Lecture 6 Covenant of Works Flashcards
Covenant theology and the Doctrine of Man
Calvin opens his Institute and says that the knowledge of God and knowledge of man are inextricably linked and understanding the relationship between those two is the key to wisdom.
If we’re going to understand the bridge between the transcendent and the imminent, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self, we have to understand Covenant.
Covenant is the bridge that connects man to God.
If we’re going to understand this relationship between the two, God to us and us to God, we’ve got to understand Covenant.
When we’re talking about the Genesis of humanity, we understand that humans were created both in Covenant and for Covenant, and so, to outline what it means to be a human, we have to consider what it means to be a covenantal being, to be a covenant keeper, and even a covenant breaker.
In some ways, there are only two categories of people.
Those who have kept Covenant with God and those who have broken, Covenant, with God.
it’s why reform people when they write Systematic Theology, locate covenant theology under anthropology; precisely because we have to deal with God’s creation of us and ask the question:
What does it mean to be in relation to God?
What does it mean to be human?
It means that we are Covenantal beings, and because of that historically, we’ve thought about creation in terms of Covenant, and we think of the fall, in terms of Covenant. So, Covenant of works really frames our understanding of creation. And the Covenant of Grace is going to frame our understanding of the fall and its consequences and the solution that God provides.
So when we talk about creation and sin, we’ve got to talk about covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
Covenant Theology as an organizational framework
It is a framework for how we understand humans and their relationship to the triune God Of Heaven and Earth.
Furthermore, covenant theology helps us make sense of the Bible as a whole.
It provides a Biblical and Theological context, for explaining the bits and pieces of scripture, such as law and gospel, Old, and New Testament, Israel and the church, creation/consummation.
How do all of these bits of information cohere together in a theological scheme? To answer that question, we’ve got to wrestle with the concept of Covenant.
BB Warfield, the great Princeton seminary Theologian, the lion of Princeton speaking of the Westminster Confession of Faith, famously called covenant theology, The architectonic principle of reformed theology.
Covenant theology is God’s blueprint for relating to us in Christ. Architectonic principle. It’s paradigmatic. It’s a blueprint for Redemptive history. It’s the matrix that explains God’s world.
In other words, we can simply say, that covenant theology is reformed theology.
As Dr. Sproul would say, in his Grace Unknown, it’s a nickname for reformed theology.
Because reformed theology can’t be reduced to the Five Points of Calvinism. Can’t be reduced to the five solos of the Reformation. Reformed theology is a whole lot more. It’s not less than those things. It’s, a lot more. And so, covenant theology really is a launching pad into the whole entirety of reformed theology.
But what exactly is covenant? It’s a phrase that is seemingly spoken of, but rarely defined. I remember as a college student, I was so frustrated because I could never actually get a clear definition. They never could get my heart and my mind around this thing called covenant theology.
Well, at a basic level covenant theology is just that, it is a theology expressed in terms of Covenant. If you’d like a tautological definition there you have it. The primary focus of covenant theology then is God. It’s a study of the way in, which God relates to us as humans.
Now more precisely we can say that covenant theology is a Biblical, theological and hermeneutical framework. Whereby God’s relationship to us and our relationship to him is explained and expounded and extolled.
So like the air we breathe, Covenant pervades, every text of scripture. Like the interstate highway it unifies the parts of scripture.
The Scottish Theologian, Robert Rollick
He was the first principal of my alma mater at Edinburgh University. So he has to be your favorite Theologian.
Rollock wrote a very famous book on effectual calling and he opens his book with these words
“All the word of God appertains to some covenant: for God speaks nothing to man without the covenant: for which case all the scripture both old and new, wherein all God’s word is contained, bears the name of God’s covenant or testament.”
So there you see covenant and testament are synonymous terms but Rollock is a carefully measured, Scottish theologian. And if you know anything about the scots, they are not bombastic people in the sense that they do not give these totalizing terms very frequently. They are a very measured people. So if a guy like this says all or nothing, he actually means it.
Everything that God says to us is through the megaphone of covenant. Everything that we see in relation to God is through the lens of Covenant.
Covenant, theology, we might say, is the lens, the spectacles through, which God’s word is read, and understood and interpreted and applied.
