Because of this, some people decide to go to Bible college or seminary to “learn the Bible.” However, most of their class time is devoted to learning Greek and Hebrew and a variety of theological perspectives. As a result, they never actually grow in their understanding of the Bible itself. To know the Bible is to know its purpose, its flow, its intention, and the heart of its Author. To misunderstand the Bible is to lose its purpose. When that happens, it becomes a dead book that is awful to read. When we misunderstand the Bible, we lose its flow and intention. Worst of all, when we misunderstand the Bible, we misunderstand the heart of its Author.

What we need is the truth. As Jesus said, it is the truth that sets us free (see John 8:32). When it comes to understanding the Bible, many believers are searching for a more truthful approach. They want to understand the story the Bible holds and the truth it tells us about God. That is why I have written this book—to bring the truth to light and illuminate the Book that tells us how to be free.

To that end, I believe we need to understand the Bible not as a rule book, but as the written record of God’s covenant journey with humanity. This, I believe, is the central topic of the Bible, and seeing the Bible in this light is the central point of this book.

This is a significant shift from what many of us have always believed. In hopes of preparing your heart for this shift, I will share with you three key truths that are the foundation of the covenant message in this book:

You might not understand them yet, but by the end of this book, the implications of these three statements will change your life—if you let them. They will bring you closer to God, make sense of the Bible, and cause you to discard some of what you thought you knew.

I believe the revelation of the truth in this book will help you more truly understand the heart of God and the Book He wrote. Are you ready?

Many of us have not considered this deeply, but what we believe about the Old and New Testaments and their relationship with each other is very important. It determines how we understand the message the two Testaments contain. It is safe to say that the lens through which we see the Bible determines what we think it says. In theological circles, there are two main systems for reading and understanding the Bible.

The first system is called dispensationalism, which is what the preacher mentioned above was subtly alluding to. The idea is that God has interacted with humanity in different ways in different time periods, known as dispensations. The practical outworking of this is the belief that God acted differently in Old Testament times than in New Testament times.¹

The second system used in reading the Bible is called covenant theology. Covenant theology says God is a covenantal God and has had a purpose throughout all of human history. The covenant approach to the Bible does not draw a hard line between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, a covenant theologian would shudder at the above quote from the dispensational preacher. Because dispensationalism does draw a hard line between the two Testaments, covenant theologians argue that dispensational teachers devalue the Old Testament. Covenant theologians are more likely to be quoted as saying, “The whole Bible is God’s Word, and all of it is applicable to all people at all times.”²

Although these two systems have been at war for decades—if not centuries—I will not be choosing either side. Instead, I have arrived at another understanding—one that I believe is much more Hebraic and consistent in its view of the Bible. Because the Bible is a compilation of sixty-six books written over the course of fifteen hundred years by over forty different authors, I don’t believe we can accurately divide it into two compartments (Old Testament and New Testament) as the dispensationalists do. Neither do I believe the whole Bible is applicable to all people at all times. This logic breaks down quickly when we ask simple questions like: How many Canaanites am I supposed to kill?

Both of these views fall far short of showing us how to interpret the Bible and apply to our lives. It does not suffice to simply wave our hands and say, “Oh, that’s Old Testament, so it doesn’t apply to me.” Neither can we try to consistently apply all the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus to our lives. Because of this, many have tried to blend these two systems and create a balance in which they pick and choose their way through the laws and apply certain ones, while writing off others. This arbitrary and inconsistent approach to understanding the Bible will get us nowhere.

In other words, old covenant refers exclusively to the covenant between God and Moses. This means that Genesis 1–Exodus 20, which records a period of history spanning 2,847 years, contains no old covenant! By contrast, Israel lived under the old covenant for only 1,300 years. The old covenant is contained within the Old Testament, but not all of the Old Testament is the old covenant. This has massive implications for how we understand the Bible. For example, when we read Paul’s admonition to throw out “the slave woman and her son” (Gal. 4:30), we will recognize it as a command to throw out the old Mosaic covenant, not the entire Old Testament. Knowing the difference between the old covenant and the Old Testament is critical to a balanced view of the Bible.

Similarly, if one believes the Old Testament is the old covenant, it follows that the New Testament is the new covenant, but this belief is even more obviously flawed. Clearly, Matthew 1:1 is not the beginning of the new covenant. In fact, the new covenant is not even mentioned until Matthew 26:28, on the night before Jesus’ death! Instead, Jesus’ three and a half years of ministry happened during and under the old covenant (see Gal. 4:4–5), because the new covenant was not established until Christ’s blood was shed at the cross. Therefore, not all of the New Testament is the new covenant. Clearly, these two terms are not synonymous, and our understanding of Scripture is immediately muddied if we do not distinguish between them.

