In the non-Biblical sense, a covenant is a binding agreement — a contract between two or more persons. In the Biblical sense, a covenant is much more. It is a solemn oath (sacratemtum in Latin) and a gift of persons. Dr. Scott Hahn tells us the Trinity is a covenant relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God. Therefore, a covenant is a family oath, as can be seen by the very names given to the Persons of the Trinity, i.e., Father, Son, and Spirit. A covenant forms a sacred kinship with God. A Covenant of Salt relationship with God is the very means through which we can become sons and daughters of God. A type of this Covenant of Salt is the Sacrament of Matrimony. A sacramental Marriage (as opposed to a civil marriage) is a Covenant of Salt through which a man and a woman become one-flesh, one-salt (Mt. 19:5-6, Mk. 10:8). Through STOSS, it will show how, through a Sacramental marriage, the one-flesh relationship between a man and woman is more literal — i.e., not merely symbolic — than previously thought.
We know what a Covenant of Salt is by looking at how it is entered into. According to M. G. Easton, a covenant is:
A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means “to cut,” and hence a covenant is a “cutting,” with reference to the cutting or dividing of [one animal] into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them [emphasis SML], in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19) [Thus the flesh, i.e., our salt of DNA, is involved in the covenant — SML]. … The corresponding word in the New Testament Greek is diatheke, which is, however, rendered “testament” generally in the Authorized Version. It ought to be rendered, just as the word berith of the Old Testament, “covenant.”
The term covenant is also used to designate the regular succession of day and night (Jer. 33:20), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16), circumcision [the covenantal “cutting” of the one flesh of the male sex organ — SML] (Gen. 17:9, 10), and in general any ordinance of God (Jer. 34:13, 14). A “Covenant of Salt” signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:13; 2 Chr. 13:5). I hope we are beginning to see a common theme here. The "cutting or dividing of [one animal] into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, indicates and makes a one-flesh covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19).
In circumcision, we cut the flesh of the very same organ that forms a one-flesh union -- and helps to create a one-flesh family. Baptism is the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision, which signifies the purification of the one-flesh relationship. Paul tells us that having relations with a prostitute is a one-flesh relationship, but it is not covenantal act because the Holy Spirit plays no part in that physical--but not Spiritual-- union. In other words, FLESH plays an important, dare I say vital, part of a Covenant of Salt between God and man.
So why a covenant? Why a chosen people? Why circumcision as the sign of that Covenant of Salt? Without a covenant, mankind had been and would continue to be virtually incapable of resisting Satan’s power. God told St. Hildegard that virtually all of Adam’s seed, up until the time of the first covenants with Abraham and Moses (and the giving of the Law), had been devoured by Satan. Without a covenant, Abraham’s seed could not be preserved from corruption, decay, and death until the fullness of time had been reached.
The purpose and goal of the covenant with Abraham can be ascertained by examining the very sign that God chose to sacramentally (small “s”) initiate someone into that covenant. Immediately upon making a Covenant of Salt with Abraham, God establishes as the sign of that Covenant of Salt the permanent alteration of the same organ through which his seed is given/gifted. This sign directly involved Abraham’s seed. Of this sign, only the DNA within the cell nucleus can be classified as actual salt/dust (of DNA). When I was younger, I remember thinking to myself — why circumcision? That is a rather dramatic sign for God to choose! I can imagine what went through the minds of Abraham’s kin — You want me to do WHAT! Thanks for the offer Abe, but I’m not sure I want to be “chosen” after all. How about if I just carve God’s chosen on my forehead or cut off one of my fingers instead?
Tertullian, a well-known second-century ecclesiastical writer, reinforces the value of our salt — think Covenant of Salt. He writes,
Now, if all things are subject to the soul through the flesh, their subjection is equally due to the flesh … there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe [and acts upon the promptings of the Holy Spirit — SML] while it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges [SML] … it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit [SML]; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.