I would argue that covenant is not simply a pair of spectacles that we put on as a dogmatic construction that we impose on the text, which is the assertion of many modern theologians. Rather, I would argue that Covenant represents the pair of spectacles that scripture gives us to actually look at God, humans, Christ and the world.
In many ways, it’s scripture calibrating the eyes of Faith to be able to behold God in Christ.
Since we need to go where the Bible goes and stop where the Bible stops and we need to embrace what the Bible teaches. And so Spurgeon says this.
“The Doctrine of the Divine Covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the Doctrines of Scripture are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the Covenants of Law and of Grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct— and you the Grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.”
Spurgeon is saying I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of scripture are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenants of law and grace.
What is a Covenant
It’s a phrase that is seemingly spoken of, but rarely defined.
At a basic level covenant theology is just that, it is a theology expressed in terms of Covenant. If you’d like a tautological definition there you have it.
The primary focus of covenant theology then is God.
It’s a study of the way in, which God relates to us as humans.
Now more precisely we can say that covenant theology is a Biblical, theological, and hermeneutical framework, whereby God’s relationship to us and our relationship to him is explained, expounded, and extolled.
So like the air we breathe, Covenant pervades, every text of scripture.
Like the interstate highway, it unifies the parts of scripture.
Covenant theology is the route 66 of the Bible, it connects everything from Genesis to Revelation. The interstate highway connects the United States if you’re going to go Coast to Coast from Genesis to Revelation in the Bible, you’ve got to travel down the highway of Covenant.
That should be our prayer as we come to anything as teachers. Lord, help me to draw a straight line from your text to the hearts of your people. And then may God’s people say, Lord may we be ready to receive your word, no matter how disruptive it is to my life.
You need to be careful, when you realize how Doctrine does disrupt our lives and has implications. You need to be careful as you think through this, you take this journey that you not only embrace biblical truth, but you do it in a way that honors the Lord and honors his people as well.
Terms and definitions
There are a handful of terms.
There are at least five terms that you need to be aware of when defining covenant theology. These are basic terms that are important to know.
Terms
Berit
Hebrew term which means to cut.
Simply means to cut a covenant.
It is often understood as a bond or an oath between two parties.
For example, Palmer Robertson has his very famous definition of covenant theology…
A bond in blood sovereignly administered a bond in blood. An agreement that has been ratified through sacrifice and that agreement has been sovereignly, unilaterally initiated.
The Locus classicus of this, the standard text is Genesis 15 where Abraham has had an existential crisis. And he’s struggling to believe in the promises of God. And so the Lord in his mercy ratifies, his Covenant promises to Abraham by putting him in a deep sleep. And there are animal sacrifices that have been split in two. Normally, you would have the lesser of the two people walk through the animals, basically saying symbolically, if I break the terms, of this relationship and agreement, what happened to these animals will happen to me. It’s called a self maledictory oath. And what we discover is instead of Abraham symbolically going through the animals cut in two, it’s the Lord in theophanic glory in the smoke the pillar of smoke going through the sacrifices. Essentially saying to Abraham, I am so committed right to preserving this relationship that if it’s broken, let the curse come on me. So it’s why Paul, echoing the book of Deuteronomy, says, cursed is he who hangs on a tree. The Lord himself takes the curse of the broken Covenant to secure the blessings of the agreement. It’s a remarkable thing. So to cut, to establish an agreement, a bond, in blood sovereignly administered. A bond and blood sovereignly administered. That definition, as you all know is by O. Palmer Robertson in Christ of the covenants. You cannot be an RBC student and not have heard that at least half a dozen times. And so you cannot graduate RBC without knowing that definition of covenant. It’s really quite important.
Diatheke
A Greek term
Interestingly enough, you’ll often find the the Greek Septuagint translate berit, Diatheke.
Diatheke - Last will and testament.
In diatheke, the benefits of an estate are made available to The Heirs upon death of the testator, the one who writes, the last will and testament, releases he benefits of that last and will upon his, or her death.
A classic example of this is Hebrews 9:16-17, where we understood the benefits of the New Covenant are given to us because of the death of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
His death, secures our benefits. The benefits of the New Covenant can never be taken away from us because Christ, has secured those benefits by his blood, by his death. His death, guarantees, my life, he is my surety, he is my guarantee.
All of this is wrapped up in the idea of Diatheke, a last will, and testament.
Foedus
Latin term where we get our word Federal
It’s a Latin term for Covenant.
