The Exegetical Basis of the Covenant of Works*
From Genesis 1:1 running to Genesis 2:3, it is clear that the focus is to put man in context in God’s original created order.
- Man is distinct from the animal creation. Five times it is said that the animals are made after their kind, in verses 24 and 25. But in verse 26 it is explicitly said that man is “in Our image according to Our likeness” and this is the Lord speaking. This is the triune God speaking, saying, “I am creating humankind in My image, in My likeness.” Man is unique. It is not that he is simply smarter than the animals. It is not because he is simply more highly evolved than the animals. He is of an altogether different genus.
- Man is endowed with a capacity for, and a responsibility for, dominion or rule. So there is an activity of government and ordering that implies that the man has both rationality and righteousness because, in God’s world, the function of ordering is for someone who has rational capacities which bear and reflect the image of God and is righteous. Ordering the earth is a moral issue. You can’t order the earth from an immoral base. And so the very fact that man is being called to rule reminds one of the rational and the righteous asp
ects in which he bears God’s image. - Man is the bearer of certain of God’s attributes. See below:
The Attributes of God in Man
- As God is rational, so also is man. Now this is implicit of God in Genesis 1:1-25. God is revealed as having intelligence and will, having the ability to formulate plans and execute them. And man, too, is endowed with this kind of rationality and knowledge and understanding and this is seen, for instance, in Adam’s naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19-20.
- As God is personal, so also is man. God is personal as seen in the Trinity. And in Genesis 1:26 God says, “Let us make man in Our image according to Our likeness and let them rule.” So the male and the female aspect of man is stressed from the very beginning and is seen as part and parcel of His ability to convey the personal-ness of God. Thus the very differentiation of the sexes, male and female, is part of the image of God which we bear and reflect.
- We can also say that man is moral. Genesis 1:31 says that God made all things good. That is because, of course, He is good Himself.
- Life is sacred. This is stressed further in Genesis 9:5-6.
- Man is endowed with an immortal, spiritual aspect to his being. This is seen not only in the giving of the Tree of Life in the Garden, but it is even seen in the phrase of Genesis 2:7.
But one of the most important issues found in the Creation account is the issue of Blessings and Obligations.
Four Obligations (ordinances) and Corresponding Blessings in their relationship.
The blessings come in the obligation, the obligation comes in the blessing. It is interesting how God tied that together. It reminds us, doesn’t it, that the way of blessedness, or the way of happiness, is in the way of duty, because in the very created order, God made duty and the doing of duty to be blessed. Now that is such an alien concept to our culture and even in many religious circles.
“Isn’t that against grace or something like that?” But the idea that duty is opposed to grace is utterly alien to biblical thought. It is alien to Moses. It is alien to Paul. It is alien to Jesus. Some of you may know of Robert E. Lee’s famous quote, “Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.” It is up on a plaque in The Citadel. And that idea is totally alien to our culture, because duty is confused with “I have to do it.” But here we see in the very duties of the created order, the blessings are intertwined, so that as man does what God created him to do, interestingly enough, he finds his fulfillment and his satisfaction and his happiness and his blessedness.
- The first creation ordinance that we see there is the ordinance of procreation. Genesis 1:28. The ordinance of procreation. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Adam and Eve as two isolated individuals, no matter how powerful in their capacities as unfallen human beings, can’t subdue the whole of this globe. There has got to be procreation in order to harness and order the world as God has established it. And this ordinance, it is made clear in Genesis 1 and 2, was to be expressed only within the bonds of mutual commitment, that is, marriage. So this is an obligation and a blessing.
- The second ordinance that we see, we also see in verse 1:28, and that is the ordinance of labor. The mandate is to work. The blessing is that God has given man rule. This labor ordinance was implicit even in the Sabbath ordinance of Genesis 2:1-3, because what does the Sabbath ordinance do? It puts a limit on labor. It says to man, you can’t work all the time.