The dispensational answer to this question basically says, “That was the dispensation of law, and life was very harsh under that system. But thankfully, we now live in the dispensation of grace, and everything is different.” However, this system doesn’t know what to do with the New Testament stories of Ananias and Sapphira being struck dead and King Herod being eaten by worms (see Acts 5:1–11; 12:19–23) or the judgments of the Book of Revelation. How do these events fit within the “dispensation of grace”?

The covenant theologian, in an attempt to be more consistent, will say the Old and New Testaments are seamless, and that’s why God acts as a judge in both. Yet that does not actually explain the heart behind God’s actions—which is what those who ask this question are seeking to understand.

When these questions go unanswered, many leave the church, and some even become militantly anti-church. For example, the famous atheist Richard Dawkins has written:

That is quite a list of accusations! Sadly, the church has not been able to mount anything more than a feeble response, because many Christians get the same impression from the Scriptures. We declare that God is love and that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same. But how do we synthesize this with the violence often attributed to God in the Bible? How do we actually understand the actions and heart of God in the Old Testament or even in the New Testament Book of Revelation?

Some Christians, not knowing how else to answer these questions, have turned to unorthodox explanations. Some follow in the footsteps of the early church leader and denounced heretic, Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament is not the Father of Jesus. He argued that because Jesus, the reflection of God the Father, is not like the God of the Old Testament (as reflected in the laws of the Old Testament), then that God must be different from Jesus’ Father. Thus, there must be two different gods recorded in the Scripture. Others suggest that Satan was not mentioned much in the Old Testament because people back then attributed everything to God, both good and evil. So, when the Israelites were killed in plagues or other “judgments,” they attributed it to God, but it was actually Satan’s work. This requires one to read with a filter that disregards what the text actually says.⁴

What we can learn from all of this is that if we do not have a clear system for how to understand the Bible and the heart of God, we will inevitably misrepresent Him. It is the goal of every lover of God to represent Him properly; therefore, we must understand the Bible. Because our current systems of theology are inadequate, we must search for something better.

Better Covenant Theology can be summarized by these ten pillars or essential points. The reasoning behind these will be explained in the remaining chapters of this book. But, for the purpose of defining this theological system, here, in a comprehensive list, are the underpinnings of Better Covenant Theology:

This is the big picture that Better Covenant Theology presents. If we understand it, I believe the whole Bible will begin to make sense. If, as I have suggested, the Bible is the written record of God’s covenant journey with humanity, then to understand the Bible we need first to understand the biblical covenants.

1. Grant Covenant—When a king decided to honor and bless a faithful servant or a lesser king, he would establish a grant covenant. A grant covenant was the best type of covenant, because it came with no strings attached. It was unconditional and didn’t require obedience on the part of the receiver. It was the generous overflow of love and grace, poured out of a ruler’s heart upon the one receiving the grant covenant.

2. Kinship Covenant—When two equal parties decided to enter into covenant together, such as in a military alliance or even in a marriage, this was known as a kinship covenant. This covenant came with certain obligations, which both parties would uphold, not unlike the exchanging of vows in a marriage ceremony.

3. Vassal Covenant—During times of war, a king may have decided to spare an enemy nation’s women, children, and elderly so that he could continue to exact labor and tax money from them for years to come. To keep them alive, the king would establish a vassal covenant, which was the heaviest covenant to bear. The conditions for a vassal covenant were seemingly endless, with the stipulation that if the lesser party did not uphold their end of the deal, the king would kill the rest of them.

In the Bible, we find all three of these types of covenants. The biblical text surrounding these covenants is the record of these covenants; it provides the context and culture needed to explain and make sense of the covenant.

The New Testament gives us a clear picture of this. The body of literature surrounding the new covenant includes prophecies, pastoral letters, eyewitness gospel accounts, and early church history. The new covenant itself was established on the day when Jesus died on the cross. Yet the full New Testament canon is needed to surround this new covenant and give it a proper explanation. The New Testament surrounds and explains the new covenant. The Old Testament, on the other hand, surrounds and explains four major covenants. Because of this, the Old Testament has been very misunderstood.

The fact that we organize the Old Testament books by genre (history, law, poetry, prophecy) instead of organizing them chronologically or covenantally has added to the confusion. Ideally, the Old Testament should be organized into the four covenants and the literature that surrounds them. For example:

When we read the Bible as five major covenants with their surrounding literature, we find that it has a natural flow. Reading with this lens also brings greater clarity to the purpose and meaning of the text.

Until this, as far as we know, the only experiences humanity had had with God were the garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, and the flood. The nation of Israel, the chosen people, the priesthood, and the temple did not exist. The only religious interaction people had had with God, up to this point, was in building crude altars and performing animal sacrifices upon them. Abram did not have a Bible or even any history with God, as far as we know. We don’t know exactly how Abram experienced this command to leave his country, his people, and his father’s house, but it must have come as a very clearly divine word to cause Abram to obey without question.

