The Covenants: The Story of the Whole Bible

What you'll learn

Define a biblical covenant and explain the covenants of redemption, works and grace, showing each from Scripture
Trace the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants as one unfolding story of promise fulfilled in Christ
Compare covenant theology with dispensationalism, and the Presbyterian with the Reformed Baptist (1689) understanding of the covenants, fairly and charitably

The doctrine in one sentence

God relates to his creatures by covenant: before time the Father, Son and Spirit agreed together to redeem a people; in Eden God bound Adam and all his posterity to perfect obedience in a covenant of works, which Adam broke; and from Genesis 3:15 onward God has graciously saved sinners through one covenant of grace, revealed step by step in the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, and fulfilled in the new covenant sealed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

A covenant is a solemn, binding relationship that God establishes and defines, with promises, obligations and signs, sealed by oath or by blood. It is not a contract between equals that we negotiate. God sets the terms, God makes the promises, and God guarantees them.

Why spend a whole lesson here? Because covenant is the spine of the Bible. The words old testament and new testament simply mean old covenant and new covenant. Grasp the covenants and the Bible becomes one story with one hero. That is also why the Reformed tradition is often called covenant theology or federal theology (from Latin foedus, covenant).

What is a biblical covenant, how is it different from a contract, and why does the section call covenant 'the spine of the Bible'?Show answer

A covenant is a solemn, binding relationship that God establishes and defines, with promises, obligations and signs, sealed by oath or by blood. Unlike a contract between equals, it is not negotiated: God sets the terms, makes the promises and guarantees them. It is the spine of the Bible because 'old testament' and 'new testament' simply mean old and new covenant, and grasping the covenants makes the Bible one story with one hero.

binding relationship God defines
promises, obligations, signs, oath or blood
not a negotiated contract
old and new testament = covenant

Before the world began: the covenant of redemption

Scripture shows an eternal agreement within the Trinity, often called the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis). The Father gives a people to the Son; the Son undertakes to come, obey and die for them; the Spirit applies the redemption the Son achieves.

Build it text by text. Jesus speaks of those the Father gives him and of coming down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me (John 6:37-39). In John 17:4-9 he says he has accomplished the work the Father gave him and prays for those the Father gave him. Paul says God chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and gave us grace in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim 1:9; compare Titus 1:2). Isaiah 53:10-12 shows the Servant's reward promised in return for his offering. Psalm 110 records the Father's oath to the Son as priest-king.

The Second London Baptist Confession (1689) names this explicitly, grounding the covenant of grace in that eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son (7.3). The Westminster Confession implies it when it says God was pleased in his eternal purpose to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus to be Mediator (8.1). This gives deep assurance: your salvation rests on an agreement within the Trinity that cannot fail.

What is the covenant of redemption, which texts support it, and why does it give assurance?Show answer

It is the eternal agreement within the Trinity in which the Father gives a people to the Son, the Son undertakes to come, obey and die for them, and the Spirit applies the redemption. Jesus speaks of those the Father gives him and of doing the will of the one who sent him (John 6:37-39; 17:4-9), and Paul says we were chosen and given grace in Christ before the ages began (Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9). Our salvation therefore rests on an agreement within the Trinity that cannot fail.

eternal agreement in the Trinity
Father gives, Son undertakes, Spirit applies
John 6:37-39; 17; Eph 1:4
cannot fail

In the garden: the covenant of works

You met the covenant of works in Lesson 5; here we place it in the Bible's covenant storyline. The Westminster Confession says that the first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, promising life to Adam and his posterity on condition of perfect and personal obedience (7.2). Genesis 2:16-17 gives the command and the threat: eat of the forbidden tree and you shall surely die. The tree of life signified the life that obedience would confirm (Gen 3:22).

Hosea 6:7 says Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant (the translation is debated, but many Reformed interpreters read it this way). Above all, Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 present Adam as a federal head, a representative whose one act counted for all he represented: by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (Rom 5:19).