A federal government is a government that is executed on the basis of representation.
Here’s the clearest definition, I can give for Foedus
Foedus emphasizes the fact that Covenant is a relationship through representation. So a federal government is a government that is executed on the basis of leaders who represent a certain constituency.
Federal theology, Covenant theology is an understanding of relationship through representation.
We have two Federal heads, Adam and Christ. The text here are Romans 5, and 1 Corinthians 15. I am either in Adam, or I am in Christ. If I’m in Adam, I know only death if I’m in Christ, I enjoy life.
So the question of the Bible is are you in Adam or are you in Christ? Who is your federal head? How will you relate to God? Will you relate to God through which representatives Adam or Christ.
So Foedus is an understanding of theology through representation.
You may not always have people talk about covenant theology, but they’ll talk about federalism or federal theology quite a bit. It’s basically the same thing.
What I want you to realize here though is Foedus is really trying to touch on this idea of relationship through representation.
Testamentum
A Latin term
It’s actually the Latin translation of Covenant - Diatheke.
In English, you would just simply translate this as Testament.
You have in the Vulgate and Old and New Testament, and that was intended to communicate the book for the old Covenant and the book for the New Covenant.
The traditional definition of the Old and New Testament points to a covenant framework within the Bible.
Testament to him, you can say means to testify or to witness. This idea of being a witness or a martyr or a testifier, is to point to something outside of yourself and a testament points to the Fulfillment of the Covenant.
George Mendenhall
in the 20th century regarded as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Scholars
Wrote a book titled, “the law and Covenant, and Israel, and the ancient near East”
He’s not a Reformed Presbyterian, just an Old Testament scholar says clearly illustrating the centrality of Covenant
“the names given to the two parts of the Bible in Christian tradition rest on the religious concept that the relationship between God and man is established by Covenant.”
Pactum
Latin - A pact or agreement.
It can also be used to refer to a transaction.
The Pactum salutis
The pact of Salvation is also called The Covenant of redemption, which is the inner trinitarian agreement between the members of the godhead before the foundation of the world to secure our Everlasting Redemption.
The pactum salutis an agreement, a pact between two parties. A marriage is a pact is a covenant agreement, a covenant pact between a man and a woman where they Covenant together before God to spend their life together.
Since definition of bereet as a bond in blood sovereignly administered…
If that is the definition of Covenant, then it excludes the pactum salutis, which is why Palmer Robertson rejects the trinitarian covenant because on etymological grounds, he believes that this cannot be a covenant because it involves no blood sacrifice. It’s a great example in my mind of a root fallacy where the root definition of a term totalizes our understanding of it. When in reality. We need to look at the usage of terms and the semantic domain of a term and realize there are nuances of Covenant and you have to pay attention to how it’s used to establish teaching or doctrine.
And so historically, there’s been a much wider understanding of Covenant than what Palmer Robertson has allowed. He has a very narrow definition. So it works for the historical covenants, but it does not work for all of the theological covenants. So that’s an area where there will be some debate at this point. But from my standpoint, I think Palmer is too narrowly focused and his definition of Covenant.
Goals of Covenant Theology
Goals
What is covenant, theology, as a theological construct?
One answer is to say that covenant theology is a system of fault that not only defines the roles of Covenant in the Bible but also seeks to show the application of a theological Construction in the life of a Christian Community.
This is why Covenant theologians will often talk about the church as a Covenant Community. It’s not only an analytical concept. It’s a practical construction that actually informs the way Christians relate to one another.
So a Covenant Community represents a people who are in Covenant with God and with one another. Covenant theology presses us to consider the sacred bond that ties us together, not only to God that ties us to one another.
And so we might say that a definition of Covenant needs to include both analytical and practical dimensions since Covenant seeks to define what the Bible says about our relationship to God, that is the analytical component, and it seeks to instruct Us in the daily aspects of Our Lives as Covenant members in Covenant communities; that is covenant theology as a practical Construction.
It’s why, Covenant is so useful, whether you’re thinking about hermeneutics or whether you’re thinking about counseling. It’s a helpful construction of thinking, through the theoretical aspects of Theology and the everyday aspects of theology. If you’re, reading Von Maastricht you’ll recognize that he has a theoretical and practical component that very much is predicated on an understanding of Covenant.
Five goals of covenant theology.
