I want to expand on my first post, which you can find here. I am addressing the charge that since there is no explicit covenant-making in Genesis 1-3, the Reformed concept of the Covenant of Works is not present there. I used to think that way. Not any more.
Some exegetically-driven reasons to believe in a Covenant of Works
1. There are features of God’s relating to Adam and Eve that bear strong resemblance to subsequent covenantal interactions between God and human beings. In Eden we find a pre-existing relationship that is cocooned by a covenant-like structure. There (a) is an existing relationship between fixed parties; (b) stipulations are made; (c) these stipulations have attendant consequences: namely, blessings and curses. Wayne Grudem says,
“In the Garden of Eden, it seems quite clear that there was a legally binding set of provisions that defined the conditions of the relationship between God and man. The two parties are evident as God speaks to Adam and gives commands to him. The requirements are evident as God speaks to Adam and gives commands to him. The requirements of the relationship are clearly defined in the commands that God gave to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:28-30; cf. 2:15) and in the direct command to Adam, “You may freely eat of every three of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die (Gen. 2:16-17). In this statement to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there is a promise of punishment for disobedience – death [ . . . ]. In the promise of punishment for disobedience there is implicit a promise of blessing for obedience.” (Systematic Theology, p. 516)
Knowing the particulars of the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants, it seems fair to conclude that the covenantal structures inside the garden are not fundamentally different from the covenantal structures of explicit covenant-making outside the garden. This conclusion is especially convincing if we don’t separate Genesis 1-3 from the rest of the Pentateuch, but instead see it as a meaningful prologue that accounts for the emergence of the covenant people of Israel. It seems that, wherever we find ‘the kingdom’ motif in the Old Testament, covenant theology is never far away.
2. While there is considerable debate over its interpretation, Hosea 6:7 seems to confirm the existence of an Adamic covenant. The verse reads, “But they, like Adam, transgressed covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me”. The most natural way to translate the Hebrew word keadam is “like Adam”, comparing the rebellion of the Israelites to that of Adam in the covenantal Edenic situation. Some have suggested that it could be a reference to the town “Adam” mentioned in Joshua 3:16. This might be correct considering the context is filled with geographic references. However there is no record of any significant event at Adam for the reference to carry any weight, nor is Adam considered a town of any real importance in Israel’s history. Furthermore, a reference to covenant unfaithfulness “in Adam” (the town) would most likely be rendered with a different preposition: beadam.
Others have suggested keadam could mean “like men” – “like men, they transgressed covenant”. That is, Israel’s disobedience is just another example of generic human rebellion. However, Robert Reymond points out this reading forces an “inanity into the text, for how else could Hosea’s contemporaries transgress than “like men”? (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p 430). Men only ever sin like men! Only men break covenants. Consequently, if this reading is right then Hosea isn’t really making a point at all – he might as well say that water is wet.
Another proposal, which I think deserves further consideration, is found in an essay by Byron Curtis in The Law is Not of Faith (eds. Estelle, Fesko, VanDrunen). Curtis proposes that the divergent readings of Hosea 6:7 are due to the fact that the verse is an “asymmetrical Janus parallelism” (seems obvious doesn’t it?!). He points out that Hosea is strongly familiar with the Pentateuch (and especially Genesis; cf. Hosea 1:9-10, 2:20; 4:3; 9:6; 10:1, 8), and because of his penchant for wordplays he often plays upon both personal names and place names. In other words, Hosea’s prophetic ‘punning’ intends to tie Israel’s covenant breaking not only to the man Adam but also possibly to the town Adam. Curtis concludes:
“In Hosea’s covenantal comparison both covenants were implicitly in part about land tenure: Eden or Canaan. Like Adam of old, Israel committed covenant treason especially idolatry and murder. As the Mosaic covenant had threatened, “if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you” (Lev. 18:28).” (p. 209)
This approach gives credit to how well-crafted Hosea is, and allows it to carry the more natural rendering of keadam “like Adam” while at the same time incorporating a more local event (“at Adam”) as examples of covenant disobedience. If true, this wordplay adds more weight to Hosea’s point, joining Edenic covenant breaking with a more recent and localized occurrence of covenant breaking.
In light of Hosea’s familiarity with the Pentateuch and clear allusions to Genesis, as well as the straightforward reading of the Hebrew, it is probable that Hosea 6:7 is (amongst other things) referring to Adamic disobedience in covenantal terms that are analogous to the situation in Israel during Hosea’s time.
3. The federal and covenantal headship of Christ as the ‘second Adam’ presupposes the federal and covenantal headship of the first Adam. As the federal representative of all human beings under the Edenic Covenant of Works, the ramifications of Adam’s sin for his posterity suggest a profound legal agreement between God, Adam and his seed. The fixed and binding structure in Eden, in which all people are consigned to life in a sin-stained world, is fundamental to a biblical anthropology and soteriology. On what grounds is Adam’s federality based? Was it merely an ontological reality? Or was it also legal-relational as well? The bringing of the divine curses in Genesis 3 suggests, not capricious divine revenge, but just actions consistent with the prior agreement made between God and man. It’s more than just “relationship” going on in the garden – it is justice metered out in accordance with a binding, solemn agreement.
