I truly believe that if one does not understand the Covenant of Works then one cannot fully understand the New Covenant. What was inaugurated on the cursed-side of Eden’s threshold was consummated at the Cross, all of which was necessary to fulfill the Covenant of Works on behalf of God’s elect.
Christ’s redeeming work includes not only His death, but His life. His life of perfect active obedience becomes the sole ground of our justification. It is His perfect righteousness that is imputed to all who put their faith in Him. Apart from this imputation there is no salvation. Why? Because God required of Adam obedience, and He requires it of us, too.
If Christ only died for the elect that would not have been sufficient to save them. That would have only removed the penalty of sin, but it would have not made the elect righteous. So God at regeneration gives the elect the gift of faith whereby one believes in Christ and receives credit for the righteousness of Christ. The believer never becomes righteous in and of himself, but becomes a sinner saved by grace. Jesus who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).
Hebrews 11:7 reveals that Noah became an “heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” Paul taught in Romans that by faith the righteousness of Christ was imputed to Abraham. The writer of Hebrews reveals that Moses kept the Passover by faith and the sprinkling of the blood (v. 28). The same faith is attributed to Gentiles like Rahab and Covenant recipients like David (vv. 31-32).
The first Adam was a covenant-breaker, the second Adam is the covenant-keeper. “[Jesus] condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us…” (Rom. 8:3-4). Christ took our sin (passive obedience) and gave us His righteousness (active obedience). Whereas Adam was once our Federal Head bringing us under the condemnation of disobedience, Christ became the substitute on behalf of the elect; He suffered the wrath of God on our behalf. Our salvation is understood by the fact that by faith I am now redeemed, no longer condemned, but in Christ by faith, our new Federal Head. (Romans 5:12-20).
Therefore, Christ’s work of active obedience is absolutely essential to the justification of anyone. Without Christ’s active obedience then the Covenant of Works remains unfulfilled. If the Covenant of Works remains unfulfilled there is no reason for imputation, there is no ground for justification.
Dr. R. C. Sproul clearly explains in Tabletalk (Oct. 2006):
- If we take away the covenant of works, we take away the active obedience of Jesus.
- If we take away the active obedience of Jesus, we take away the imputation of His righteousness to us.
- If we take away the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, we take away justification by faith alone.
- If we take away justification by faith alone, we take away the Gospel, and we are left in our sins.
- We are left as the miserable sons of Adam, who can only look forward to feeling the full measure of God’s curse upon us for our own disobedience.
- There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Good post.
I do think it is important to include the Resurrection when mentioning Christ’s active obedience (2 Corinthians 15:12-19).
Question: Do you (or anyone) think that one should/must/is be a “Covenant Theologian” or a “Dispensationalsit Theologian” exclusively? I think both have good aspects/viewpoints…and I don’t think you have to be a “dispensationalist” to recognize dispensations. Any thoughts?
In my humble but accurate opinion, if you try to be both you will find companionship among “New Covenant Theologians.” There are some great men and theologians that claim to be NCT’s. But I must say that I believe that the NCT system of theology is simply a compromise b/tw CT and DT, but falls short of Biblical accuracy. Is is better than DT, yes.
Is is better than CT, no.
Oh, and beware that NCT is constently changing, evolving if you may, trying to close the “gaps” in the system. And it is telling that the more they do this, the more they like CT they become.
Jason, I know you quoted RC Sproul on this, but do you really agree that one must embrace the CW to believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?
At the end there RC tries to build one point on another. I doubt he would have the courage though to condemn John MacArthur and John Piper.
Jason, I wonder if you would be so kind as to respond to this so that I can better understand what you are presenting:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index052.htm
Iraneus I will respond to it.
The covenant includes a stipulation and sanctions. A negative presupposes a positive. But that is not the ground for asserting that there is a promise of life here, because the only tree prohibited for eating is the tree of knowledge. The tree of life is not prohibited until after the fall. They are cut off from the “sacramental” source of life, but they had access to it beforehand. The sanction, death for eating the tree of knowledge presupposes a promise, bliss, the state in which they were already living, and in which, it would seem from 3:24, they could have continued had they eaten from that tree and not the other.
We also have in this text a preamble, parties, as well as stipulations, and sanctions. This is all in the context of a relationship between God and man. That’s all we need. If we consider the wider scope inclusive of the “New Eden” there’s the promise of life there, so why would this not reflect a promise of life in this text? We should not expect an explicit promise of eternal life here if probation is also here, because they fellowshipped with God and were already living. God is the God of the living. Such would fail to distinguish between that life they had naturally and that eternal life which would come if they passed their probation.
The absence can be accounted for on three bases (a) in the immediate situation, their walk was so close with God and their nature of innocence such that there need be no promise, because they enter the narrative already on that trajectory toward life by nature; and (b) the author’s purpose is to contrast this trajectory with the actual trajectory, to their sin, so (c) the relation between this text in Gen. 2 is to the nature and purpose of the Law spoken at Sinai, to govern the nation and to reveal sin and administer grace after sin is revealed–here grace is in the background through the tree of life, and that Law does include ceremonial law to underwrite mercy and grace to men, but the need for that is not yet present. It is lurking in the background in that there is a second tree, which is analogous to the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, where the blood would be poured out later in history with a promise of life for God’s people. The tree of knowledge is in the foreground here right now. Ergo the moniker “Covenant of Works.”
