faithfulness but warns that disobedience, such as idolatry, brings Retribution. Deuteronomy 27 and 29 note Israel’s lack of a circumcised heart (29:4) yet expect temporal obedience (Deuteronomy 10:16; 29:4).

Covenant lawsuits against the northern (Amos) and southern kingdoms (Jeremiah 2; 7:30) cite false worship, not uncircumcised hearts, as the basis for Retribution. While a circumcised heart is commanded of all image-bearers, the Mosaic Covenant’s Retribution focuses on external disobedience, not lack of saving faith (Amos 2:4–8; 5:21–27; Jeremiah 7:30–34).

Comparing the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants

The Abrahamic Covenant has dual aspects, while the Mosaic Covenant focuses on corporate obedience. Both involve the same Ranking (God and Israel) but have different Rules and Rewards/Retribution, indicating distinct substances (Exodus 19:5–6; Genesis 17:7–14; Galatians 3:17–18).

The Davidic Covenant

The Davidic Covenant (karat, 2 Samuel 7) involves:

• Ranking: God, David, and his obedient son (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalm 89:3–4).

• Rules: Obedience to God’s law (2 Chronicles 6:16; Psalm 132:11–12).

• Rewards/Retribution: A perpetual throne for obedience, fulfilled in Christ (Psalm 89:28–37; Luke 1:32–33); Retribution for disobedience (2 Samuel 7:14–15).

• Ratification: God’s oath to David (Psalm 89:3–4). Its distinct Rewards mark it as a separate covenant (Acts 13:22–23).

Distinct Covenants and Their Fulfillment

The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants are each established by karat berit, not as affirmations of a single covenant (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 34:10; 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Jeremiah 31:31–34). Allowing Scripture to define their terms, these are related yet distinct covenants, each finding fulfillment in Christ (Luke 24:44–47; 2 Corinthians 1:20). Their content—Ranking, Rules, Rewards/Retribution, Ratification—defines their substance, as Ursinus and the 2016 OPC report on republication affirm.

Some Westminster theologians suggest these covenants are administrations of a single Covenant of Grace, sharing the same substance. This view emphasizes redemptive continuity, but the distinct Ranking, Rules, and Rewards/Retribution of each covenant suggest they are separate, with unique roles in God’s plan, culminating in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6–13).

The New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31–34 describes the New Covenant, explicitly karat berit, as distinct from the Mosaic Covenant:

• Ranking: God and the house of Israel/Judah (fulfilled in the elect, Romans 9:6–9) (Jeremiah 31:31–33; Romans 9:6–9).

• Rules: God writes His law on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26–27; Hebrews 8:10).

• Rewards/Retribution: All know God, and their sins are forgiven; no Retribution for covenant members, as God ensures fulfillment (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:11–12; 10:14–18).

• Ratification: Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15–22).

Unlike the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, which included elect and non-elect, the New Covenant is exclusively for those with circumcised hearts, provided by God (Ezekiel 36:26–27; John 6:37–39; Hebrews 8:10–12).

Obedience in the New Covenant

New Covenant members must obey (John 14:15), but God fulfills the Rules by granting a new heart and forgiveness through Christ (Hebrews 8:10–12; Ezekiel 36:26–27). Unlike prior covenants, all requirements for eternal Rewards are accomplished by God (Hebrews 10:10, 14; Philippians 2:13).

Continuity of Ranking

The Ranking remains consistent: God and Israel, from Abraham to Christ. However, the Rules and Rewards/Retribution differ, reflecting distinct substances (Romans 9:6–8; Galatians 3:16–18).

Old Testament Covenants and Faith

Old Testament saints (e.g., Adam, Abraham, Moses) believed God, and it was credited as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:24–26). However, their covenants did not provide the new heart required for faith. They pointed to the coming seed (Genesis 3:15), the Offspring (Galatians 3:16), and the eternal Priest (Hebrews 7:23–25).

Salvation of Old Testament Saints

Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith, looking to the promised New Covenant (Hebrews 11:13; John 8:56). Their covenants, while gracious, could not justify sinners before God. They were typological, pointing to the New Covenant’s better Rewards (Hebrews 8:6).

Limitations of Old Testament Covenants

Old Testament covenants did not forgive sin or cleanse consciences in the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 10:1–4). Their sacrifices cleansed the flesh but required faith in the coming Messiah for eternal redemption. Saints received New Covenant benefits by faith in the promised Savior (Hebrews 9:15; Romans 3:25–26).

The New Covenant as the Covenant of Grace

Only the New Covenant provides the grace and faith that justify sinners (Romans 8:9; Hebrews 8:10–12). Old Testament saints were justified by faith in the future New Covenant, not their covenantal terms (Hebrews 11:13; Galatians 3:8).

Conclusion: Membership in the Covenant of Grace

Who is included in the Covenant of Grace? Every person given to the Son in eternity past, granted the new heart of the New Covenant (Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:9; John 6:37–39). The New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace, fulfilling God’s redemptive plan for the elect (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8:6–13).

Works referenced (partial list):

• Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Baker, 2006), 212–23.

• Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology (Baker, 2011), 14–30.

• Coxe, Nehemiah. “A Discourse of the Covenants,” in Nehemiah Coxe & John Owen, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (RBAP, 2005), 43–106.

• Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Solid Ground, 2013), 75–92.

• Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed. (Crossway, 2018).

• Horton, Michael. Introducing Covenant Theology (Baker, 2009), 49–73.

• Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned (Eerdmans, 1968), 1–42.

• Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eerdmans, 1972), 141–68.

• Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963).

• Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), s.v. “כָּרַת/בְּרִית”.

• Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955).

• Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace (Tyndale, 1954), 67–93.

• Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Report of the Committee to Study Republication (2016), 1–110.

• Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Report of the Committee to Study Republication (2016), 51–110.

• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 22 (Banner of Truth, 1991), on Hebrews 8.

• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 22, on Hebrews 9–11.

• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 22, on the efficacy of the New Covenant.

• Owen, John. Works, vol. 12 (Banner of Truth, 1967), 67–104 (on the pactum salutis / Covenant of Redemption).

• Renihan, Samuel. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant & His Kingdom (Founders, 2019).

• Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants (P&R, 1980), 227–66.

• Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians (Zondervan, 2010), 217–25 (on Gal. 3:15–17).

• Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2 (P&R, 1994), 184–202.

• Ursinus, Zacharias. Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (P&R, repr. 1992), 372–86.

• VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE), vol. 1, s.v. “berit (covenant).”

• Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology (Banner of Truth, 1975), 5–28 (on typology).

• Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (P&R, 1980), 3–15.

• Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1956)

Was “Theonomy” invented in the mid-20th century? Does the discussion find its origins within the Reformed tradition?

The short answer to both questions is no. Despite claims that the “theonomy vs autonomy” discussion is a novelty that arose within dark corners of certain reformed circles during the middle of the twentieth century, I recently discovered the discussion happening decades earlier within German Lutheranism.

I have run the public domain publication through AI and created a modernized English version for interested parties.

Preface

By publishing this lecture, I respond to suggestions from various sources. This also aligns with the established custom for such lectures. I hope the subject itself holds general interest. May my elaborations contribute to satisfying this interest!

The Author

Introduction

I am called to advance systematic theology at this university. I wish to inaugurate this role with a public lecture on ethics. This needs no justification at an institution where ethics is a fine tradition within the theological faculty.

My choice of topic stems from my lecture cycle, which begins with ethics. This focus naturally directed my thoughts to this central issue. However, I also wanted a topic I could address successfully in the given time. It should allow a programmatic approach, as expected from such a lecture.