Emphasis on Scripture
Covenant theology seeks to maintain the fundamental Unity of scripture.
There is a Common thread from Genesis thru Revelation. Though there are different stages and developments within the history of redemption, all scripture centers on the saving work of Christ in fulfillment, of the demands of the Covenant, so that God’s people might enjoy communion with him forever. So covenant theology is trying to link Malachi and Matthew, Leviticus and Luke, Genesis and Revelation. Covenant is trying to show the greatest divide in scripture is actually not between Malachi and Matthew, between the old Covenant, New Covenant. The greatest fundamental divide is between Genesis 2 in Genesis 3.
So, there’s an emphasis on fundamental continuity. Whereas dispensationalism has a fundamental commitment to discontinuity, to the division of parts in the Bible.
Emphasis on Christ
Because of the central focus on scriptural continuity, covenant theology elevates the saving work of Christ as actually accomplishing Redemption for the people of God. There’s an emphasis on fulfilling God’s promises and achieving God’s mission. That’s why, reformed theology emphasizes limited atonement. You can’t really understand limited atonement apart from covenant theology. Limited atonement is based on an understanding of the priesthood, priesthood is based on an understanding of God’s people, God’s people is based on an understanding of promises, promises are based on an understanding of Covenant. So Jesus comes in fulfillment of the promise of God, and he comes in the form of a prophet priest and King in order to achieve something for the people of God. It’s a way of explaining the work of Christ for the people of God. There’s an efficacy to the work of Christ that underscores everything in reformed theology. And to get there, you need a hermeneutical commitment to covenant Theology is basically the argument here. From the centrality of the accomplishment of redemption flows a natural focus on assurance of God’s people. We’re sinful, people, we’re fallen people, we’re people who live by faith and therefore we’re weak and frail.
Signs and Seals
And so we need help. We need encouragement. We need visible reminders of God’s love for us. And so in the context of assurance, covenant, theology places a unique emphasis on the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace, as a means of assuring, his people. God gives them signs and seals as a way of affirming, the certainty of his promises in the Messiah. And so there’s a line of continuity. This is how Covenant theologians get from, say circumcision to baptism and passover to the Lord’s supper. And how we think sacramentally as a way of assuring God’s people; tactile visible reminders of God’s mercies that are showered on us, in Christ. So, there’s an emphasis on scripture. There’s an emphasis on Christ. There’s an emphasis on the signs and seals.
There is an emphasis on the Oneness of the church as the Covenant Community, the visible people of God.
The Covenant Community represents the visible gathering of God’s people believers and their children. At no point in the plot line of redemptive history, have children ever been excluded from a covenant community. I love you, Baptist brothers and sisters, but you’ve got to wrestle with that. You really fundamentally have to wrestle with that. Because according to your theology, you’re taking away something from children, that was given to them under the old Covenant. You’re depriving them of part of the Covenant Community. There is the Oneness of the visible Church.
Covenant theology places a unique emphasis on the significance of humanity as created for communion and fellowship with God. So we can think of Covenant, in terms of the fourfold state of humanity. Covenant made in creation, Covenant broken in the fall, Covenant fulfilled in Christ. and Covenant realized in the new Heaven, and new earth. So covenant Theology helps us explain the consummation of Creation in the new Heaven and new earth in Revelation. 21 and 22 where we have now access to the tree of life and Covenant, fellowship with God. We think of humanity in terms of Covenant communion with God. So, in one of his pithier moments, John Owen could even say “all theology is founded on Covenant.” Theology there is understood in both its theoretical and practical components. To know, God and to love and worship Him entails covenant theology, in other words.
The nature of Covenant relationships
The nature of Covenant relationships.
Covenant theology is divided into 2 basic theological covenants
Think of Theological covenants in terms of God’s relationship to humans. There are two covenants. We call these the theological covenants.
Covenant of works - introduced in Gen 1-2
Covenant of Grace - Gen 3
This is looking at the Bible from a 36 thousand foot level
That leads then to a series of biblical Covenants. And that, that is more a on the ground surface-level understanding of the flow of Redemptive history. So, you can think of Adam and you can think of Noah, and Father, Abraham, and Moses, and David and Christ.
What we’re doing now is we’re talking about theological covenants. Okay, we’re talking about the macrostructure of scripture. There are two basic theological covenants in terms of God’s relationship to us, the Covenant of works and Covenant of Grace.