Instituted at the command of God himself, circumcision possessed a sacramental nature. The NC sacrament of Baptism replaced circumcision. Thus, it follows that circumcision, a type of Baptism, i.e., circumcision, was also sacramental in nature. Aquinas tells us a sacrament is an efficacious outward sign of an inner effect. What does the visible and outward sign of circumcision tell us about its inner impact? The inner effects of Baptism are purification of the body, becoming a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., a member of the Bride of Christ, his Church. Purification is what circumcision represents; the salt (of DNA) covenant with Abraham is ordained by God to preserve man's body, heart, and seed from impurity (cf. Rom. 2:25, 28-29; Col. 2:11). St. Paul writes, “Real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Rom. 2:29). Actual circumcision is the purity of the heart. However, as we will learn later, the physical body changes to express that purified heart's overflow accurately. As the heart is purified, the body is purified; as the body is purified, so is man's seed purified (a science fact).
Medical literature regarding circumcision gives us some insight into the sacramental nature of the Law of Moses. Dr. Brian J. Morris from the School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute at the University of Sydney describes the uncircumcised male sex organ as an environment that favors the growth of harmful micro-organisms and the build-up of dead cells excretions, and urine. Furthermore, the detrimental effects of this environment are passed along to sexual partners. Nevertheless, he goes on to say, circumcision virtually eliminates cases of invasive penile cancer. Additionally, it significantly reduces the incidence of inflammation of the penile head, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, and general urological problems, to name just a few out of many possible examples.
In the covenant with Abraham, God only mentions the seed, not the egg. Women do not carry seeds within them, so God did not deem it necessary for them to receive the covenant sign, i.e., circumcision. So, what does all of this mean? We know that an uncircumcised man is much more likely than is a circumcised man to transmit sickness via impurity and contamination to his partner during the act of procreation. Jesus likened sin to a physical illness that requires the attention of a physician (Lk. 5:30-32). By choosing circumcision as the outward sign of the covenant, God tells the Israelites that their seed is also sick when they are sick (with sin). Thus, the child conceived will inherit that sickness.
Luke warns us about this. He wrote, “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit” (Lk. 6:43). The science of this fact will be discussed later. Through the Law, God preserved His people — as long as they obeyed His commandments and Laws — from contracting deadly spiritual and physical sickness, which would have spread to Abraham’s seed, and to succeeding generations.
According to St. Catherine of Siena, the inner heart constantly changes; it is always moving closer to, or away from, God; towards virtue or vice. A basic tenet of STOSS is this: as the degree of purity of the inner heart changes, the function of the salt of DNA changes to accurately express that heart's overflow through the scriptural mouth. Further, this change in DNA function will lead to a biological impact on the germ-line DNA (the actual copy of the salt of DNA contained in the sperm and egg), which will then be gifted to the newly conceived child. Scripture, science, and other credible writings provide us with enough evidence supporting this statement to characterize it as summarizing a theorem.
Once God chose the lineage from which the Son of God would become a man, the final steps in the process towards the fullness of time were comprised of those necessary to preserve Jesus’ future seed from irreparable corruption during the interval from Abraham to Mary. He gave the chosen people the Law and the Commandments as part of the Covenant of Salt to accomplish this.
 Scott Hahn. (2011-07-18). A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture (p. 24). Ibid., 29.
St. Anthony Messenger Press, Servant Books. Kindle Edition.
 Ibid., 27.
 M. G. Easton, “Covenant,” (1893), In Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (p. 164). New York: Harper & Brothers.
 This is why we use different words in describing the two main parts of Scripture, i.e., the Old and New Testaments versus the Old and New Covenants. I agree with Easton. The Old and New Covenants would be the more appropriate and explanatory wording. After all, virtually all of Scripture was originally written in Hebrew (the word berith is translated as “covenant”), and Covenant Theology is the “Big Picture” of Scripture.
 Hildegard, Scivias, 332.
 Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus), On The Resurrection of The Flesh (Third Millennium Media L.L.C., The Faith Database L.L.C., 2008), n. 7-8.
 J. Tierney, “Circumcision,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (Third Millennium Media L.L.C., The Faith Database L.L.C., 2008).
 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 66, a. 1.
 Dr. Brian J. Morris, “Circumcision: An Evidence-Based Appraisal,” Circinfo.net, http://www.circinfo.net/why_the_foreskin_increases_infection_risk.html:2008 (accessed 10/23/2008).
 cf. Hildegard, Scivias, 79.
 Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, 130.