Today, anyone taking a new academic post in systematic theology feels a strong need to reassess past practices. They also question theology’s place among faculty disciplines. We don’t need to dwell on the many voices raising these points. These voices need not be hostile to be significant.

Many fully acknowledge Christianity’s historical importance for ethics. They are ready to learn from it in specific ways. However, they wish to learn from Christian ethics selectively. They decide for themselves to what extent it holds validity.

Christianity claims to proclaim a moral ideal of absolute validity and value in God’s name. This claim cannot be accepted by all. Grounding morality in God’s command is seen as a limitation. It prevents Christian ethics from being the final stage of morality.

Instead, morality in its purest form comes from its own internal laws. In other words, autonomy is favored over theonomy. This poses key questions for the Christian theologian. Does the demand for autonomy reflect an interest Christian ethics must acknowledge? Must this interest lead to abandoning theonomy? Or are autonomy and theonomy not absolute opposites in every respect?

Clarifying the Central Issue

To clarify these questions, we must first show this is the decisive point. General ethical science often aligns with Christian ethics in some ways. The shift from eudaimonistic premises to evolutionary ethics is not accidental. It occurs with inherent necessity.

I hope for a further triumph of insight. No exact scientific research can truly determine humanity’s ultimate goal. Only religion dares to interpret this goal. What decides whether an ethicist accepts this goal from religion?

This question may seem foolish and uncomfortable. We stand where scientific discussion ends. Personal decision takes over. The theologian is least likely to overlook this. I don’t mean to ignore this reality. I only reflect on what hinders adopting Christianity’s developmental ideal into ethics.

Addressing the Transcendence Objection

Is it the transcendence of this ultimate goal? For many, a solely transcendent goal seems unhelpful for today’s moral tasks. However, evangelical ethics avoids this concern. For it, the kingdom of God’s community, the highest good, comes from heaven. Yet it has entered human development.

Evangelical ethics understands Jesus’ demand. This kingdom must permeate all life like leaven. The community of God proves itself in daily relationships. The kingdom at history’s end is the fulfillment of what we have now.

Realizing the present kingdom in history is a powerful cultural mission. The day will show nothing essential is lost from humanity’s goals. Christianity’s understanding of human development poses a moral task. It is broad enough to encompass all essential goals. It is also simple enough for both the intellectually elevated and humble to participate.

Refuting the Eudaimonism Misunderstanding

This clarity addresses another misunderstanding. Some think a purely transcendent highest good introduces eudaimonism into Christian ethics. Certain religions, and some Christian views, link blessedness to morality through reward.

Evangelical ethics acknowledges the pedagogical value of this link in Jesus’ teachings. However, it insists this doesn’t exhaust the matter. Blessedness is not a reward for morality. It presupposes communion with God as already present.

These points show how unfruitful it is to debate the religious foundation of ethics broadly. The contradiction lies in not posing the question from Christian ethics’ perspective. Or it stems from misunderstanding genuine Christianity.

Theonomy vs. Autonomy: The Decisive Tension

The decisive point is different. Christianity commits to theonomy. Yet the demand for autonomy seeks an interest Christian ethics also acknowledges. These concerns gain attention for the Christian theologian. They are emphasized by a philosophical ethics the theologian often sympathizes with.

It’s no accident that recent theological ethics presentations connect with Kant. They emphasize the unconditional “ought” as a fundamental moral datum. The moral demand confronts us with a categorical imperative’s force. It claims us entirely.

The good is an absolute value concept. Any utilitarian dilution must be rejected. Here, “utilitarian” means the good being good for something else. These are elementary Christian truths that must not be abandoned.

The Christian theologian can listen impartially to Kant’s conclusions. Kant believed his demand for moral autonomy captured genuine Christianity’s essence. He sought to show practical reason’s self-legislation could be seen as divine command. Does this not bridge theonomy and autonomy, as we asked at the start?

Evaluating Kant’s Approach

Kant’s specific combination of theonomy and autonomy may not convince everyone. Kant opposes eudaimonistic ethics. He rejects a theonomous grounding of morality. Yet he links virtue with happiness as the highest good. He postulates God as its guarantor. This affects both religion and morality negatively.

Little honor is done to religion when it pays out morality’s reward. Morality veers toward eudaimonism when balancing virtue and external happiness. However, Kant offers hints of a more skillful combination. Judging this possibility should remain independent of Kant’s specific elaboration.

All such attempts must be rejected. They lead to the notion that divine command gains sanction only from human self-legislation. This reverses Christianity’s view. The moral demand derives its absolute character from divine authority alone.

Addressing the Eudaimonism Critique of Theonomy

Does this expose ethics to eudaimonism, as Kant described? This is the first concern for theonomous ethics. Critics claim it must take a eudaimonistic character. This seems convincing at first. Moral action is safeguarded against impure motives when it expresses one’s own will.

If a person allows morality to be imposed externally, the motive seems tied to the moral effort’s outcome. Thus, the effort ceases to be morally valuable. Theonomous ethics seems no exception. What motivates submission to divine law if not God-guaranteed blessedness?

This conclusion holds if God is just another personality among others. How another’s will could determine mine, except through the good it offers, is unclear. We must not confuse this with another fact. An external demand can become my will’s determinant by legitimizing itself before my moral consciousness.

At that moment, it ceases to be external. It becomes my own will’s expression. However, we rejected that divine command must legitimize itself before human moral consciousness. What else motivates compliance if not the good it offers?

Christian Experience of Theonomy

Before theoretical discussion, let’s ask how the moral demand takes hold in a Christian. For the simple Christian, untroubled by theory, sanctioning God’s command as divine feels blasphemous. The moral demand doesn’t ask for respect. It asserts itself against their will at key points.

The notion that reflecting on the offered good awakens the decision to affirm the moral demand doesn’t match their experience. That reflection would see the demand as a means to that good. Instead, their experience involves ceasing all reflection.

The Christian doesn’t experience God as a moral will among others. Even if God were the highest, it would still require deciding to acknowledge the demand. God is the unconditional will. He demands the person entirely for Himself, without regard for other purposes.

In theonomy, the Christian experiences the unconditionality of the “ought” Kant identified as moral. This interpretation safeguards the moral demand’s unconditional character against eudaimonistic distortion.

Autonomy’s Risk of Heteronomy

Recent philosophical and theological assessments agree. Absolute autonomy leads to heteronomy. If autonomy meant the right to determine oneself arbitrarily, it would mean being at the mercy of any interest. Self-legislation only has meaning if my will’s maxim can serve as universal legislation’s principle.

In other words, the human will follows its own law only if bound to norms beyond human origin. How can this binding be interpreted except as binding to God? One either notes that humans know themselves bound to an unconditional “ought.” Or, to explain this, one finds it in experiencing this binding as an unconditional personal will’s effect.

The possibility of evading the “ought” for some good ceases where humans know they belong to God unconditionally. However, the divine demand must impose itself as absolutely valuable. It must prevail over differently oriented inclinations.

The Psychological Necessity of Value

This is a psychological necessity. It has nothing to do with theonomy or autonomy. Kant knew this practical interest in the moral act was indispensable. He opposed the pathological interest in the act’s outcome.

Where interest in the outcome, detached from the act, motivates moral action, it becomes corrupted. This clarifies eudaimonism’s error and truth. Its error lies in claiming the good is pursued for its achieved good. Its truth lies in the moral demand being experienced as the highest good.

Every ethicist must describe the moral demand as a highest good. This applies to both autonomy and theonomy. The question is: How can devotion to God, seeming to renounce human value, be experienced as absolutely valuable?