When we talk about both of these terms, we understand within a covenant administration, there are both unilateral and bilateral components.
A covenant is unilateral, in that God establishes, the terms of the relationship.
He is, Sovereign.
He’s in control.
He determines the rules of the relationship.
However, because of that, it also entails a bilateral response.
So God requires something of us.
When he enters into a relationship in the Covenant of works, the response is obedience.
And in the Covenant of Grace, it is repentance and faith.
But both entail unilateral and bilateral components. That is distinct to classical reformed theology.
There are going to be some in 19th, 20th, 21st century and the modern era that are going to question the second component.
But classic reformed theology as universally understood both of these aspects as consisting of these theological covenants.
And so, for example, we might say in the Garden of Eden, God sovereignly and unilaterally establishes a covenant of works. And in that Covenant of Works, he bilaterally demands obedience as a requirement of that Covenant. Adam disobeys God and as a result has a broken Covenant fellowship with God and there are consequences that’s predicated on the fact that he failed to do his job and there were dire consequences for the rest of humanity.
And yet, even with a broken Covenant, obedience is still required because God is holy and righteous. But, due to our sin, the demand of obedience cannot be fulfilled by us. And so someone else has to fulfill the terms of the Covenant of works. So, in some way, you realize, the Covenant of works is still operative. It’s still in play because God does not change. His character does not change. He still requires holiness, righteousness and Perfection.He still requires obedience. So the Covenant of Works has always been in play.
The problem is that I can’t fulfill the terms of the Covenant. And so, in order for me to relate to God, someone has to fill it in my stead. That’s the very definition of grace. So the rest of scripture and the development of Covenant history is the unfolding of God’s gracious, provision of the demand of the Covenant of works that finds fulfillment in the finished work of Christ on our behalf. So the graciousness of the Covenant is that Christ fulfills, the terms of the Covenant of works on our behalf. Grace solves the solution of a broken Covenant. That’s why it’s Grace.
the Covenant of works
First standard definition is chapter, 7 section, 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith,
“The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant” (WCF 7.1).
Since God is, God, God is not beholden to us. He is not bound to us. He doesn’t have to enter into a relationship. There is an infinite chasm between us and God, and anything that God does in one sense is undeserved.
The Covenant with Adam before the fall was an undeserved Covenant. It was the result of God’s voluntary condescension. God did not have to do anything with his creation. He did it out of the abundance of his own goodness. He engaged in a relationship out of condescension. He Stoops to our level to enter into a relationship with us. When you meet a toddler, you don’t stand up, and lord our greatness over a child. But what do you do? You bend your knees and you get at eye level and you might even inflect your voice and you might even restrict your vocabulary so that you can be on the same plane with that child. And in like manner, and the Covenant of Works, God voluntarily out of the abundance of his own goodness stoops down and condescends to enter into a relationship with Adam. It is entirely undeserved. There’s nothing in Adam even in his perfect state that would somehow oblige God to respond; no, everything that Adam received was on the basis of undeserved favor and goodness. It’s really important to grasp voluntary condescension.
“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF 7.2; cf. 19.1; WLC 20-22; WSC 12).
It’s a covenant. And this Covenant is maintained by works. In other words, life is promised to Adam on the basis of perfect and personal obedience, but this is a relationship through representation. So the Covenant of works is not just with Adam, but all who are in Adam all his posterity. So a covenant, where life is promised on perfect and personal obedience. This is true for Adam and all his race, covenants of works.
Westminster represents the culmination of about a 150 years of protestant reform reflection on this Doctrine. That’s why we call it a confessional codification of the doctrine of Covenant.
Herman Witsius
Dutch reformed Theologian at the end of the 17th beginning of the 18th century
Wrote a book called “The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.”
This is what he says about Covenant of Works
“The covenant of works is the agreement between God and Adam created in God’s image to be the head and prince of the whole human race, by which God was promising him eternal life and felicity, should he obey all his precepts most perfectly, adding the threat of death, should he sin even in the least detail. . . .” (Herman Witsius, The economy of the covenants).
Even the smallest sin deserves infinite punishment because if you sin against an infinite God it incurs an infinite debt. It has to be perfect and full complete compliance to God’s word because God himself is perfect.