Though Adam broke the first covenantal arrangement that God made with humans, Jesus, as the second Adam, inaugurated the New Covenant through passionate obedience to his heavenly Father “to the point of death – even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7). Paul’s point in Romans 5:12-21, is that Jesus did what Adam should have done. Because of that, all people stand in one of two spiritual states: those condemned as sinners for transgressing God’s covenant of works, and those ‘in Christ’ who has fulfilled God’s righteous demands and propitiated the sin of God’s people.
Because Christ, as “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47), is the mediator of “a new and better covenant” between the God and his people (Heb 12:24), this suggests that Adam (the first man) was similarly in a covenantal position of headship. Lois Berkhof says,
“The parallel which Paul draws between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12-21, in connection with the doctrine of justification, can only be explained on the assumption that Adam, like Christ, was the head of a covenant. According to Paul the essential element in justification consists in this, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, without any personal work on our part to merit it. And he regards this as a perfect parallel to the manner in which the guilt of Adam is imputed to us. This naturally leads to the conclusion that Adam also stood in covenant relationship to his descendants.” – Systematic Theology, page 214.
Adam and Eve didn’t participate in some amorphous ‘relationship’ with God in the Garden. It was much more than that. The ‘relationship’ was set within a covenant-like legal structure wherein righteousness warranted life and disobedience incurred wrath. As the second Adam, Jesus died to crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15), but was raised again: not because of ‘relationship’, but because of righteousness. Though he had borne the sin of God’s people, Jesus himself had done no wrong. Therefore his resurrection is a matter of covenantal justice and righteousness, not ‘relationship’ or grace.
To sum up, the covenant-inaugurating, righteousness-bringing work of Christ is presented in the New Testament as the anti-type to the covenant-breaking, curse-bringing work of Adam. This close parallel suggests that the Edenic situation was bound by a covenant that governed the particulars of the relationship between God and his people.
4. Life in the Promised Land is portrayed as a ‘type’ of Eden, wherein covenant keeping is rewarded with blessing, and covenant breaking is recompensed with curses. This clear typological link suggests that the situation in Eden was more than just ‘relationship’, but, as in the Promised Land, a binding legal/covenantal arrangement too. Let’s quickly think of some reasons to see life in the Promised Land as a covenantal ‘type’ of Eden. In both scenarios . . .
(a) God’s people enjoy blessing and peace in a particular place whilst they obey God
(b) Being exiled to the east is part of the ‘curse’ for covenant unfaithfulness (cf. Gen. 3:24)
(c) There is a physical centre to the covenantal life of God’s people: in Eden it is the tree of life (next to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; Gen. 2:9), in the Land it is the temple.
(d) The ‘do this and live’ principle is clearly evident in both scenarios, wherein God – who initiates the covenant – stipulates the terms that govern the covenant.
Genesis chapters 1-11 clearly function as a theocentric historical prologue, accounting for the emergence of the Abrahamic people and God’s salvific purposes in a sin-stained world. It is difficult to imagine a post-exilic Jew returning from Babylon not seeing Genesis 1-3 as the prototypical covenant-breaking. On the long journey back to Palestine, the events of Eden would be a sad reminder of what they had just gone through: being given covenant blessing in a beautiful place only to fall under God’s curse for breaking the terms of that covenant. In other words, Israel blew it, just like Adam and Eve did. The very thing they were told NOT to do, they did. And because of that, the explicit stipulations of the covenant arrangement were enacted.
Because of such obvious typological resonances, as well as understanding the biblical-theological function of the opening chapters of Genesis, I submit that seeing the situation in Eden as covenantal is cogent.
Summary thoughts
Here are some keys reasons I’ve offered for accepting the Reformed concept of the Edenic Covenant of Works . . .
1. The transcendental ‘otherness’ of God necessitates a great revelatory condescension on his part. God’s interactions with finite beings like us are not amorphous ‘relationships’ but legal/relational bonds expressing our heavenly suzerain’s purposes and character.
2. It is fallacious to reason that the absence of the word ‘covenant’ in the opening chapters of the Bible ipso facto proves that a covenant is not present in some form. The word ‘kingdom’ isn’t found in the book of Genesis, but few Christians would argue the concept isn’t there.
3. Covenant is clearly an important theme in the Bible. The Bible contains numerous covenants that govern a number of different scenarios. We must be careful when it comes to insisting that a covenant must always look like x.
4. There are features of God’s relating to Adam and Eve that bear strong resemblance to subsequent covenantal interactions between God and human beings. In Eden, there is an existing relationship between fixed parties, and stipulations are made with attendant blessings and curses.
5. While there is considerable debate over its interpretation, Hosea 6:7 seems to confirm the existence of an Adamic covenant.
6. The federal and covenantal headship of Christ as the ‘second Adam’ presupposes the federal and covenantal headship of the first Adam.
7. Life in the Promised Land is portrayed as a ‘type’ of Eden, wherein covenant keeping is rewarded with blessing, and covenant breaking is recompensed with curses.
I once heard a guy say, ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck’. That very much applies to the Covenant of Works. If what we find in Genesis 1-3 is a formal arrangement between two parties, with blessings and curses attached including ramifications for one’s posterity, it’s probably a covenant. Especially if that arrangement is an historical/theological precursor to subsequent covenant making.
Is there a Covenant of Works/Creation?
Yes.
spes clara 