This question rephrases another: How is God’s demand understood as God’s without legitimizing itself before human morality? These hinge on a presupposition. Humans are oriented toward God, so only in devotion to Him does their personality find fulfillment.

In this orientation, humans perceive God’s unconditional demand as His voice. In losing themselves to God, they find themselves (Matt. 10:39). This addresses the second objection against theonomy.

The Moral Beyond Duty

Morality is not fully described by the consciousness of an unconditional “ought.” This holds even if moral judgment concerns only individual actions. Ethics imposes another requirement on actions beyond duty wrested against inclinations.

This formal description becomes inadequate. Moral judgment isn’t primarily about individual actions. It first asks about the entire life’s work, where human intention is directed. We reach a standard by giving content to the moral’s formal description through its highest purpose.

Kant’s expositions suggest this combination from various angles. He didn’t carry it out where he emphasized the human person’s unconditional self-purpose. Nor did he make the kingdom of ends concept fruitful for morality. He believed any purpose taints moral action.

However, this applies only to purposes outside the personality’s self-purpose. These can become our will’s aim only through interest in them. What prevents combining the unconditionality’s “ought” with realizing the highest purpose immanent to human nature?

Both ideas complement each other. Only through their combination is morality fully realized. Moral action is morally valuable only when directed toward this immanent purpose. Humans must be conscious of an unconditional “ought.”

Autonomy’s Role in Personal Authenticity

This casts autonomy in a new light. It secures the moral action’s personal distinctiveness and inner truth. Moral action aims for the realization of human nature’s purpose as such. This confirms humans must strive for universal validity in moral action.

Every human can realize human nature only within their personality’s limits. They do so according to their talents and life’s concrete situation. Each can only become something. But they are responsible for becoming something whole, for being themselves wholly.

Each must choose their moral goals. They must set their moral task. They must determine themselves in individual actions. In this sense, each must be their own lawgiver.

This concerns self-responsibility’s tremendous idea. No one should evade it. No one should let it be diminished. Rejecting authoritarian belief in religion corresponds to rejecting heteronomy in morality.

No one can prescribe what we believe. No authority sustains our faith for us. No one should prescribe what we do or refrain from doing. We must not hide behind any authority for our actions.

As humble people, we seek advice from others gladly. We are ready to learn from them. In the time of becoming, maturing under moral personalities’ guidance is natural. Yet, individuals become a moral person only by having courage.

They must, as Christians, allow God’s grace to be what they’re called to be. The idea of autonomy cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Does theonomy really oppose this autonomy?

Reconciling Theonomy and Autonomy

Paul’s confession offers a preliminary answer. He says humbly yet confidently: “With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. Indeed, I do not even judge myself. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:3–4). If humans are oriented toward God, autonomy and theonomy are not opposites.

They highlight two perspectives on the same matter. They demand the same thing from different viewpoints. Our will is truly moral only as our self’s simple expression. For Christians, this means willing God.

God imposes His law on humans. In doing so, He calls the will toward realizing their nature’s law. The decisive misunderstanding lies here. God’s authority is seen as external, like other authorities, imposing arbitrary demands.

God’s demand claims the whole human being. It has nothing to do with individual prescriptions. This is misunderstood if God becomes a formal authority first. Then arbitrary content gains divine command’s significance for the Christian.

We couldn’t explain how God becomes the highest authority for Christians. It stems from the moral demand’s specific content. From this, humans hear their God’s voice. In submitting, they realize their nature’s law.

As Christians become what they are meant to be, God’s will no longer opposes them. Their will becomes one with God’s. Biblical ideas emphasize this strongly in our church.

The Christian, free in devotion to God, is free from the law. They become their own law, both “anomos” and “ennomos Christou” (1 Cor. 9:21). The confession emphasizes this so much it risks blurring natural and moral boundaries.

If Christians were fully renewed, they would act voluntarily without any law’s teaching, admonition, urging, or compulsion. They would do what God wills, as the sun, moon, and stars follow their course freely, according to God’s order (Formula of Concord, Article VI). This could hardly be expressed more strongly.

The moral has inner truth only as a spontaneous expression of human will itself. The second objection against theonomous morality’s grounding proves unfounded on Christian grounds.

Reversing the Question

Can autonomy truly secure its interest? Is it feasible? Two points are crucial. First, practical reason’s autonomy unlikely inspires confidence. Even among earnest moralists, moral ideals are determined in diverse ways.

No one should be surprised by this. As Kant knew, radical evil exists in humans. Moral knowledge is strongly conditioned by the will. Must not the question arise? Is the moral will’s lawgiving already distorted?

Kant linked autonomy with freedom. His conclusion, “You can, for you ought,” is famous. The Christian theologian sympathizes with it. It expresses that we uphold morality by believing in human freedom.

As an empirical judgment, however, it contradicts experience. One who knows radical evil understands the painful lament: “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me?” Christianity doesn’t dismiss this with a forceful verdict.

It knows redemption from this “I cannot.” In faith in Jesus Christ, it points to the way the law that kills becomes a law of freedom. It transforms the “ought” into a “will.”

Conclusion

Christianity can fully do justice to the interest behind autonomy’s demand. The same question arises again. Is Paul right to call being bound to God freedom, and freedom from God bondage?

Everything hinges on this. Scientific discussion reaches its limit here. If humans can stand alone, autonomy follows naturally. They must be entirely what they are.

If, however, their personality is created to find fulfillment in God, then autonomy exists only within theonomy. Everything hinges on this personal decision.

In 21st American Evangelicalism, the title of this article has likely offended a slew of individuals already. How so, you might ask. It is built upon a few fundamental assumptions that have fallen upon hard times. One, the church is an identifiable institution; church membership exists in a tangible, visible, and identifiable way. Two, that identifiable institution has the ability to discipline members who step out of line. Three, not only does the church have that ability, but they have the obligation and the right. Additionally, members have the obligation and privileged-right to receive said discipline with joy and thanksgiving to God for that blessing. Church discipline is just that. It is a blessing. 

Because individuals today tend to be so, well individualistic, many have lost sight of this important reality. Rather than seeing discipline as a tool in the hands of the Sovereign God for their sanctification, and the conformity of the corporate body, moderns tend to view it as an attack upon their autonomy. In a sense they are correct. Autonomy posits that every man is a law unto himself. Church discipline does not allow for this position. Rather, it recognizes this type of autonomy as wicked and uses all of the tools at its disposal to reconcile the wayward saint to the truth. It wields the law of God for good on those who are being devoured by the enemy of their soul. Autonomous-man can not tolerate such an attack upon their Highest Good. To attack their ability to declare good and evil is seen as nothing short of blasphemy, legalism, and hatred.

Why the need for this sober discourse?

Without going into detail, because frankly the details are unimportant and not yet known fully, the Reformed world was rocked this morning by the announcement of the removal of a prominent pastor due to his sin. Rightfully so, many were blindsided by this revelation. It is a good thing that it came as a shock. Who wants to live in a world where this type of thing is so common that it is ordinary news? But the need for sobriety comes at this point. There is a sense in which we ought not be shocked at all. What I am hearing and reading from various corners of the web should cause us to stop, shut up, grieve, evaluate our own walk, and thank God for the faithfulness of a local church; for the blessing of church discipline (And may we never lose sight of the reality that what is being used as cannon fodder by some, was a devastating blow to an entire congregation of our brothers and sisters, as well as the families involved).