Some Reformed theologians, such as John Murray, preferred to call this the Adamic administration rather than a covenant of works, but they affirmed the same substance: Adam represented humanity under a probation of obedience. This matters for the gospel. Paul's parallel only works if Christ is a second federal head who succeeds where Adam failed: so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:19). The law's principle, the one who does them shall live by them (Gal 3:12, quoting Lev 18:5), condemns every child of Adam but was perfectly fulfilled by the last Adam.

Why does the gospel depend on Adam being a federal head under a covenant of works, even for those, like John Murray, who preferred a different name for it?Show answer

Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 present Adam as a representative whose one act counted for all he represented: 'by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners'. Paul's parallel only works if Christ is a second federal head who succeeds where Adam failed, so that by his obedience the many are made righteous (Rom 5:19). Murray preferred 'Adamic administration' but affirmed the same substance: Adam represented humanity under a probation of obedience.

Adam as representative
Rom 5:19 parallel
Christ the second head succeeds
Murray: same substance

The covenant of grace: one covenant, Noah and Abraham

Having broken the first covenant, humanity could never again gain life by its own obedience. So, in the Westminster's words, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace (7.3), offering life and salvation freely by Jesus Christ, requiring faith, and promising the Spirit to make the elect willing and able to believe. Its first announcement is Genesis 3:15: the offspring of the woman will crush the serpent's head while being bruised himself. Every later covenant unfolds that promise.

Reformed theology insists there is one covenant of grace with one Mediator, one way of salvation (by grace through faith in the promised Christ) and one people of God, administered differently before and after Christ. Abraham was justified by faith (Gen 15:6; Rom 4), and Hebrews 11 lists Old Testament believers who lived by faith in what was promised.

The Noahic covenant (Gen 6:18; 8:20-9:17) is God's pledge to preserve the earth, its seasons and its creatures while the earth remains (Gen 8:22), signed by the rainbow. Many Reformed theologians see it as a covenant of common grace that holds history steady so that the redemptive promise can be fulfilled.

The Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1-3; 15; 17) promises a land, a numerous offspring and blessing to all the families of the earth through Abraham's seed. In Genesis 15 God alone passes between the halves of the animals, taking the oath on himself. Circumcision was its sign (Gen 17:10-11), which Paul calls a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith (Rom 4:11). Paul says the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham (Gal 3:8), and that the promised offspring is Christ (Gal 3:16), so that all who belong to Christ are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29).

Explain what Reformed theology means by 'one covenant of grace', and how Abraham and Hebrews 11 support it.Show answer

After the first covenant was broken, God made a second covenant offering life freely through Christ and requiring faith, first announced in Genesis 3:15. Reformed theology holds there is one covenant of grace with one Mediator, one way of salvation by grace through faith in the promised Christ, and one people of God, administered differently before and after Christ. Abraham was justified by faith (Gen 15:6; Rom 4), and Hebrews 11 lists Old Testament believers who lived by faith in what was promised.

Gen 3:15 first announcement
one Mediator, one way, one people
different administrations
Abraham justified by faith; Heb 11

What is the difference between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, and what is the significance of God alone passing between the animals in Genesis 15?Show answer

The Noahic covenant is God's pledge to preserve the earth and its seasons while the earth remains, signed by the rainbow, and many see it as a covenant of common grace that holds history steady. The Abrahamic covenant promises land, offspring and blessing to all the families of the earth through Abraham's seed, which Paul identifies as Christ (Gal 3:16). In Genesis 15 God alone passes between the halves of the animals, taking the oath on himself.

Noah: preserving the earth, common grace
Abraham: land, offspring, blessing to nations
seed is Christ
God alone takes the oath

Moses, David and the new covenant

The Mosaic covenant (Exod 19-24) was made with a people already redeemed: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt (Exod 20:2). God called Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:6), gave the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial and civil laws, and sealed it with the blood of the covenant (Exod 24:8). It promised blessing in the land for obedience and curses for disobedience (Lev 26; Deut 28). Its tabernacle, priesthood and sacrifices were a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). Paul says the law, coming 430 years after the promise, did not annul it (Gal 3:17), but was added because of transgressions until the offspring should come (Gal 3:19), serving as a guardian until Christ (Gal 3:24).

The Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89; 132) promised David an heir whose throne God would establish forever, a son to whom God would be a father. Israel's kings failed and the monarchy fell, but the prophets looked forward to a righteous Branch (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-10; Jer 23:5-6). Gabriel announced that God would give Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33), and Peter preached that the risen Christ now sits on that throne at God's right hand (Acts 2:29-36).

The new covenant was promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34: not like the covenant Israel broke, but one in which God writes his law on the heart, all his people know him, and he remembers their sin no more (compare Ezek 36:25-27). Jesus inaugurated it at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), and Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah at length to show that Christ mediates a better covenant, enacted on better promises (Heb 8:6). The old covenant order with its temple and sacrifices is now obsolete (Heb 8:13), because what it pictured has come.

Why is it important that the Mosaic covenant was made with a people already redeemed, and what role did Paul say the law played?Show answer

God gave the law to Israel after bringing them out of Egypt (Exod 20:2), so grace came first and the law showed a redeemed people how to live. Paul says the law, coming 430 years after the promise, did not annul it (Gal 3:17), but was added because of transgressions until the offspring came, serving as a guardian until Christ (Gal 3:19, 24). Its tabernacle and sacrifices were a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1).

redeemed first, then law
did not annul the promise
guardian until Christ
shadow of good things

How are the Davidic covenant and the new covenant fulfilled in Jesus?Show answer

God promised David an heir whose throne would be established forever (2 Sam 7:12-16). Gabriel announced that Jesus would receive David's throne (Luke 1:32-33), and Peter preached that the risen Christ now sits on it at God's right hand (Acts 2:29-36). The new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with the law on the heart and sins remembered no more, was inaugurated by Jesus at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20) and makes the old covenant order obsolete (Heb 8:13).

Davidic: eternal throne
Christ enthroned (Acts 2)
new covenant: law on the heart, sins forgiven
inaugurated at the Last Supper

Promise and fulfilment in Christ

Every covenant line meets in Jesus. He is the seed of the woman who crushed the serpent (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14), the offspring of Abraham in whom the nations are blessed (Gal 3:8-16), the faithful Israel who obeyed where Israel failed (Matt 2:15; 4:1-11), the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22), the Son of David who reigns forever, and the mediator of the new covenant whose blood secures it. As Paul says, all the promises of God find their Yes in him (2 Cor 1:20). Jesus himself taught the disciples that Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms were about him (Luke 24:27, 44).

This shapes how you read the Bible: in Leviticus you look for the sacrifice it anticipates, in David's life for the greater King, in the promises to Abraham for the gospel going to the nations. Covenant theology guards against reading the Old Testament as a collection of moral fables.

It also shapes the Christian life. God's covenant faithfulness grounds assurance, since he swore by himself (Heb 6:13-18), and covenant explains why God's people are a community, why the sacraments are signs and seals, and why obedience flows from grace rather than earning it (Exod 20:2).

How should covenant theology shape the way you read the Old Testament?Show answer

Because every covenant line meets in Jesus and all God's promises find their Yes in him (2 Cor 1:20; Luke 24:27, 44), we read the Old Testament looking for Christ. In Leviticus we look for the sacrifice it anticipates, in David's life for the greater King, and in the promises to Abraham for the gospel going to the nations. This guards against reading the Old Testament as a collection of moral fables.

all promises Yes in Christ
look for Christ in each part
not moral fables

Covenant theology and dispensationalism

Covenant theology was developed by Reformed theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and confessed in the Westminster Standards and the 1689 Confession. Its alternative among evangelicals is dispensationalism, which arose in the nineteenth century with John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren and spread widely through the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) and institutions such as Dallas Theological Seminary.

Charles Ryrie, in Dispensationalism Today, summarised its essentials in three points: a consistent distinction between Israel and the church; a consistently literal (plain) interpretation, especially of prophecy; and the glory of God, rather than salvation alone, as the unifying purpose of history. Dispensationalists divide history into stewardships or dispensations (often seven). Many expect a future restoration of national Israel in the land during a literal millennium.