God tells Abram to go in verse 1; then in verses 2–3, He gives Abram a three-fold promise of blessing:

As Abram’s story unfolds, God confirms this three-part covenant on three separate occasions.

In Genesis 15, in dramatic fashion, God confirms His covenant to Abram as a grant covenant. In this encounter, God tells Abram to cut several animals in half and lay the parts into two piles, with a pathway between them. Abram does this and then falls into a deep sleep. As he is sleeping, God walks through the sacrificed animals while Abram watches in a dream. This mirrors the usual practice in a kinship covenant ceremony, where both parties would pass through the sacrificed animals, signifying that violation of the covenant was punishable by death. Yet here, because Abram was receiving a grant covenant, only God passes through the sacrificed animals. This meant that Abram did not have any stipulations or conditions to uphold.

Then, in verse 18, the Lord promises the land to Abram and his descendants. This was the first step toward fulfilling the first promise of the covenant—“I will make you into a great nation.” To become a great nation, Abram needed a great land where his descendants could multiply.

Genesis 16 records the Hagar debacle, which did not compromise Abram’s covenant with God, since that covenant was dependent on God’s faithfulness, not Abram’s. Thirteen years afterward, God appears again and confirms to Abram, “You will be the father of many nations” (Gen. 17:4). God even changes his name from Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of many), which in essence was a confirmation and an upgrade (see Gen. 17:5). His wife Sarai (contentious one) was also renamed Sarah (princess). I am sure Abraham was happy about that!

God then instructs Abraham to circumcise himself, all the men of his household, and all the generations to come in his family line. Then God says:

Here God clearly tells Abraham how he can receive the blessing of the grant covenant. This isn’t a matter of works; it is the act of faith Abraham needs to demonstrate to receive the grant covenant.

Many years later, after the promised child, Isaac, is born and grows into a young man, God speaks to Abraham once more and tells him to sacrifice his son on Mount Moriah. So much could be written about this story in Genesis 22. Many Christian authors and scholars have struggled to explain why God would ask such a thing from Abraham. Yet I am satisfied by the contextual answer some scholars have cited, that at the time the nations of the earth worshipped gods that regularly demanded such sacrifices. In similar fashion, the God of Abraham asked for a sacrifice, never intending to follow through with Isaac’s death.⁸ As Genesis 22:1 indicates, God was simply testing Abraham’s heart.

In verses 11–18, we learn that Abraham perfectly passed the Lord’s test. Here, God was double-checking that Abraham was worthy and prepared to receive the grant covenant’s final promise—“Through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed because you have obeyed me” (Gen. 22:18).

After Moses leads the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, they travel into the wilderness and camp by Mount Sinai, where God reveals Himself to them and offers to make a covenant with them. Just as He did with Noah and Abraham, God offers to Moses and Israel a grant covenant, saying:

However, when it comes time to confirm this covenant, the people become overwhelmed by God’s presence, and in fear they beg Moses to be their go-between with God. In effect, they turn down God’s offer to be a nation of priests and ask for a different arrangement, saying:

In response, God bends to the people’s request, and He makes a kinship covenant with them, which is laid out in the Ten Commandments. Though this may not be clear to us, to the people of the ANE, this shift from a grant to a kinship covenant would have been obvious.

In the forty years that followed, the Israelites attempt to keep their end of the covenant as they journey through the wilderness, but they fail miserably. Because they repeatedly break their end of the covenant, God twice considers destroying the nation and starting over with Moses. The covenant was, after all, punishable by death. But in the end, He determines to continue on with His faithless people (see Exod. 32:9–14; Num. 14:11–19).

However, when it comes time for Moses to die and the Israelites to finally enter the Promised Land, God renegotiates the covenant. In the ANE, a kinship covenant was for life, but when one partner of the covenant died, the covenant could be renegotiated with the new partner based on how the covenant had worked so far. Because Israel has absolutely failed in keeping their half of the arrangement, when Joshua replaces Moses, God changes the covenant. Israel is downgraded into a vassal covenant with God, in which they are no longer partners with God but servants. The rules for this vassal covenant are laid out in Deuteronomy, which is actually written in the same five-part structure used in vassal covenants throughout the ANE.⁹

This is the old covenant and the law that the New Testament refers to. Though God had offered the people a grant covenant, they chose a kinship covenant instead, and when they failed to uphold their end of the deal, that covenant downgraded to a vassal covenant. This was never God’s heart for them, but it was what they asked for. He gave them the best version of a vassal covenant in the ANE, but it was no garden of Eden. This is why, during the thirteen hundred years of the old covenant, God promises a new covenant in which the people will receive new hearts (see Ezek. 36:26). The old covenant was not God’s heart, and in fact, it veiled who God really was. This is why so many people have read the Old Testament and misunderstood the nature and character of God.¹⁰ This is just a brief overview; we will cover this covenant in greater detail in the coming chapters.