The very few public details of this particular case do not leave the reader with much to go on. But what the reader does have to go on is also voluminous. A leader sinned in such a way as to disqualify himself in the eyes of his co-elders. This particular leader has such a public platform that his collapse will inevitably have far-reaching ramifications. Yet, out of faithfulness to God and for the good and restoration of the guilty, and for the good of the victims, the elders of this church denied autonomy as a rational standard and clung to God’s standards of care. This is exactly the type of leadership that a church needs and is one of many reasons that a plurality of elders is a blessing to the people of God. 

We ought to be mature enough to recognize multiple realities at the same time. Sin sucks. But we have a good and gracious savior. Sin has consequences. But the Lord is building his church and has given her the tools necessary to accomplish her task. It is a shock when seemingly faithful men are caught in their sin. But no man is free of temptations and only One man is able to lead His church sinlessly. If you take your eyes off of Him, your doom is waiting behind a corner and will find you. 

A Right to Church Discipline?

Contrary to popular belief, rights come from God, not from man. As such, what God defines as a right is always a right, and what man identifies as a right, is usually a wrong. We have a right to church discipline. Both corporately and individually. Corporately, it is the duty of God’s royal priesthood to guard the Holy Nation from uncleanliness. When a serpent wriggles into the garden we can either step on its head or let it roam free and bite the sheep. A good shepherd, because he has identifiable sheep, knows where to be on guard. This is the right of the church. It is the corporate duty of the saints to smash snakes. It is also the corporate duty of the saints to tend to the wounds of the sheep who have been bitten. Unfortunately, rather than helping slay dragons, many sheep have drunk deeply from the well of autonomy and tag team with the snake by biting the hands of their shepherds.

Sobriety demands that we identify, and distinguish, between the snake and the sheep who has been bitten. Online discourse allows for rapid-fire commentary and encourages quick, uninformed, often callous statements that are unbecoming of sheep. Now I’m not saying that we need to close our eyes to the reality around us. Be on the lookout for snakes. But wisdom would dictate that we are slow to open our mouths too widely until the blessing of church discipline has reached its final conclusion. Ideally, that conclusion is the full reconciliation of the guilty party to the Law-word of God and the making whole of the innocent victims. In the mean time, may we pray for those who have been abused and impacted. May we praise God for the blessing of church discipline. May we evaluate our own hearts lest we become blind to our own proclivity for sin and stumble. And may we never take our eyes off of the One who actually provides the sacrifice for the sins that so easily entangle us.

Push an argument to its logical conclusion and true commitments are exposed. “No King but Christ!” “Separation of church and state!” “Muh Romans 13!” Every one of these warcries echoes forth from the streets of Christendom. Each one carries with it a measure of truth. As such, each ought to be embraced by the thoughtful saint within its intended confines. Yet they are pitted against one another as if they were the cries of foreign armies and not the chants of brother battalions. Each unit has its own mission. This is good, and right, and true. It ought to be remembered and embraced. Yet when a group of soldiers loses sight of the Imperial flag, the temptation exists to forget the larger battle and the singular mission that unites the bands of brothers. My particular warcry is “No King but Christ,” therefore I swing at false kings and declare Christ’s law. But in saying that Christ is King — or to be more specific, the King of Kings— we must remember that this is not placing him up as merely one King amongst many. It places him above the other kings. Calling Christ the King of kings is saying nothing less than, Christ is the Emperor. Emperor Jesus reigns supreme. 

Our so-called modern sensibilities have conditioned us to recoil from terms such as monarchy and imperialism. This is a shame. There is nothing inherently wrong with either term. On the contrary, monarchies and empires are the natural order of the cosmos; both pre and post fall. If a problem exists it is not with the office. The problem is with the officer. When wicked men reign, judgment follows. When righteous men sit on the throne, the people flourish. If you don’t believe me, look at First and Second Kings. We live in a universe that is governed by federal representatives. The cosmos are hierarchical. This is just the way the cookie crumbles. It is good. Grab some milk and deal with it. No matter how much Uncle Samantha has washed your brain of its God given programming, we were all born into an empire. Not only that, we worship the Emperor of our kingdom. Emperor worship is inevitable. Either you can worship a sinful emperor or you can worship the Emperor who is the Lord of lords and the God of gods.

God is not opposed to empires. Neither should you be. Thrice in the scriptures we read of God ascribing the title King of kings. Thrice in the scriptures we read of God ordained emperors; Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, and Christ. The title was well worn by the time we read of it in the New Testament. Not only in the pages of scripture, but also in the pages of history. They are established concepts. And to understand these claims of Christ we should understand how those phrases were used by The Spirit earlier in redemptive history.

King of kings 

Ezra 7:12- “Artaxerxes, king of kings…”

(referring to him as Emperor and political leader)

Fifth in a long line of emperors, Artaxerxes was used by the Lord to “beautify the house of YHWH that is in Jerusalem.” He ruled the Achaemenidian empire in Persia from 

465 BC- 424 BC and was the successor to Darius the Great.

Eze 26:7- “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings…”

(referring to him as Emperor and political leader)

Nebuchadnezzar was called King of kings by YHWH himself and ruled over the Babylonian empire from 605 BC-562 BC. 

Lord of lords

Deu 10:17 - For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe

Psa 136:3 - Give thanks to the Lord of lords,

for his steadfast love endures forever;

Unlike the title King of kings, Lord of lords is reserved for YHWH alone.

Jesus occupies both roles

1Ti 6:15 - which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Rev 17:14 - They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Or again in Revelation 19:16 we see Jesus, the one of whom Thomas proclaimed (John 20) 

ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

My Lord and my God

We see this spoken of Jesus…

” On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

 So we see Jesus. God of gods. King of kings. Lord of lords. Maker of all things that have been created (Col 1. John 1) The one who holds the universe together (Heb 1) The one before whom angels cry “holy, holy, holy”  (Isa 6. John 12:41) The one to whom was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mat 28). Are we to believe that the God of gods, King of kings and Lord of lords who has all authority everywhere, has nothing to do with every area of life? Hogwash. Of course he does.

Jesus is God and has all authority in heaven. He is also man and has all authority over that which Adam was supposed to rule. Over that which Christ redeemed with his own blood.

But since the fall of man into sin, exercise of these once unified offices were divided. This was gracious of God and preserved the world until the coming of the messiah promised in Genesis 3. But even in the division of powers, it is the same God who is sovereign over it all. Adam was prophet, priest and king. He rebelled and turned the cosmos on its head. Whereas these offices were all occupied by one man prior to his treason, they were divided in the fallen world. 

Let’s look at a few examples of division of powers from the scriptures where men with limited authority reached past what God had given them and were judged for it.

1. King Saul: (1 Sam 15:9-15,22) after being told “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”— Saul blatantly disregarded the commandment of the lord and kept the best of the Amalekites for himself. He even had the audacity to say… yeah but I kept it for God… uhm no! God told him what he wanted. Saul just wanted to justify his sin with pious language. — furthermore, Saul went on to sacrifice on the altar when that was Samuel’s job. Not Sauls. Because of this God removed Sauls authority and raised up a different king. He raised up David.

2. King Uzziah in 2 Chron 26:16 went beyond his legitimate authority in his pride. As king he was not allowed to serve in the Temple. Yet he “entered the house of YHWH to burn incense on the altar.” Because of this he was struck with leprosy and he remained an outcast to the day of his death.

God takes these jurisdictional separations very seriously. The Old Testament people as well as the new have often erred in this way. While Jesus is not a political savior as most think of it,his saving work impacts politics and ultimately redeems all things to himself (Col 1:19-20). Because, much as within the church, Jesus’ authority— his sovereignty— is ordained by God over all areas of life.

