The Sign and the Covenant

Part 1: The Covenant Before the Question

Mar 30, 2026

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:

God’s condescension to establish a covenantal relationship with the first man was genuinely gracious (Genesis 2:15-17). That the Creator would bind Himself to clay-born humanity through covenant—this is astonishing mercy. Yet this condescension alone did not secure Adam’s eternal fellowship with God (Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:12–14). A covenant was made. Terms were given. A test was set. And beneath the forbidden tree, the first covenant shattered.

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 covenant — 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. 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).3

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.

Each covenant advances the plot. Each reveals more of God’s character. Each points, like a trembling finger, toward the coming Christ.

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).

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!

Please stay tuned:

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

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 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.

Although justifying grace belongs properly to the New Covenant, this does not mean that it was/is only available during the New Covenant age. Old Testament saints partook of the grace of Christ, by faith. The grace and forgiveness that is secured in history by Christ, was operative during the time of the Old Covenant. However, those who received that grace and forgiveness did not receive it by virtue of anything within the terms of the various historical covenants themselves. Rather, they received that grace by looking at what the shadow represented; by looking forward to the Messiah. The seed of the woman. The offspring of Abraham. The True Israel. The Son of David.

The choice to utilize a four-part breakdown of fundamental covenant aspects was in part stylistic and in part necessary. While Kline, Renihan, and many others have opted for 3,4,5,6, or 7 part structures based upon the analysis of Ancient Near Eastern treaty forms, I would argue that we are all simply arguing in the shadow of Mendenhall’s work. For the purpose of striking adequate depth yet not getting bogged down in the minutiae, I have opted for a four-point structure that largely encapsulates all six of Mendenhall’s identified elements.

In fairness to the authors of the Westminster Standards, they would not agree with my use of their material in this fashion without making further qualifications regarding substance, administration, visible church, invisible church, etc. While I fully recognize their pushback, I respectfully submit that rather than being something that needs further clarification, this is one of the few points of inconsistency in the Westminster standards and it is more suited to a Particular Baptist Covenant Theology than a Presbyterian system.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?