“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

-Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV

In our series on what it means to be Reformed, we have covered the five solas, five points of Calvinism, and the importance of the historic Reformed confessions.  We can agree on these even while we differ on which confession to adopt.  But truly Reformed churches are also covenantal.  This post will explain the importance of the covenants before defining how covenantal we must be to be considered Reformed.  This is only a short introduction, so I recommend O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants.

The Covenants of Scripture

What do we mean by covenant theology?  First, we must recognize that covenant theology stems from biblical theology.  The confessions are essentially summaries of systematic theology, communicating what the whole of Scripture teaches on each particular topic.  Conversely, in biblical theology “each concept, theme or book is considered ultimately in terms of how it contributes to and advances the Bible’s meta-narrative…of a salvation history that progresses towards and culminates in Jesus Christ”.[1]  That narrative can be summed up as Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.  Within that, God worked out His plan of salvation progressively through covenants with man.  A covenant is “a bond of blood sovereignly administered”.[2]  In ancient times, a covenant consisted of terms and stipulations, blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience, signs and seals as reminders, and the shedding of blood to underscore seriousness.  God made covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel through Moses, and David before the new covenant in Christ.  All of these covenants were enacted unilaterally: God chose those He would enter into covenant with and dictated the terms.  In each covenant, God reveals more about His plan of redemption.  And while we call them by the names of their primary recipients, all of God’s covenants are corporate, including whole families.  Adam, Noah, Abraham, the Israelite elders, and David all understood their responsibility for their families and therefore knew that as heads of their households they were representing them and bringing them into covenant with God—and that included all of their descendants as well.  As we will see later, this has massive practical implications.

Covenant of Creation (Genesis 1-2)

The first of God’s covenants was with Adam at Creation.  This has often been called the covenant of works, while all subsequent covenants are collectively called the covenant of grace.  However, I prefer Robertson’s terminology of “covenant of creation” and “covenant of redemption”.[3]  In addition to acknowledging that all anyone—including Adam—could ever do is by God’s grace and that salvation could never come through works, this terminology also fits much better into the biblical storyline.  In the covenant of creation before sin entered the world, God gave Adam the Cultural Mandate to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and exercise dominion over it but also commanded him to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, promising death as the curse for disobedience but life for obedience.  The tree of life stood as a sign and seal of this covenant.  And while this first declaration of the covenant lacked the shedding of blood because sin had not yet entered the world, the life-and-death nature of the covenant served the same purpose.  Thus, the covenant of creation includes all of the required elements of a covenant.  God bound Himself to Adam and his descendants by this covenant, but Adam broke that covenant in the Fall.  Since God’s plan cannot be thwarted, He then initiated the covenant of redemption.

Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3)

The first covenant of redemption is the Adamic covenant.  In pronouncing the Curses, God was actually entering into a new covenant with Adam.  The Cultural Mandate remained, but now it would be arduous and largely futile because of sin.  Adam and Eve were still to multiply and fill the earth, but that would now come through much pain.  They were still to subdue the earth, but only with much toil and futility ending with death.  Still, these curses are actually God’s gracious provision for mankind: children brought forth in pain are still children, food produced with toil is still food, and death delayed means the blessing of present life.  Most importantly, even before giving the curses to Adam and Eve, God promised redemption: the seed of the woman would be bruised but crush the head of the Serpent (Genesis 3:15).  When discussing the virgin birth, we saw that this seed is Jesus, so the promise of the Adamic covenant is that the ultimate blessing for obeying the Cultural Mandate—even amidst the toil and sorrow of the Fall—would be the coming of Christ.  Finally, since sin had entered the world, this covenant required blood.  God slaughtered an animal in order to clothe Adam and Eve in its skin, graciously providing a physical covering for their shameful nakedness.  This was clearly the first sacrifice, so that animal’s blood symbolized God covering their sin as well.  The Adamic covenant therefore was just the beginning of God’s covenant of redemption.

Noahic Covenant (Genesis 8-9)

Between Adam and Noah, God maintained a faithful remnant but the rest of the world declined into sin such that God ultimately de-created the world through the Flood and initiated essentially a new creation with a new covnenat.  After Noah offered animals to God on an altar, God reiterated the Cultural Mandate and reinforced the value of mankind as made in His image by instituting capitol punishment for murder.  Then, in the first use of the term “covenant” in Scripture, God promised He will never again destroy the world by a flood, giving the rainbow as the sign and seal of that covenant, specifically as a reminder to Himself of His promise (Genesis 9:13-15).  Other than the institution of capitol punishment, no additional blessings and curses are given in this covenant, so the blessings and curses of the Adamic covenant carry forward into the Noahic covenant.  These first two iterations of the covenant of redemption were with all of creation based on the promise that the coming offspring of the woman would defeat Satan and right all wrongs.

Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15, 17, 22)

The third increment of the covenant of redemption was not to all of humanity and creation (at least not directly) but to a particular family: the family of Abraham.  Again, this covenant began with a promise: God promised to give Abraham first a son and then enumerable offspring, land, and blessing.  Abraham then slaughtered various animals and God passed among them, signifying that He had bound Himself in this life-and-death covenant.  As we saw previously, this came when Abraham’s household had actually shrunk with the departure of Lot.  After Abraham tried to accomplish God’s promise by human means, God gave Abraham circumcision as a constant sign and seal of the covenant, requiring it not only of every male descendant but also of every male servant in his house and ultimately every male proselyte.  Therefore, circumcision was never about ethnic distinction.[4]  Instead, God was creating a family of worshippers irrespective of bloodline. More importantly, the promise that God sealed with this covenant was not only that Abraham and his family would be blessed but that every family on earth would ultimately be blessed through him.  So while this covenant was to a specific family, just like the other covenants it would ultimately touch every family and creature on earth.  In essence, this was an expansion on the promise of the first two covenants: the coming descendant of the woman would put an end to all evil.

Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-Deuteronomy 34)

Though the Abrahamic covenant was for all of his household, not all of them remained in the covenant.  Ishmael as the son of human effort was sent away while Isaac as the son of the promise by God’s miraculous work inherited the covenant.  Isaac’s son Esau was likewise excluded from the covenant, and his descendants (the Edomites) were ultimately hated by God while Jacob was loved by God and inherited the covenant.  God reiterated the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob and renamed him Israel. Four centuries later, God established a covenant with the entire nation (i.e. all the families) of Israel at Sinai: the Mosaic covenant comprised of the entire Law.  This covenant too included more than just ethnic Israelites since a mixed multitude left Egypt in the exodus (Exodus 12:38).  The laws themselves were the terms and stipulations of this covenant with blessings and curses listed in Deuteronomy 28.  In addition to circumcision, this covenant involved numerous signs and seals, including the Levitical priesthood, the Tabernacle and all of its furnishings, and the Ark of the Covenant that symbolized the very presence of God among them.  Blood was shed from the slaughter of numerous animals in sacrifice to consecrate the priests, Levites, and every part of the Tabernacle.  And while the Law was specific to Israel, references to proselytes throughout the Law confirm that this covenant was to bless all of the families on earth.  In this covenant, the promise of the coming Savior was expanded.  He would be a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18), but what many Israelites did not realize is that all of the signs and seals of this covenant ultimately foreshadowed that Savior. 

Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)

Despite having the Law from God Himself, Israel’s constant sin proved that they also needed a righteous king to rule over them.  After the failure of Saul (the human choice), God raised up David as the man after His own heart to be that righteous ruler.  Once God had established David’s kingdom and in response to David’s desire to build a temple for God, He gave a covenant to David. He starts by reiterating the promise to Israel in the previous covenants then promises to make David’s dynasty great, which would provide permanence for the nation—a permanent throne, place for God’s presence, and city to house them.  God promises that David’s descendant will be enthroned forever, which includes the blessings and curses of this covenant: when David’s descendants sin God will discipline them but even so God would never reject them as He had rejected Saul.  Therefore, the presence of a Davidic king—even a bad king—on the throne for four centuries was one sign of this covenant.  The physical Davidic dynasty far outlasting every other ancient dynasty, but ultimately ended while Christ is eternally enthroned.[5]  Since God declared this covenant shortly after David had brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, the permanent presence of the Tabernacle and later the First and Second Temples also served as signs and seals of this covenant.  Before this time, the Tabernacle had moved around to Bethel then Shiloh, but after falling into Philistine hands in God’s judgment against Eli’s worthless sons, it spent time at Beth-shemesh then Kiriath-jearim.  But Jerusalem became a sign of this covenant as the place of God’s presence, His priests, and His king.  And since David offered numerous sacrifices to God as He brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, we can consider that to be the blood shed to establish this covenant. 

While all of the covenants included descendants, the Davidic covenant was primarily about about David’s descendants, particularly his ultimate descendant.  When we examine the Messianic psalms, we see a vivid picture of who this ultimate King would be.  Previous covenants revealed Him to be the offspring of the woman from the tribe of Judah who would be a prophet like Moses and ultimately defeat Satan and reverse the curse.  In the Messianic psalms, David describes Him as the eternal and victorious King and begotten Son of God (Psalm 2) who would also be David’s Lord and the eternal high priest (Psalm 110) welcomed as the King who came in God’s name (Psalm 118) but then killed by men and forsaken by God (Psalm 22, 69).  He would not stay dead (Psalm 16) but would rise again and ascend to heaven (Psalm 68) to reign eternally after winning His Bride (Psalm 45).  Obviously this can be none other than Jesus Christ.