The imperial Law

In principle, all Christians should have broad agreement with what has been written so far. Jesus is Emperor. Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God. He reigns and rules with absolute authority over all things in heaven and on earth. But where the various battalions of the Church militant start pointing their swords at one another is when these realities are placed into practice. This is where the rubber hits the road. It’s the moment of truth. This is where the boots hit the ground.

Many brothers fancy themselves as two kingdom guys. Others see only one kingdom. Some hold to a form of Kuyperian sphere sovereignty. Recently the term Christian Nationalism has become a popular way of expressing Christian political theory. Allow me to throw a new term into the stew. Christian Imperialism (a term for which I have zero care if it is picked up by anyone else). I use this for shock value as much as I do to make a point. But the last thing we need is yet another theory of Church/state relations and I hope the term dies with me and goes no further.

What do I mean by this name? I mean that God has an eternal, unchanging, imperial law and this law is binding upon all persons and institutions at all times. Yet its expression is determined by the tools that God has given to each sphere of authority. This unchanging Imperial law is what has commonly been called the moral law. Everything in existence is bound by this law, and this law is summarized by the Ten Commandments.

Are you a Christian? You are bound by the Ten Commandments. Are you a Muslim? You are bound by the Ten Commandments. Are you an atheist? You are bound by the Ten Commandments. The civil realm, the church, the household, and any other institution that exists are all bound by this law. It is universal. It is rooted in the unchanging nature of the Triune God. It is binding, abiding, and relevant. We live in God’s world and can no more free ourselves from this Imperial law than we can free ourselves from the law of gravity. Dare I say, this law is even more binding than gravity, for it predates it.

Yet distinctions exist in its application. Some units have tanks, other units are in command of radios. When these roles are confused, destruction ensues. An individual, as an individual, does not exercise the sword of the state for example. Being the head of a household does not give you the keys to the kingdom. Being the king of a nation does not give you the father’s rod. Yet all of these people and institutions are called to live by and enforce the very same law, according to the tools that God has given to each sphere of authority.

Because Jesus is Emperor, it is his imperial law that rules the day. Likewise, in recognizing that Jesus is the King of kings, the King over other kings, those lesser kings must obey the great king. Those vassals must submit to their conqueror; if they refuse, their mantle shall be removed, perhaps along with their head. And even when heads roll, this serves as a vindication of the Imperial truth.

The false notion exists that certain kings and kingdoms must only obey the latter half of the Ten Commandments while others must obey the imperial law in its entirety. This is a false notion. the fact that the ecclesiastical realm is beholden to all of the moral law is generally granted, so I will not address this here. But those who are outside of the camp are generally the group that some say are obligated to only the last six commandments. I present to you three points that show otherwise; neither differing eons nor associations frees anybody from this law.

The moral law existed and was operational at every point of human history. Before Sinai, during the Mosaic economy, and in the New Covenant era. 

1

The Moral law before Sinai

One does not have to get very far into their yearly Bible plan before running face first into the moral law; False gods, idolatry, the sabbath, dishonoring of parents, murder, adultery, lying, theft. The book of Genesis alone is packed with moral law as well as those who broke it. Likewise, we see God’s judgment poured out on those who violate this law. Every point of the 10 commandments can be found prior to Sinai. They are all operational during the Mosaic economy, they are all repeated during the New Covenant age. When a person lives has no bearing on the validity or applicability of God’s unchanging standard; it is applicable at all points of history.

Additional Scriptural proofs of the abiding nature of this Imperial law.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Mat 22:34-40)

4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[b] 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deu 6:4-5)

17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Lev 19:17-18)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Mat 5:17)

---------------------------------------------------------------

2

During the Mosaic economy even pagan nations were judged for violating the moral law.

¹⁰ “If a ^bman commits adultery with the wife of¹ his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ^{11 c}If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ^{12 d}If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed ^eperversion; their blood is upon them. ^{13 f}If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ^{14 g}If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. ^{15 h}If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. ^{16 h}If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

^{17 i}“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. ^{18 j}If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. ^{19 k}You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to make naked ^lone’s relative; they shall bear their iniquity. ^{20 m}If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. ^{21 n}If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity.² He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.

^{22 o}“You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not ^pvomit you out. ^{23 q}And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.

Pagan or not, God was holding the nations accountable to upholding his law; a law they had never heard about or read.

How is this so?

3

Romans indicates that all persons know of God and his law (the first table) and are without excuse.

¹⁸ For ^kthe wrath of God ^lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be ^mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, ⁿhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,⁷ in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they ^obecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ^{22 p}Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and ^qexchanged the glory of ^rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

²⁴ Therefore ^sGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to ^tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for ^ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, ^vwho is blessed forever! Amen.

²⁶ For this reason ^wGod gave them up to ^xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ²⁷ and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ^ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, ^zGod gave them up to ^aa debased mind to do ^bwhat ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Though they know ^cGod’s righteous decree that those who practice such things ^ddeserve to die, they not only do them but ^egive approval to those who practice them

They Knew…

If we are going to divide the moral law, this Imperial law, into bits and pieces we have a problem. Paul, by the power of the Spirit, had no problem lumping all persons into the category of violators of the first table of the moral law. And God held these people accountable. We should too.

Additionally

In the oft quoted passage from Romans 13 we must ask ourselves, “If the Civil Magistrate is God's servant operating under God’s authority to punish the bad and protect the good, who gets to define good and bad conduct?” Even pagan magistrates were appointed by God to carry out his Imperial law (whether they did so or not is another question).

Let every person ^pbe subject to the governing authorities. For ^qthere is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you ^rwill receive his approval, ⁴ for ^she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, ^tan avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Everything, everyone, everywhere, is under the Imperial flag whether they like it or not. They are without excuse.

Before we can get to the tedious work of applying Biblical truth to society we would be well served to recognize these truths. Jesus Christ is the Emperor of all. His Imperial law reigns over all men at all times in all locations. This should not be up for debate.

Only when we get this under our belts and into our hearts can we actually make progress. It serves no purpose to kill one another via friendly fire over such a clear truth. Do not recoil at his pronouncements. Accept them. Move on. And then have the discussion of how each sphere should apply the universal standard.

I must confess that I am disheartened by Reformation infighting as of late; we are typically such a jovial bunch.

Yes, yes, yes, I understand that we have had our conflicts. The Baptists ripped off the Congregationalists, the Congregationalists ripped of the Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians came in a few years after the 1644 Baptist confession rolled off the presses (a fact that is almost as amusing to me as the fact that American Presbyterians try to label themselves as Truly Reformed even though their confession is the most recent of the whole lot). Yes, we have a more checkered history than Ross and Rachel. But in the end, we know we’re supposed to end up together… right? Yet here we stand, in the midst of another lovers' quarrel, we can do no other; God help us.

The most recent flare up comes from an unlikely source — Thomas (Aquinas. Not the Train. I think I can. I think I can). Ye’ old Angelic Doctor is at it again; He is stirring up trouble from purgatory. While he is being purged of such abhorrent theological positions as transubstantiation and prayer to Mary, we’re out here under the great cloud of witnesses trying to live a life by grace alone through faith alone.

Allow me to lay my cards on the table up front — I don’t have a problem with Thomas’ doctrine of God. As far as philosophy goes, It is quite beautiful, actually. Want to talk about an unmoved mover, causation, ontology, goodness, or teleology, then fine. These arguments and the thought that Thomas contributed to them are of benefit under certain situations. That is to say, they are valuable tools in the belt of the Christian apologist. But they are philosophy, not God breathed scripture. Likewise, Calvin had much to say about the nature of Christ as autotheos. Much was articulated differently than saints from the previous millennia. Are we to hold this up as the standard? Are we to dismiss it as philosophical ramblings of a second generation reformer? Perhaps we are to measure it against scripture as we do all other claims. Shall we discuss Divine Simplicity, the trinity, or the Analogia Entis? All well and good. Let’s have that discussion.