Challenges to the Covenant of Works
Now there are some challenges to the Covenant of works.
Some people really struggle with a notion of a relationship with God being predicated on Works. That seems to call some to bristle at the idea that any relationship is based on merit especially for Protestants here. I think that’s a struggle many have.
We can reduce this to, at least two basic objections.
One is titled the grace Challenge
The other is titled The proof text challenge. First, we might call it the grace challenge. Many people balk at the suggestion that a relationship with God was ever based on Works. They might say isn’t everything the result of Grace. You’ll have out of this the development of what is called Mono-Covenantilysm and you find this most clearly in Barthian thought.
TF Torrance and JB Torrance have argued for something like this as well. Isn’t it all Grace and in Barthian thought there’s no real difference between relating to God before the fall or after the fall. They don’t really make much of a difference in their scheme. That’s a story for another day. But it’s monocovenantilysm; Everything’s predicated on Grace. Well, the short answer is this, the Covenant of works is not based on Capital, G, Grace. And yet, as you’ve just heard it is an act of voluntary condescension on behalf of God. So yes, the Covenant of works is undeserved. Yes. It’s the result of undeserved favor. However, if you actually look at the usage of Grace in The Bible, the presence of Grace, always presupposes, sin, capital, G. Grace is God’s solution to our moral conundrum. We’ve sinned against God and the solution. He gives his Grace. Capital G Grace. So until we have sinned, where we violated the Covenant of God, we can’t technically have Grace. So if there’s no sin, there’s no capital G Grace. Now if you want to say lower G that the Covenant of works is gracious. There’s no objection to that, n problem at all, but we want to actually be precise with our theological language and remember that capital G Grace is God’s solution to our sin. I think that’s the real issue there.
Number two is the proof text challenge. Many people object that the word covenant is actually not present in Genesis 1- 3. And yet, while the term is not present, the substance of the teaching, most certainly is there. And this is not unusual. So for example, nobody, dispensationalist, neoorthodox, reformed Theologias, nobody discounts that in 2nd Samuel 7 God inaugurates a covenant relationship with David. And yet, you will look in vain to find the word covenant in 2nd Samuel 7. It’s not there. But all of the elements and components of a covenant are found in 2nd Samuel 7. So if it looks like a covenant sounds like a covenant, it’s a covenant. Furthermore. You have other passages like Psalm, 89 that reflect back on 2nd Samuel 7 and called God’s relationship with David a covenant. And under the principle that scripture interpret scripture we can deduce by good and necessary consequence that second Samuel 7 is a covenant with David. likewise when we read the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, all the parts of a covenant are there. Therefore by good and necessary consequence, we conclude that a covenant was established in the garden with Adam and that Covenant is called a covenant of works. We do this all the time in theology. This is how we arrived at the doctrine of the trinity.. It’s how we can argue for a Doctrine like, infant baptism. We have to deduce from the elements of scripture and draw doct trino conclusions. And there’s a legitimacy to that that we want to affirm.
Four Arguments for the Covenant of works
There are Four Arguments for the Covenant of works.
So a brief examination of Genesis 1 and 2 will show that a covenant was in fact established between God and Adam before the fall and this Covenant was a covenant of Works.
God’s relationship with Adam in the garden was unmistakably sovereignly administered. So in Genesis, 1:26 and 27, God creates the man and woman out of his good pleasure. Then in Genesis, 1:28 and following God stipulates, the conditions whereby man should live. And so when you read the creation account, everything is on the basis of God’s Sovereign control and lordship. God is in control of the shape and form of his relationship with Adam.
So we say, God voluntarily initiates and condescends and establishes his relationship. He creates, man in the image of God, He blesses them. He gives the cultural mandate. He gives the Sabbath principle. He gives Adam the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. God is the one who is clearly in control. It’s one directional at that point. Adam brings nothing to the table. I think we can all agree to that.
Tied to this, then is a concept of a Divine mandate.
A condition is fixed to Adams relationship with God. Adam had the responsibility to be obedient to God in order to maintain his status with him. He has to keep and obey the five mandates of the cultural mandate. He has to honor the Sabbath principle. He can’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil lest he die according to Genesis 2:17. So there are restrictions placed on this relationship, God’s word governs, God’s relationship or Adams relationship with God. There is a Divine mandate.
There are blessings and cursings attended to this relationship.