- Then, the ordinance of the Sabbath. We see this in Genesis 2:3: “God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it.” This seventh day is marked by the completion of God’s special created work; His labor was finished in the first six days. The work of creation as such is done. That doesn’t mean that He is inactive. He continues to work in providence in preserving and governing His creation, but the same word, finished, is used here as it is used of Moses finishing the tabernacle in Exodus 40:23, and of Solomon finishing the temple in II Chronicles 7:11, and of Jesus finishing the redemption in John 19:33. The same concept used here—same term. We see in Hebrews 3:7 – 4:11 that God’s Sabbath was a gift to man. God’s Sabbath was a gift to man. God didn’t need that rest. That is Jesus’ whole point in Mark 2. God didn’t need the rest. He rested because you needed the rest. So His very resting was not a necessity for Him. It was something that you needed that He did out of His love for you. So He rested for your sakes, and we learn in Hebrews 3:7-4:11 that, for believers, the Sabbath is not only a blessing, but it is a promise of a rest to come. So the Sabbath is a day for nurturing, for spiritual life, for worship and service.
- The fourth ordinance that we will look at is the ordinance of marriage. God announces that “it is not good for man to be alone.” This is the first and only thing that has been described in God’s creation as not good. So, solitary fellowship with God even in paradise is not God’s plan for us. By the way, you see in that verse the seed for the doctrine of the church as well.
So Clearly The Covenant of Works is Established in Eden.
So we see the establishment of this covenant relationship in Genesis 2:4-25. It was the Covenant of Works. It is not a Covenant based on Grace because sin has not entered the equation yet. Sin always precedes grace. God gave Adam and Eve a beautiful home called Eden. God gives Man water and food. And God gives Adam the Tree of Life as a sacrament of worship to bless him and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to test him.
What God is doing has not been merited by Adam. We use the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. And here in Genesis 2:15-17, the specific aspect of his obligation, that is, of not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is brought into sharp focus.
Now that is not the only thing that Adam has to do in this relationship. We have already seen four things that he is responsible to do. He is responsible for procreation, labor, Sabbath, and marriage. There are also a prohibition in the relationship. There is a penalty given: In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. So what do we have here? Well, we have a relationship divinely established between God and Adam. So we have a bond. We have life and death consequences in the penalty. So we have a bond in blood. And let me also say that we have blessings implied in this relationship, not only in the ordinances, but also in the presence of the tree of life, because that tree of life reappears where? Not only in Ezekiel, but in Revelation. And where is it? It is in the presence of God and the company of the redeemed. And so it is a hint of what is in store for Adam, if he is faithful in the keeping of the obligations.
And finally, we have these stipulations, these ordinances and prohibitions sovereignly administered by God. And so we have all the elements of a covenant, whether you want to define it as a bond in blood sovereignly administered, or whether you want to define it as a binding relationship with attendant blessings and responsibilities.
All the elements of a covenant are there.
Concerning the controversy of the Hebrew word for “covenant” not being mentioned in the Creation account go here.
*H.T. Ligon Duncan
Tweet
I’m curiously watching this from the side of the road and I have a few questions.
Would you say that this post is truly the “the Exegetical Basis of the Covenant of Works” or would it be more fitting to say these are some of the theological implications/inferences that you have derived from the various passages?
On another note: There also seems to be a lot of high-fiving going on around here (in some of the comments) which seems to imply that well-known men of God somehow missed the “truth”. I’m thinking of premills like Spurgeon, James Boice, John MacArthur for starters. As one who once embraced much of what you are saying but now opt for a premill/calvinistic theology I would hope that all (starting with me) hold their theological systems in humility. We must all be convinced in our minds before the Lord but let us not be guilty of saying, “Thank you Lord I’m not like this man over here…” Just my two pennies.
Paul, thank you for your comments and pennies. Concerning whether or not the exegesis is sound I would think so. The post is about Covenant Theology which is a system of theology held by many men great theologians. One can be a CT and hold to any of the different eschatologies that you mentioned except Dispensationalism. I think that is why MacArthur calls himself a “leaky dispensationalist.” But I would caution attaching calvinistic theology to only premill, that just isn’t true. Calvinism is more of a system of soteriology whereas premill is more of a system of eschatology. The two aren’t necessarilly the same but can come together beautifully.