You can not with a straight face tell me that the articulation of Aquinas would have been understood by the first century saint (Any more than we can say the articulations of Calvin were lockstep with his predecessors). It may have been understood by Augustine, given the size of his mind and his familiarity with both Plato and Aristotle. It would be foolish to believe that Augustine’s Neoplatonic flavored Christianity would be friendly towards Thomas’ Aristotelian expression. They were like oil and water. Cats and dogs. Unitarians and orthodoxy. They just don’t mix. The only reason that Augustine and Aquinas can be appealed to for support of the same doctrines is because of their unified underpinnings— they both appeal to scripture. Likewise, this is what I am appealing to as a resolution to the current hullabaloo. Scripture. Scripture alone is our sole and infallible rule of faith. And secondary derivations must assume the appropriate position in our reasoning. (Have not popes and councils erred and contradicted themselves?)

The lack of charity in this discussion is more disturbing than the fact that a bunch of 21st century Protestants are yearning for Roman-scholasticism (and yes I understand the claim that the authors of the aforementioned Protestant confessions were huge fans). I understand that in speaking of God without parts that the confessions were leaning upon scholastic tradition and definitions (often explicitly Thomistic). This does not allow us, who claim that the sole infallible rule of faith is divine scripture, to treat one another as outcasts. Can we be real for a moment?

Let’s place down our weapons for long enough to acknowledge a few facts.

1. We are saved by grace alone.

2. We are saved through faith alone.

3. That grace and faith is a sovereign gift from God.

4. We are saved in Christ alone; the second person of the trinity. Uncreated. Coeternal. Very God of very God. Begotten, not made. Equal with the Father and the Spirit in power and majesty.

5. This Christ assumed a human nature, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He lived a perfect life of active and passive obedience. Was crucified, died and buried. He rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

6. He will come again to judge the quick and the dead.

7. We know these truths because they have been revealed to us in Scripture alone.

8. We live for the glory of God alone.

This side of eternity, we are going to have disagreements. Some of those disagreements will matter. Others won’t. This is not a plea for unity at the cost of truth. It is a plea for charity in light of the ultimate truth. If we are in union with Christ, we are united with one another. There is no need for faction making. Especially the Latin variety; fastidium factiones if you will. Yet here we are casting aspersions at blood-bought brothers. Here we are throwing knives at the backs of those for whom Christ died. Here we are rattling the bars of our own cages. We insist that our particular expression and emphasis is the only way to proceed. (Regardless of the millions of saints who expressed their simple faith in the simple God and his simple gospel from the simple-to-grasp gospels alone, apart from any nuanced Neo-platonic or Aristotelian categories). Perhaps we can learn from history. Perhaps we can recognize that terms have been used by various groups at various times for various and sundry purposes and that an insistence upon everybody adopting our own preferred language may not be as unquestionably beneficial as we think (you might be shocked to learn that our beloved term homoousious had quite a different meaning in the East prior to Nicaea). Perhaps we can glean some understanding from the underlying principles of Paul’s writings.

“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers…But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”

2 Tim 2:14;16 KJV

And

“ But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

2 Tim 2:23-25 KJV

And

“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,”‭‭

Titus‬ ‭3‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

This is not to say that truth ought not be argued for nor that it is unimportant; it is very important.

But it ought to be done from the position of hoping the best for our blood-bought-kin. If we be correct, may God grant our brothers repentance. If our brothers be correct, may God grant us repentance. If we both be lacking in understanding then we are in agreement with Aquinas’ final recorded words,

“I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.”

In essentials (summarized perhaps in my eight points earlier) unity

in non-essentials (i.e. which confession do we hold) liberty

in all things (all means all right?) charity.

Our love for Christ, or rather His love for us, demands nothing less.

S.D.G.

Subscribe now

Share

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”Hebrews‬ ‭1:1-2‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Unfathomable! Simply unimaginable. Humanity longs for the great unknown. Billions are spent by governments, universities, and eccentric rocket tycoons annually probing the great unknown. Looking for answers to the eternal question; are we alone in the universe?  The truth is out there. Not the type of truth that can be found with a telescope. Not the marvelous wonders sought out by H.G. Wells or Elon Musk. The truth that is evident to all image bearers from the moment of conception. God is real. He is powerful. He is judge. We are not alone, this is plain to all; it isn’t shocking (Rom 1:19-20). The incomprehensible tid-bit is that he is the God who speaks. He has not left us to fend for ourselves. This is good.

As biblical authors are prone to do, the author of Hebrews— I say “the author” because frankly we are unsure of the human instrument who penned the book. We all hope it is one of the dudes who listened to Jesus on the road to Emmaus though, right? —  the author of Hebrews  opens up with grand statements on the glories of God and Christ. “Jesus upholds the universe. Jesus is the heir of all things. Jesus is greater than the angels. Greater than the prophets. Greater than even Moses himself. Jesus is God.” Can’t get much more grand than that last one. But all of this is given in support of the opening two verses. Long ago God spoke in one way. Now he has spoken (definitively and finally) in His Son. Long ago God spoke to our Fathers. Now he has spoken to us. He has spoken to you. The two age paradigm runs deep.

Before we get to that: A quick glance ahead in the book can be helpful  in understanding the importance of these opening verses. Sometimes skipping to the end of the book, knowing where all of the argumentation and persuasion is heading, allows us to get a handle on the earlier portions. Where is this going? Why was the book written?

“I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.”Hebrews13:22‬ ‭ESV‬‬

The author calls the writing a “brief exhortation.” Sometimes this can be understood as an encouragement. In light of the very real warning passages in the middle of the book however, we ought rather see it as a stern reminder of the dangers of turning away from Christ as well as an encouragement that Christ will keep his New Covenant people without fail. This is why we read,

“…in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.”‭‭ Heb 6:9‬ ‭

Why the need for this exhortation? Why the reminder of the majesty of Christ and the assurance of his covenant faithfulness? Well… because we need reminding. His audience, with whom he was intimately familiar (13:19;23), had been down the road of persecution before. They did not live cushy lives of ease singing Kumbaya around camp fires; they were the campfires. The audience had likely suffered under the cruel hands of Nero the Beast. The same Nero who in AD 64 was lighting his garden parties with flaming human torches of the Christian variety. Yes, they knew persecution. They knew the cost. Many bore the scars in their own bodies. The price of discipleship was front and center. Because of this, the temptation to turn away from Christ and go back to their previous lives must have been tremendous. Knowing this, the author wrote,

“But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated…“Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.”‭‭ Heb‬ ‭10:32-35‬ ‭

So where is this going? Why was the book written?

To push saints onward to glory. To remind them that in spite of the temporary suffering that may lie before them, it is nothing in comparison to trampling under foot the Son of God. Moreover, even if they wanted to turn back, there was nothing to go back to. Christ is better. Long ago God spoke to our fathers in one way. Now, he has spoken to us in His powerful Son. Long ago, God delivered his words by way of angels and prophets. Now, in these last days, revelation is complete and the ages are wrapped up in Christ. The purpose statement of the entire exhortation can be found in chapter 8 verses 1-2. “Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.” Jesus is better. Jesus is able. Jesus is interceding for you as the perfect High Priest. Press on. Press forward. Suffer well. He is worth it. There is no turning back.