According to Genesis. 2:17, if Adam disobeys, Adam will die. But if he obeys he enjoys God’s blessing. Remember the Imago Dei, the cultural mandate and in between them is blessing. God, blesses the fifth day. The sixth day, the seventh day. Life in the garden is lived under the smile and blessing of God. We can infer that if Adam would have obeyed, he would have enjoyed God’s blessing. Many even assume that this is a probationary period and he would enter into eternal life with God that was symbolized in the tree of life. One way we know this is when we look to the end of the Bible, in Revelation, 21 and 22. You have the return of the tree of life, that symbolizes, Eternal fellowship with God. But what we clearly find is that the relationship in the garden is framed with blessing and cursing implications. If there’s a obedience, there’s blessing if there’s Disobedience, there’s cursing. So in Genesis 3, you have the cursing of the man, the woman, the serpent, and the ground. It’s all cursed, and it undoes the blessing. It’s why then when you have the restatement of the garden principles in the mosaic code, when you enter into the promised land, everything is framed in Deuteronomy with blessing and cursing. That wasn’t the first time blessing and cursing were introduced. Blessing and cursing is code for Covenant relationship here.
Finally. We believe that the relationship in the garden was Federal in nature.
It’s not a stretch to say that Adam represented all Humanity in the garden. As we’ll see after the midterm as Adam fel sSo all humanity fell with him. I think this is the import of a text like Hosea, 6:7. Hosea 6:7, the prophet is bringing a prosecution against Israel. And the prophet Hosea says. But they speaking of Israel, like Adam transgressed, the Covenant. Now, there is some debate over this text, but it is naturally read in the context of a broken, Covenant. Well, what Covenant did Adam transgress? I would argue it’s the Covenant of works. So upon Adams disobedience all his posterity sinned in him and fell with him, rendering it impossible for any one descending from him by ordinary generation to keep the terms of the covenant of works. This. provides us with the context of the Covenant of Grace. So, the federal headship of Adam is essential for establishing the federal headship of Christ. The position of Adam as a representative is necessary to maintain the representative nature of the personal work of Christ. So Christ did what Adam could not do. So if you have a problem with Adam representing you in the garden, dear friends, you’re going to have a problem with Jesus representing you on the cross. The two go together, which is precisely Paul’s argument in Romans, 5 and 1st Corinthians 15. So we can conclude that though the term was not used in Genesis 1 and 2 the substance in elements of a covenant clearly are evident as we see in a parallel text like Hosea, 6:7 7 or Romans 5.
Four Arguments for the Covenant of works.
1) sovereignly and immediately administered by God. (2) conditioned upon Adams, perfect obedience. (3) attended with divine blessing and cursing, (4) federal in nature.
Tweedale’s Summary
So in summary
Here is my definition of the Covenant of works.
The Covenant of Works is a pre-fall relationship between God and Adam that was (1) sovereignly and immediately administered by God. (2) conditioned upon Adams, perfect obedience. (3) attended with divine blessing and cursing, (4) federal in nature.
Toward the end of the post-reformation Francis Turrtian argued that the biblical concept of Covenant forms the centerpiece of a Divine human relationship, and thus is indispensable for understanding Humanity.
“Since [the covenant] is of the greatest importance in theology (being as it were the center and bond of all religion, consisting in the communion of God with man and embracing in its compass all the benefits of God towards man and his duties towards God), our highest interest lies in rightly knowing and observing it” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology)
I would argue that Covenant structures all biblical revelation and is founded on the divine plan of the Triune God. Covenant theology then best explains the complex contours and content of the Bible. It is both a Biblical, hermeneutic and a theological system, and a practical framework that is summarized, in the promise, I will be your God and you will be my people. You can’t understand the blessed refrain of the Bible apart from covenant theology. It’s what we sing as God’s people. So this Divine pledge, “I will be your God and you will be my people”, is founded on an Eternal plan of God, to commune with his people. And this is manifest in history, in the covenants of works and Grace and it centers on the person and work of Christ. In other words. we might say covenant theology, is nothing less than the gospel story or the biblical story. Covenant tells the biblical and breathtaking story of how God will spare no expense at not only loving an unlovely and contemptible people but also securing our Everlasting Joy, by sending the son of his love to die for us and our Salvation to fulfill the terms of the broken covenant of Works; The Covenant of Grace.