Fairness matters here. Modern dispensationalists affirm that in every age salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. Many faithful pastors hold forms of dispensationalism; John MacArthur (1939-2025), a convinced Calvinist, was a well-known dispensational premillennialist, which shows that the doctrines of grace and dispensational eschatology can go together. Progressive dispensationalism, associated with Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock in the 1990s, sees more continuity, holding that the Davidic and new covenant promises have been inaugurated in Christ. Some evangelicals take mediating positions, such as progressive covenantalism (Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 2012).

The Reformed response is that the New Testament itself interprets the Old: Gentile believers are Abraham's offspring (Gal 3:29), grafted into one olive tree (Rom 11:17-24), and given Israel's titles (1 Pet 2:9). The fulfilment of promise in Christ is not less literal but more glorious than the shadow. Yet covenant theology does not teach that God has cast off the Jewish people. Romans 11:25-29 holds out mercy for Israel, and Reformed interpreters differ on its shape. It is an in-house debate among believers who share the gospel, and it should be conducted with charity (see Lesson 9 on millennial views).

What did Charles Ryrie identify as the essentials of dispensationalism, and how does the section try to describe dispensationalism fairly?Show answer

Ryrie named three: a consistent distinction between Israel and the church, a consistently literal interpretation especially of prophecy, and the glory of God rather than salvation alone as history's unifying purpose. Fairly stated, modern dispensationalists affirm that salvation in every age is by grace through faith, not works. Progressive dispensationalism (Blaising and Bock) sees more continuity, holding that the Davidic and new covenant promises have been inaugurated in Christ.

Israel and church distinct
literal interpretation
glory of God as unifying purpose
salvation always by grace

What is the Reformed response to dispensationalism, and why does the section stress charity?Show answer

The Reformed response is that the New Testament itself interprets the Old: Gentile believers are Abraham's offspring (Gal 3:29), grafted into one olive tree (Rom 11:17-24) and given Israel's titles (1 Pet 2:9). Fulfilment in Christ is not less literal but more glorious than the shadow. Yet God has not cast off the Jewish people (Rom 11:25-29), and since this is an in-house debate among believers who share the gospel, it should be conducted with charity.

NT interprets the OT
Gentiles Abraham's offspring; one olive tree
fulfilment more glorious, not less literal
God not finished with Israel; charity

Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist covenant theology

Within the Reformed family there are two main expressions of covenant theology, and both are confessional. Presbyterian and continental Reformed theology (Westminster, Heidelberg, writers such as Herman Witsius and O. Palmer Robertson) teaches that the covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament through promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision and the Passover, and under the New through preaching and the sacraments: one covenant, under various dispensations (WCF 7.5-6). The Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace. Because the covenant has always included believers and their children (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39), its sign belongs to the children of believers, which grounds infant baptism (see Lesson 8).

Reformed Baptist federalism, often called 1689 federalism (drawing on Nehemiah Coxe's A Discourse of the Covenants, 1681, John Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8, and the Second London Confession, first published in 1677 and adopted in 1689), agrees on the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works and one covenant of grace with one Mediator and one way of salvation. It differs in saying the covenant of grace was revealed in the Old Testament as a promise, by farther steps (1689 7.3), but formally established only in the new covenant. On this view the Old Testament covenants were distinct covenants that served the promise. The Abrahamic covenant had two strands, a natural offspring that inherited the land and a spiritual offspring, Christ and those united to him by faith. The Mosaic covenant governed Israel's life in the land and typified Christ. Since the new covenant is made with those who all know me (Jer 31:34), its members are believers, and so is its sign.

Hold both charitably. They agree on the gospel, the sovereignty of grace and Christ as the centre of Scripture; they differ on how continuity and discontinuity work, which shapes baptism and church membership.

Others in this course depart from the covenant story more seriously. Rabbinic Judaism sees Sinai and Torah, not a crucified Messiah, as the heart of God's covenant (Judaism module). Hebrew Israelite groups make covenant identity a matter of ethnic descent rather than faith in Christ (Hebrew Israelites module). According to Watchtower teaching, only the 144,000 anointed are parties to the new covenant, while the great crowd of other believers benefits from it without being in it (Jehovah's Witnesses module). Latter-day Saints tie exaltation to covenants made in temple ordinances (Latter-day Saints module). Rome treats the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice (Roman Catholicism module). Hebrews answers each: Christ's once-for-all sacrifice founds a better covenant for all who believe.