Thanks Jason,
I wasn’t questioning whether cov. theology was sound or not I was questioning whether this post was showing exegetical form or the fruit of exegesis (e.g. theology) because the two are not the same. I also wasn’t attaching calvinism only to premill; I was simply describing my own position. Some of my comments were directed at other comments in other posts which was obviously shortsighted on my part. I recognize that calvinism can be attached to both premills (e.g. MacArthur, Boice, Spurgeon, etc.) and to covenant theologs (Vos, Hodge, Van Til, etc.). My contention here is that some of those leaving comments refuse to affirm the former. That’s a strong indictment on some of the men I referenced…not to mention prideful.
On another note, John MacArthur calls himself a “leaky dispy” because he sees more continuity than classic dispy’s not because he embraces cov. theology…which he certainly does not.
Thanks for the interaction and kind spirit.
Your premill “leaky” brother,
Paul, you raise an intersting issue about Dr. MacArthur. I don’t think I need to preface my comments but I will by saying: IMO Dr. MacArthur is one of the greatest living theologians in the world… and probably one of the most influencial due to his world-wide tape ministry. Untold thousands of men today are expositors because of him, and untold thousands of Christians have a healthy Christian life because their pastors preached Dr. MacArthur’s sermons to them
But my question for you is do you have any quotes from Dr. MacArthur concerning his view of CT. You say that he doesn’t embrace it — I didn’t know one way or the other — so I would love to read something that he has wrote or said about Covenant theology. THANKS.
John MacArthur has said on many occasions that he follows the explicit covenants of Scripture as opposed to the “implicit” covenants and believes the key ones are unconditional (Abrahamic, Davidic, New). I have heard him affirm this in staff meetings, congregational Q & A, Shepherd’s Conferences, seminary chapels at TMS, and through his exposition of Luke 1:46-56 when I was a member of his church and staff. He has affirmed and “signed” the doctrinal statement of Grace Community Church (which is the same as TMS) which by design is dispensational through and through and contradicts historic covenant theology at numerous points. He has written a study bible that is thoroughly dispensational and a subsequent one volume commentary upholding the same (I point this out in my review of the later in the recent issue of “The Journal of Modern Ministry”). He has also written a postscript in his book “The Gospel According to Jesus” where he answers the question: “Am I a dispensationalist?” As I think you have pointed out in previous posts, one cannot affirm these things and hold to covenant theology. These are a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. You might also check out his book “The Second Coming of Christ” and his commentaries on Revelation. I hope this helps.
The reason why I initially jumped into the fray here is because I noticed some comments that had an imprecatory tone about them not unlike John Gerstner’s infamous “Primer on Dispensationalism”. There were comments that in effect stated that anything outside of the system of historic covenant theology had not come to the “truth.” In fact many here have welcomed you home to the “truth.” I would hope that some of my covenantal brethren still have room in their system for those who don’t necessarily have the same gift of “good and necessary inference.”
My question to you is what are the problem areas and weaknesses that you see in covenant theology or is it in your opinion an airtight system. I would also be interested in how you would counter your own arguments from your pretrib post from last year. Thanks again for letting me comment here, I hope this will help us all communicate the truth of Scripture more effectively and accurately represent those who have preached faithfully for many years.
Paul, I will jump in on this conversation and agree that I have seen similar references to “coming to the truth”. While I will have to admit that only one side is right, I hear what your saying about attitude.
However, I think/hope that those guys are just trying to encourage Jason. We have numerous dispensationalist that read Fide-O and I have not seen any real animosity towards them from commentors. I know you will not see any from us.
Paul, let me add one more thing. I too have been studying Covenant Theology, but, because of time restraints, not as much as Jason.
One of my issues with some of the guys I have listened to preach on the subject have a attitude that I really can’t stand. When questioned on certian specifics of the CT and certian eschatologies they say something to the effect of “all the intelligent people believe that way” or “you just aren’t smart enough to have learned that yet” or “Dispy’s are the new kids on the block, when you get a little smarter you’ll learn”.
That attitude ticks me off.
Of course, Scott also has an anger management problem.
Thanks guys for letting me eat the scraps that fall from your table.
Blessings,