Introduction
Years ago when someone would mention a ‘covenant of works’ I used to almost blush. The idea that any thinking Christian could read Genesis 1-3 and coming away believing in an Edenic covenant boggled my mind. I mean, firstly, the word ‘covenant’ isn’t there. There’s no (obvious) blood shedding. There are no oaths taken. Moreover there’s no sin in chapters 1-2, so why would you need a covenant at all?
Though it used to make me feel embarrassed to hear people talking about it, quite to my surprise, I don’t blush any more. I think the covenant of works (sometimes called ‘the covenant of creation’) is exegetically unavoidable and theological necessary. I wanted to outline some reasons why I changed my position on this important doctrine.
Firstly, I think some kind of covenant structure governs all of God’s relationships with human beings. This is in part due to an ontological necessity: God is so far ‘above’ us in every way that in order for us to relate to him he must stoop low to communicate with our finite intellects. Such an ontic ‘gap’ is a critical presupposition throughout the Bible, yet many Christians simply don’t think about it. So often, the God of western Christianity is too small, too cuddly, and too easy to package into pithy propositional portions. That wasn’t how Paul viewed God:
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Rom. 11:36-36 NIV)
All of God’s sovereign dealings with mankind (fallen or unfallen) require a revelatory condescension on God’s part in order for us to grasp who God is and what his purposes are. He must provide boundaries for us, as he does with the physical creation, in order for us to function in a way that pleases him.
This is clearly explained by the Westminster Confession:
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. (7.1)
Whether humans are fallen or unfallen, the very nature of an infinite and purposeful being interacting with finite and contingent moral agents necessitates boundaries and commitments. The name that the Bible normally gives to this structure is “covenant”. It is for this reason that Reformed theologians assert that covenant structures all biblical revelation and is therefore a central hermeneutical key.
Michael Horton says:
“The particular architectural structure that we believe the Scriptures themselves yield to is the covenant. It is not simply the concept of the covenant, but the concrete existence of God’s covenantal dealings in our history that provides the context within which we recognize the unity of Scripture amid its remarkable variety.” (Introducing Covenant Theology, Baker Books, p 13; italics mine).
The concept of covenant is central to reading and interpreting the Bible. Neglect of covenant theology is therefore to the detriment of the church.
The next thing I’d like to address isn’t a positive argument in favour of covenant theology, but more of an answer to an objection I once had. I used to point out that the word ‘covenant’ isn’t mentioned in the Bible until Genesis chapter 6, therefore we are justified in believing that covenant theology is absent prior to that. When challenged, this theological flick of the wrist isn’t very convincing. It is an hermeneutical fallacy to suppose that because the word isn’t present in a text, the corresponding concept isn’t either. Such a blunder is called the “word-thing fallacy”. Consequently, if there is indeed a covenantal arrangement in Eden, finding the word ‘covenant’ would be helpful, but not necessary. The existence (or lack thereof) of an Edenic Covenant of Works must be established on other grounds.
Even though the word ‘covenant’ doesn’t appear until Genesis 6, it’s interesting that the word ‘kingdom’ doesn’t appear (specifically in relation to God’s Kingdom) until the book of Exodus! This fact has not dissuaded armies of Goldsworthian evangelicals from seeing ‘the kingdom of God’ in Eden. Goldsworthy rightly states: “We first see the kingdom of God in the Garden of Eden.” (p. 54; Gospel & Kingdom, found in The Goldsworthy Trilogy, Graeme Goldsworthy). No one wrote letters to him pointing out that the phrase “Kingdom of God” doesn’t appear in Genesis, yet it is theologically sound to posit such an idea. I think the Covenant of Works deserves such a ready acceptance.
If there is a typological resemblance between the Edenic scenario and latter (more explicit) expressions of the Kingdom of God, then surely it’s reasonable to see a legal-relational resemblance between what happens in Eden and subsequent instances of explicit covenant-making. The word doesn’t have to be there for the thing to be there. Same goes for the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ or the ‘perspicuity of Scripture’ (and many other doctrines).
Going Deeper
Explicit uses of the Hebrew word berith (‘covenant’, obviously) give us a very broad picture of covenant-making in the Old Testament. Covenants don’t always involve blood-shedding or two parties agreeing to explicit covenantal terms. Some covenants are between two humans, between God and humans, between God and creation, between parties of different sizes, and some people make covenants with themselves! Let’s get a taste for covenantal diversity relying exclusively on uses of the word berith:
1. A covenant between God and creation: “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (Gen. 9:13) The context suggests this non-soteric covenant is made with Noah and all living things (9:12) as part of God’s “recreation” after the flood.
2. A covenant between a man and a woman (marriage): “It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.” (Malachi 2:14; cf. Jer. 31:32).
3. A covenant made with oneself: “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.” (Job 31:1).
4. A covenant made with a nation: “I am making this covenant, with its oath, not only with you who are standing here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God but also with those who are not here today.” (Deut. 29:14-15; cf. Ex. 34:10)
5. A covenant between friends: “And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.” (1 Samuel 18:3).
6. A covenant between a group of people and an individual: “. . . the whole assembly made a covenant with the king at the temple of God.” (2 Chronicles 23:3)
7. A covenant initiated by a man, between God and two other parties: “Jehoiada then made a covenant between the LORD and the king and people that they would be the LORD’s people.” (2 Kings. 11:10). Jehoiada is a very entrepreneurial fellow.
The presence of berith in these passages suggests that the covenant concept can (and in fact does) cover a broad range of personal and interpersonal scenarios. Blood shedding and formal oath-taking don’t always constitute necessary components of biblical covenants. Therefore the absence of such explicit formalities in Genesis 1-3 doesn’t ipso facto mean that covenantal concepts are not there.
Furthermore, we must remember that the Davidic covenant isn’t described as a covenant at the time it is made! It is only afterwards that berith is used to describe it (cf. Ps 89:3; Jer. 33:21). Also, other times the covenant concept is alluded to with the word karath – “to cut” (1 Sam. 20:16).
What I am saying is obvious. We must be very careful when looking for covenantal concepts and structures in the Bible. Sometimes berith is present, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes covenants are between God and human beings, sometimes they are not. Sometimes covenants aren’t described as such until later on. The doctrine of the Covenant of Works does not depend on explicit covenantal nomenclature, nor can we have too narrow a view of what biblical covenants can be like.
More next time.
spes clara 