Where do Presbyterian and 1689 Reformed Baptist covenant theology agree, and where do they differ?Show answer

Both affirm the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and one covenant of grace with one Mediator and one way of salvation. Presbyterians see the Old Testament covenants as administrations of the one covenant of grace, which has always included believers and their children, so its sign belongs to their children. The 1689 view says the covenant of grace was revealed in the Old Testament as a promise but formally established only in the new covenant, whose members all know the Lord (Jer 31:34), so its sign belongs to believers.

agree: redemption, works, one covenant of grace
Presbyterian: OT covenants administrations of grace
1689: revealed by steps, established in new covenant
shapes baptism and membership

Choose two groups from the end of the section and explain how they depart from the biblical covenant story, and how Hebrews answers them.Show answer

According to Watchtower teaching, only the 144,000 anointed are parties to the new covenant while the great crowd benefits without being in it. Hebrew Israelite groups make covenant identity a matter of ethnic descent rather than faith in Christ. Hebrews answers each by showing that Christ's once-for-all sacrifice founds a better covenant for all who believe. (Other examples: Rabbinic Judaism centres on Sinai and Torah; Rome treats the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice.)

JWs: only 144,000 in new covenant
Hebrew Israelites: ethnic descent
Hebrews: better covenant for all who believe
once-for-all sacrifice

Key texts

Genesis 3:15: The first gospel promise: the woman's offspring will crush the serpent's head. Every later covenant unfolds this promise, so start here when tracing the Bible's storyline.
Romans 5:12-21: Adam and Christ as two federal heads. Shows the covenant of works and why Christ's obedience is credited to his people.
Genesis 15:1-21: Abram believes and is counted righteous, and God alone passes between the pieces. Shows that the covenant promise rests on God's oath, not human performance.
Exodus 19:4-6; 20:2: At Sinai God redeems first and then gives the law. Use it to show that obedience in the Bible flows from grace rather than earning it.
2 Samuel 7:12-16: The promise of an eternal throne for David's son, fulfilled in Jesus (Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:29-36).
Jeremiah 31:31-34: The new covenant promise: the law written on the heart, all knowing the Lord, sins remembered no more. Central to Hebrews 8 and to the baptism debate between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
Luke 22:20: Jesus inaugurates the new covenant in his blood. The Lord's Supper is a covenant meal.
Galatians 3:15-29: The law did not annul the promise to Abraham; Christ is the offspring, and all in Christ are Abraham's heirs. Key text for the unity of the covenant of grace.
Hebrews 8:6-13: Christ is mediator of a better covenant; the old order is obsolete. Shows both the continuity of promise and the discontinuity of administration.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Covenant theology is just a man-made system forced onto the Bible. The word covenant isn't even used in Genesis 1-2.”Show a response

Every reader uses a system; the question is whether it arises from Scripture. Covenant is the Bible's own category: the Testaments are named after covenants, Jesus called his blood the blood of the new covenant, and Hebrews and Galatians reason explicitly from covenant structure. The absence of the word in Genesis 2 no more disproves a covenant than the absence of the word Trinity disproves the Trinity. The elements are present (parties, command, promise, penalty), Hosea 6:7 may refer back to it, and Paul's Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5 assumes Adam acted as a representative. Covenant theology is simply the attempt to trace the storyline the Bible itself announces.

“If there is only one covenant of grace, why does Hebrews call the old covenant obsolete?”Show a response

Covenant theology distinguishes the substance of the covenant from its administration. The substance, salvation by grace through faith in the promised Christ, never changes: Abraham and David were justified by faith (Rom 4). What has passed away is the outward form: the temple, priesthood, sacrifices and Israel's civil order, which were shadows (Heb 10:1). Hebrews calls that Mosaic arrangement obsolete because the reality has come. Reformed Baptists would add that the Mosaic covenant was a distinct covenant serving the promise. Either way, both affirm one way of salvation across the whole Bible, and both read Hebrews as teaching that Christ's better covenant fulfils and replaces the old order.