‭‭

We worship the God who is. We worship the God who speaks. We worship the Word of God himself who was tempted in all the same ways as we are, yet without sin. In former times God delivered his revelation by way of lesser ministers. He delivered true, yet incomplete, guidance and commands to His people. Yet during the time of the letter, that age was quickly passing away. (Heb 8:13) The scaffolding is coming down. The building project is nearing completion. (For more on the passing away of the old age see also: Acts 2:14-36, Joel 2:18-27, Rom 13:11-12, 1 Cor 10:11, Gal 4:4, 1 Pt 1:20, 1 John 2:8)

God could have left us without a clue or direction. He was not obligated to speak to us. Yet the same God who spoke the heavens into existence, the One who commanded the stars to shine forth, the same Jesus who upholds all of it by the word of His power, this Triune God spoke to humanity. He guided them in the days of the fathers. In the fullness of time he spoke the ultimate Word. This is grace unimaginable. Glory incomprehensible. This is the God who speaks— and if you hear His voice he is speaking to you. Rejoice.

Subscribe now

Share

There are many reasons why the Rittenhouse trial has captured the attention of the public, and it has very little to do with the blood of comrades flowing down the mean streets of Kenosha. But more on that later…

If I’ve learned anything over the past few years it is this, regardless of the facts the media will steamroll anybody who stands in their way. This should be no surprise seeing as they are bought and paid for by the same upstanding individuals that brought you such classics as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square, Sleepy Joe and a recently revealed virus whose most deadly symptom is totalitarianism. Yes, long gone are the good ol’ days where the propaganda was well crafted and artistic. No need any longer. It is cheaper to silence the opposition or lower their social credit score. It’s almost as if nobody appreciates the beauty of a well crafted tale these days. And that’s a shame. I long for the day’s where we could gather around the water cooler and chat about weapons of mass destruction, yellow cake uranium, and liberating the Middle East. Those tales had pizazz.

Don’t misunderstand me, those yarns led us to where we are today. But at least the tyrants of yesteryear had the good sense to keep the violence on the streets of somebody else’s cities. All we had to do was enjoy the show and submit to being groped at the airport. But this tyranny is on a whole different level. Twenty years ago we still had the ability to proclaim, “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” As misguided as we may have been at times, we weren’t afraid to lay our cards on the table and claim objective morality. That too has been lost. And while certain community organizers managed to foretell of violence in the streets of Wisconsin months before there was ever a riot, I’m afraid that our willingness to call a spade a spade was burned to ashes long before “random” violence broke out in the streets of our nation— but I suspect they saw that coming as well. We surrendered objectivity and absolute truth at the same time we gave up on goodness and beauty. As a matter of fact, the loss of these things are inseparably connected.

Small nation states are easily conquered via external force alone, but world powers need a longer and more subtle strategy if they are to be toppled. I need not go into the generational warfare that has been going on within our borders for 80 years, that story has been told already by others. Rather, I point only to the most recent attack on our nation. It is not against our buildings or our cultural institutions, but against the very foundation that everything else was built upon. The attack is upon Truth-incarnate. It is an attack upon beauty-incarnate. It is all out warfare upon Goodness himself. Our nation wars not against the idea of deity. They are fine with all sorts of gods. But the idea of the one true God has become reprehensible to them.

This leads me back to Rittenhouse…

His trial has become a water-cooler topic. But more than that, it may prove to be a watershed moment. I do not pretend to stand in the place of the jury. Nor have I paid attention to every intimate detail of the trial. But one thing is obvious for all who glance at the headlines and comment boxes on social media. The battle is philosophical and religious in nature. Kyle Rittenhouse may be the one facing a jury, but in the court of public opinion it is truth, beauty and goodness that are on trial.

The fact that a thug with a vaporized bicep admitted in open court that he was only shot when he chased down another man and pointed a gun in his face doesn’t matter. All that seems to matter is that one group of people cannot tolerate the idea of bodily autonomy and defense (the same group that is seeking to administer the ouchie to 5 year olds regardless of any objections) and the other group still thinks that what our nation has become is worth conserving. Make no mistake about it though, this young man —regardless of his guilt or innocence — is nothing more than a convenient symbol for the true conflict. This is not a battle of left versus right. It is not a conflict between white and black. It has nothing immediately to do with gun control. It is a battle for the mind and the soul of the nation. It is truth or deception. Objective-Goodness or foolishness. It is Christ our chaos. It always has been.

Subscribe now

Share

For months our nation has operated under the assumption that Madame Rona was lurking behind every nook and cranny. Every sanitizer-cracked finger had the potential to plunge our once great nation into obscurity. But we are a resilient folk! Donning crochet masks, we marched arm-in-arm into the unemployment lines. Fastidiously distancing ourselves from the most vulnerable amongst us, we arose early and scavenged aisle 101 of the Piggly-Wiggly for toilet paper. It would seem we have been hoodwinked. We were prepared to sacrifice for the greater good. We were willing to lock our doors and shelter in place. But what snuck up on us was the tummy-grumbles. That self-loathing incontinence that presents itself in the very core of your being and leaves you pouting in a corner or rioting in the streets.

Before the intellectuals launch darts from their burned-over ivory towers, a parry is in order. Of course, injustice exists. Of course, we must love our neighbors. Racism runs rampant in the hearts of fallen man. The solution is a new heart. Murder must be punished and abusers of authority ought to be sought out and have their mantle removed (and in many cases the civil-magistrate should take their head as well). These are all given. I surrender the point. But we do not get to perpetrate additional atrocities in our search for justice. We must operate by a higher standard. We must be faithful to the God of justice and avoid the pernicious grumbling that is a hallmark of an upset tummy.

“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ…”

The Apostle Paul was well aware of the bastard god of the belly. He too experienced injustice. He too knew what it was to suffer at the hands of wicked man. He also knew that the only answer to such discord was the regeneration of our blackened hearts. As followers of the Way, ought we not imitate the Apostle? I must admit that I am less than shocked by the turmoil in our streets. Are you really surprised that a nation of God-haters and belly worshippers can be worked into a frenzy when the bread runs out? Its par for the course. We currently dwell in a land that has turned its back on God and bowed the knee to various demiurges. We cry out for justice, applauding as cities burn. We assemble in the streets for justice, while many in the crowd are showing themselves to be 1st degree offenders of the highest order. We speak of the value of Black Lives, and then we murder thousands of black babies behind the sterile curtains of America’s murder factories.

Sterilization is the name of the game in these parts. If we can’t sterilize the men, we provide a sterile environment where they can pay a few hundred dollars to discard of their women and children. If they don’t have the money, we play a shell game with tax dollars and speak of the bravery of child-slaughter. (If you are protesting my words, I encourage you to go back and read the second paragraph). This type of intellectual schizophrenia cannot continue forever. Something’s gotta give. The walls may be white, but the black light tells the true story. We have blood on our hands, meat in our bellies, and we love it.

Under pressure, it is the weakest joint that snaps first. In this instance, the deafening POP came from the effeminate men who look upon the upheaval with fake compassion. Some have gone so far as to bow the knee to enemies of Christ. Belly worshippers will do anything to get rid of the tummy-grumbles. They are quite the bother when you try to sleep but have no peace. Idolatry is like that. It makes grand promises but only delivers destruction. When push comes to shove, false-brothers expose their characteristic yellow streak. For some, especially in the last week, one only has to look on the ground below them to see it. It has collected in a moist puddle between their bent knees. If weak men are going to continue to worship their bellies, those bellies must be appeased. And if those bellies are going to be appeased, the checks need to keep rolling in from the evangelical power brokers. In a culture that has denied Christ, this becomes increasingly difficult to do when principled-fortitude is often equated with blasphemy.

I’ve heard it said somewhere that, “Seeking God is all the rage these days, but finding him is forbidden.”