New Covenant

The covenant of redemption reached its culmination in the new covenant of Jesus Christ.  All of the previous covenants foreshadowed and prefigured thic covenant, and all of the signs and seals of the former covenants find their substance in Christ.  Prophecies of the new covenant are found throughout the Old Testament, most notably in Jeremiah 31:31-34 at the physical end of the Davidic dynasty.  Here, God promises to change His people’s hearts to be able to obey His covenant when Israel could not and that He would forgive their sins.  Jesus made clear that He was initiating this new covenant during the Last Supper, proclaiming that the cup was the new covenant in His blood.  Therefore, communion became the sign of this new covenant along with baptism.  Instead of the blood of animals, it was Jesus’s blood that was shed to inaugurate this covenant.  He took on all of the covenant curses so that His people can receive all of the covenant blessings.  Then, He sends His Holy Spirit to change us from the inside out so that we can know God and obey His commands. 

Clearly, all of these covenants are really iterations of the same covenant of God as He steadily revealed His plan of redemption.  Since that plan of redemption is the story of the Bible, we should view the Bible through this covenant lens, which is the essence of covenant theology.  Ligon Duncan sums it up:

“Covenant theology is a blending of both biblical and systematic theology.  If biblical theology is the thematic survey of redemptive history, with an emphasis on the theological development—era to era—of whatever loci is being studies, then covenant theology could rightly be called “biblical biblical theology”.  That is, covenant theology recognizes that the Bible itself structures the progress of redemptive history through the succession of covenants.  Covenant theology is systematic theology in that it identifies the covenants as a fundamental organizing principle for the Bible’s theology.  Thus it proceeds to integrate biblical teaching about the federal headship of Adam and Christ, the covenantal nature of the incarnation and atonement, the continuities and discontinuities in the progress of redemptive history, the relation of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and law and gospel into a coherent theological system.  So covenant theology is Reformed theology’s way of gleaning from and putting together both systematic and biblical theology.  Hence, Reformed theology is covenant theology.”

-Ligon Duncan,  “Forward” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, & John R. Muether (ed.), Covenant Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2020: 24

How Covenantal Must We Be?

It is undeniable that these covenants play a major role in Scripture and that there is some continuity and discontinuity between them, but the extent of continuity is debated.  On one end of the spectrum is dispensationalism, which sees very little continuity between the covenants and therefore rejects covenantalism as the structure of Scripture.[6]  In this view, the relationship between God and Israel in the Old Testament is different than His relationship with the Church in the New Testament, thus denying the applicability and usefulness of much of the Old Testament.  At the other end are views such as theonomy and federal vision that see very little discontinuity between the covenants, applying Old Testament covenantal aspects such as the civil law to our present context.[7]  Between these is an entire spectrum of views.  If we must be covenantal to be Reformed, the question becomes where on this spectrum we must draw the line to be considered covenantal.  Since dispensationalism—at least practically—leads to a devaluing of the Old Testament and even antinomianism (the view that Old Testament commands are not binding unless repeated in the New Testament) it is incompatible with sola Scriptura.  Therefore, at the very least we cannot be Reformed and dispensational.  Aside from that, the Reformed confessions were undergirded by covenant theology, so to be Reformed we must be covenantal enough to subscribe to one of those confessions.  That is the extent to which we must be covenantal in order to be Reformed.

The Implications of Covenant Theology

The reason covenantalism is so important is its massive impact on Reformed practice.  We have already seen how it is foundational to how we approach the Law, Sabbath, baptism, and the nature and recipients of communion.  Next time, we will see how it shapes Sunday morning.  But it is the corporate and multi-generational nature of the covenant that has the greatest impact.  That is the reason we step out in faith to expand the ministry of our churches, impacting how we approach our finances. It causes us to view our children as incredibly important.  Certainly it makes their mass murder in the womb in the name of “my body, my choice” even more abhorrent, but it affects much more than that.  It makes us realize that God builds His Kingdom through families, motivating us to step out in faith to build those families when our society does everything possible to thwart our efforts.  It motivates men to pursue marriage even though dating has been an abysmal failure and the risk of ruin from divorce looms large.  It gives extra weight to the beauty and purpose of marriage, causing us to embrace the biblical roles of husband and wife even though society calls that oppressive patriarchy.  Finally, it drives us to view the local church as our family and prioritize fellowship with the saints.  These and many other aspects of Reformed Christian life at least partially stem from covenant theology.  Therefore, to be Reformed requires Calvinistic soteriology, adherence to a historic Reformed confession, and ascent to at least some degree of covenant theology.  Next time, we will see how this impacts Sunday morning.

NOTES:

[1] Paul R. Williamson, “Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose”, in D. A. Carson (ed.), New Studies in Biblical Theology vol. 23, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 2007: 17.

[2] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing: 1980: 13.

[3] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing: 1980: 65.

[4] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing: 1980: 48.

[5] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing: 1980: 248.

[6] Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 2022: 11-12.

[7] Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 2022: 28-29; Richard P. Belcher Jr., “The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, & John R. Muether (ed.), Covenant Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2020: 75-76.