“Doesn't covenant theology teach that the church replaced Israel? That idea has fuelled antisemitism.”Show a response

Antisemitism is sin, and Christians must reject it without qualification; the Messiah, the apostles and the first church were Jewish. Covenant theology teaches fulfilment and inclusion rather than replacement: there is one olive tree rooted in the promises to the patriarchs, believing Gentiles are grafted in, and Jewish people can be grafted back in by faith (Rom 11:17-24). Paul says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and hopes for Israel's salvation (Rom 11:25-29), and Reformed interpreters differ on how that future mercy will look. The church is Abraham's family enlarged, not a Gentile substitute. The right response to Jewish neighbours is love and gospel witness (see the Judaism module).

“Weren't people in the Old Testament saved by keeping the law, and we are saved by grace?”Show a response

No. Paul's chief example of justification by faith is Abraham, who was counted righteous before circumcision and centuries before Sinai (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:9-12), and he cites David's joy in forgiveness without works (Rom 4:6-8). Hebrews 11 shows Old Testament saints living by faith in promises they had not yet received. The sacrifices could not take away sins (Heb 10:4); they pointed believers to the coming Redeemer. Even Sinai began with grace: God redeemed Israel from Egypt before he gave the commandments (Exod 20:2). Since the fall no one has ever been saved by law-keeping, and all who have been saved, before or after Christ, are saved through him.

“Why should ordinary Christians care whether they are 'covenantal' or 'dispensational'? Isn't that just theologians arguing over charts?”Show a response

I agree that nobody is saved by mastering a system, and covenant theologians and dispensationalists who trust Christ are brothers and sisters. But the question affects more than charts. How you understand the covenants shapes how you read the whole Bible: whether the Old Testament is a collection of moral stories or one story pointing to Christ, in whom all God's promises find their Yes (2 Cor 1:20). It shapes how you read prophecy and the place of Israel and the church. It shapes your view of baptism and church membership. And it shapes your assurance, because covenant theology shows that your salvation rests on God's sworn promise, as when God alone passed between the pieces in Genesis 15 and swore by himself (Heb 6:13-18). So hold your view humbly and charitably, but do not think it unimportant. It is learning how the Bible fits together.

“The Old Testament covenants involved cutting animals in half and sprinkling blood. That seems primitive and barbaric.”Show a response

It certainly seems strange to modern eyes, but look at what those rites meant. Walking between divided animals was a solemn way of saying, 'May this happen to me if I break my word' (compare Jer 34:18-20). In Genesis 15 the astonishing thing is that God alone passes between the pieces while Abraham sleeps. God takes the whole oath on himself. That is not barbarism but grace: the Creator binding himself to keep his promises to sinners. The blood of the covenant at Sinai (Exod 24:8) taught that sin is deadly serious and that relationship with a holy God costs life. All of it pointed forward. At the Last Supper Jesus took the cup and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood' (Luke 22:20). The old rites were shadows; Christ's once-for-all sacrifice is the reality, and it means no more animals ever need to die.

Written task

A new believer in your Bible class asks, How does the Old Testament fit with Jesus? In 300-400 words, explain the story of the Bible through the covenants. Define a covenant, explain the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, trace at least four of the historical covenants with a Scripture reference for each, and show how each is fulfilled in Christ. Close with two or three sentences explaining fairly how either dispensationalists or Reformed Baptists (choose one) would tell the story differently from your own position.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Defines covenant accurately and distinguishes the covenants of works and grace with supporting texts (e.g. Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:15; Rom 5:12-21)
Traces at least four historical covenants in correct order with accurate references and content
Shows concretely how Christ fulfils the covenant promises (e.g. Gal 3:16; Luke 22:20; Acts 2:30-36; 2 Cor 1:20)
Represents the chosen alternative view accurately and charitably, in terms its own adherents would accept
Shows why covenant understanding matters for reading the Bible and for assurance