Proof of concept can be found on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper if you don’t believe me. So much talk of redemption and justice and so little movement towards the One who justifies. Rather than recognize the shame of standing behind ravenous thugs, the Puddled-Ones glory in a misconstrued idea of justice and tolerance. Rather than stand up for the oppressed with rigid spines of Godly construction, their lots have been thrown in with the unruly masses. Rather than promote true justice and loving mercy, the tummy-grumblers have turned their backs on the only answer to the very real problems our nation is facing. This is what judgment looks like. Don’t look away. You might be lucky enough to survive and tell your grandchildren.

The rule of a fallen King was a judgment on Israel. A ten percent tax rate was a curse. These things were the sign of human tyranny, not blessing. Yet so many in our nation misquote Romans 13, and skip gayly down the road to perdition begging our overlords for the crumbs at their feet. Do you get it yet? Can you see the writing on the wall? “Numbered. Numbered. Weighed. Divided.” If our nation refuses to kiss the Son, we will most certainly perish.

Christians, we have the solution.

Must our nation crumble to cowardice? Christians, we have the answers. Must we submit to the tyranny of the ungodly forever? Christians, we are to be the salt. Refuse to be trampled. Refuse to be identified with movements that are founded upon ideologies abhorrent to the Biblical worldview. Now, more than ever, our nation needs men of integrity. Now, more then ever, they need to hear the message of true reconciliation. Now, in this moment, we have the opportunity to stand up and proclaim the beauty of the perfect Law of Christ.

Nevertheless, if judgment cannot be avoided, we stand confident in this truth. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. His law will most certainly be proclaimed from every mountain and obeyed on every coast. It is inevitable. And though darkness may swell, it will flee in terror at the sight of the Son. Our hope is not in what we see. Our hope is in the One who sees all things and has declared the end from the beginning.

Subscribe now

Share

1.’‘twas the year 325, and from empire wide,

2 The bishops were gathering, from every side.

3 The only begotten had taken his throne,

4 yet seeds of rebellion were still being sown.

5 The dastardly Arius, mouth full of lies,

6 said “Christ was not God, but just holy and wise.”

7 King Constantine said that, “such strife must not be!”

8 Thus he ordered the church to come and convene.

9 Either Jesus is God as the Bible has said

10 or Christ is a creature, and we’re lost in our sin.

11 In streets and the market the people debate.

12 ‘Twas the talk of the empire, from least to the great.

13 The Son has dominion of all seas and lands.

14 Abraham’s offspring outnumber the sands.

15 He rules with all power o’er the heavenly bein’s.

16 Every true saint knows he’s King of all kings.

17 Yet the heresy spread like a plague through all Rome.

18 The wicked false teaching boiled and foamed.

19 Nothing spreads faster than gossip and slander,

20 except the fist of St. Nick and his furious right hander.

21 With a left jab, a hook, a straight and a shove

22 Then a kick and a stomp and the right hand of love.

23 Hooray for St. Nick! Down fell Arius in drool.

24 Now run away heretic, we’ve no time for this fool!

25 God of God! Light of Light! Begotten not made.

26 The heresey fell where ol’ Arius laid.

27 Yet still to this day you might hear the old clamor

28 Of another old fool needing St. Nick’s right hander.

29 We cling to our King. Creator and healer.

30 The child born in a manger is this world’s Redeemer.

31 We Believe in One God, the Father almighty

32 We believe in His Son, who shines just as brightly.

33 Through Him all was made that came to be made

34 As the incarnate God, he never once strayed.

35 On his righteous shoulders all our sins laid.

36 On a Cross, under Pilate, our great debt was paid.

37 After three days entombed our great king did arise

38 And ascended to heaven to the Father of Lights.

39 He shall come again, in glory, as judge.

40 The High Priest of heaven, in justice, won’t budge.

41 The nations may rage, and the heretics slander.

42 But all knees will bow to His righteous right hander.

43 Jolly St. Nick and the saints through the ages.

44 All look on and laugh as the nation still rages.

45 Our blessed assurance, the ancient of Days

46 Will be kissed by the kings as they all sing his praise.

47 Now every year, at about just this hour

48 Even pagans sing songs of the high king of Power.

49 With venom and spit they still hate the true Christ

50 But there’s no denying, his powerful right.

51 One by one nations fall, and none shall remain

52 They’re under his feet, where Arius now lays.

53 Grab your sword, open presents, sing carols and eat.

54 Rejoice and shout praises as you sit at his feet

55 Tell tales of St. Nick and his right hand of might.

56 Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Share

The only things certain in life are death and theonomy-kerfuffles. As is common in times of such tumult, wires get crossed long before any sort of meaningful communication can be had. This is my attempt to uncross a few of those wires before somebody gallops in and cuts the proverbial knot. This is not an attempt to untangle every issue. Typological distinctions are valid and should be studied. Ecclesiastical and soteriological discussions are muy importante and ought not be glossed over; however, it is not my goal to address these issues here, even though they remain relevant.

Every crowd consists of various factions. This is inevitable, expected, and even beneficial. Unfortunately it is reported that there is intellectual immorality among some of you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans. There are those who have genuine objections to the position. I addressed such above. There are those who don’t understand the discussion. Hopefully this will be an added pebble in your shoe as you study the topic. Then there are those who simply refuse to try. This latter crowd, who speak loudly and carry a big shtick, unfortunately possess very little by way of intellectual credibility. Distinctions can be made until we are blue in the face, yet they persist. Perhaps that is their strategy—replace all of the oxygen with hot air until we suffocate or see ourselves out. Allow me to say this clearly: we aren’t going anywhere. Perhaps we should attempt to have a charitable, and balanced dialogue.

Lest you hear compromise in my voice, allow me to clarify.

Balance does not mean we gloss over issues for the sake of peace. It means we plant ourselves firmly into the center of the truth and refuse to budge. We do so with a smile on our face and a spirit of charity in our hearts. This is the type of balance that is commanded of saints. Because balance demands truth and truth demands balance, the truth must be ascertained. So in this most recent flare-up, what is the truth?

The truth is that many people end up talking past one another because they will not allow the other side to define their own terms. As has been stated elsewhere, Theonomy (notice the large T) and theonomy (notice the small t) are not the same thing. As the words are commonly used, there is a categorical distinction between them. Meaning, of course, that we must distinguish! The large-letter variety is a particular movement, associated with a particular group of individuals, built largely upon a particular flavor of covenant theology and subscribing to a particular understanding of general equity. The tiny-letter version does not (necessarily) hold to any of these distinct positions. Although it may, and this is confusing for some. I get it. That is why I only define myself as a theonomist in very narrow terms, and when surrounded by a very narrow group of individuals. I guess this is my coming out party.

Nevertheless, truth remains. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. So too, all large-letter Theonomy is tiny-letter theonomy, but not all tiny-letter theonomy is large-letter Theonomy. I don’t make the rules, I’m just informing you. Like it or not, tiny-t’s simply mean that they acknowledge God’s standards are ultimate and they define all other standards by it. How they think the unchanging moral standards of God ought to be applied under the New Covenant is something that should be discussed. It is something that everybody in our little Calvinist enclave ought to do, but it can only be done well by giving our brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt. We do so by seeking consistency in our own positions. We do so by making appropriate distinctions. We do not murmur Rushdoony’s name in hushed tones and cast his ghost upon the other side. Nor do we band together with pitchforks and go monster hunting. If you don’t like the term because you think it muddies the waters, that is one thing. But if you simply do not like the term because you have been drinking those muddy waters, that is something else entirely.

Share