As to “probation” the very term “knowledge of good and evil” suggests maturity and growth. God had them in the Garden and the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were the instruments that would lead them and would stand as a testimony either for or against them, just as the OT Law would lead Israel, and the Law, through being written on our hearts leads us. By being cut off from the tree of life after the Fall, we can see that not only was the contrast between good and evil impressed upon them as very stark indeed, but they are cut off from the tree of life itself. They cannot work their way back into God’s presence and fellowship on their own (total inability). Thus we have a judgment based on their violation of a covenant.
Thanks Gene.
james, as usual you did not carefully read what my post said. Notice the word “fully” in front of the word “understand.” There is a huge difference between not understanding something and not fully understanding something. Now, with that said, you will have to prove to me that MacArthur and Piper do not understand (or fully understand) CW. I believe you will embarrass yourself if you try to prove such. I would guess these men understand CW far more than me and you collectively. And then to imply that Sproul is a coward is just the ridiculous conjecture on your part that is not appreciated on Fide-O.
For futher study I would encourage james to read
http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/cow1.html
especially the section entitled:
God promised eternal life to perfect obedience. Since this is not stated specifically in the Genesis account Reisinger seems to believe that it did not exists. But the rest of Scripture proves otherwise. One simple way to prove that is to look at salvation in the Second Adam and ask yourself: “Will my glorified state be exactly the same as Adam and Eve’s or better?” I believe that it is clear that eternal life (incorruptible immortality) is better than Adam’s corruptible immortality. In Reisinger’s terms I would definitly call this a “better farm.”
Wow Scott, all that and not a single reference to any text at all. You have demonstrated CT absolute dependence on reading into the text.
The promise of discipline does not infer in any way the promise of reward. I can tell my son to eat his dinner or face discipline without also implying that he will get desert for obedience.
There is not a single reference to a probationary time for Adam to be in the garden. Not a single one.
Adam already had life. He lived in Paradise. What more was he going to have?
Jason you state the same thing: God promised eternal life to perfect obedience. You do not use Scripture though, but a theological structure that must be read backwards onto the text, but still assumes the presupposition.
Further Jason, the incorruptible immortality that we will enjoy is due to the fact that Christ has taken salvation further than just restoration.
As for RC Sproul, I clearly made reference to what he said at the end. He began by saying: If we take away the covenant of works…
Yet John MacArthur and Piper do not embrace such a concept. Do you agree that they also (according to Sproul)
1. take away the imputation of His righteousness to us
2. take away justification by faith alone
3. we take away the Gospel, and we are left in our sins
4. are left as the miserable sons of Adam
5. only look forward to feeling the full measure of God’s curse upon us for our own disobedience
He then makes it an issue of gospel priority by saying: There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue.
I just wondered if you agree with these conclusions, because John MacArthur and Piper wouldn’t. So who is wrong?
As usual james, you are wrong in too many ways for me to address. So I will just simply let my current post and comments stand alone, for they are sufficient for those who wish to learn.
But concerning men like MacArthur, I cannot let you mischaracterize their theology. James, you can be wrong all you want, but to act like MacArthur or Piper agree with you is about as far fetched as when the Sword of the Lord use to publish Spurgeon’s sermons. Now I could provide you with all the data to prove that you are wrong about these men, but why should I do your homework for you?
Iranaeus I am nicer than Jason, so I will give you a hint. Are you ready?
1st Corinthians Commentary.
I am curious. I spent roughly 5 years at Grace Community Church and have listened to many of MacArthur’s sermons. I don’t ever recall him mentioning a belief in or teaching CW. I know he refers to himslef as a “leaky dispensationalist.” But help me out, where does he teach CW let alone CT since you have the data at hand?
Page number?
no cheating.
Really, who cares. We need to stop majoring on the minors. We should of course have a good systematic theology that is consistent with the scriptures but issues like these…don’t really matter.
Jason, I don’t think you understand my point. Of course the Johns believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. What Christian doesn’t?
I was saying that they still believe that despite the fact that they are not CT guys.
RC Sproul tries to make the case that if the CW is rejected, we are utterly hopeless still.
I originally asked if you agreed with RC’s statements.
Please also refrain from jumping the gun and assuming the worst. I don’t know where the hostility comes from.
I will also note Jason that you answered nothing and chose instead to attack me.
I asked basic, straightforward questions. Why do you continually avoid them?
I’m with calvdispy on this one (and I agree it’s besides the point) but where in in 1 Cor. commentary or anywhere else has MacArthur taught the CW? This is news to me so thanks in advance for giving a reference.
On the other hand I think it would be helpful if real exegesis was discussed as opposed to who in history said thusly. Unless I’m reading things wrong here I haven’t seen anyone deal with the text of Genesis and what it actually says.
Jason, do you think it was Moses’ authorial intent to pen a record of a “Cov. of Works” in the same way as say the “Abrahamic Cov” (cf. Gen. 12,17,22)? I would appreciate any thoughts you might have on this.
Kline, stop whining.
Paul, I linked to the exegesis. I can’t be expected to type the exegesis of every text in every post. Trust me, that would not work well on a blog. So I linked to the exegesis for those who haven’t studied it before or who wish to see how I may interpret a certain text.
So, in the future I will continue to discuss this issue from different angels and will continually link back to all these posts.
And Paul, concerning Moses’ authorial intent. I’m sure you already know that Genesis is a collection of Moses’ books. He didn’t write each book the same. It is interesting to see how that Moses uses words and phrases that would have been used in the era of which the book is referring to. Thus, you don’t find the term “covenant” in the Book of Adam. (Genesis 5:1)
Again follow the links that I provided for more discussion on such subjects. Of course, I only give the highlights in my post to spurn further thought and correct current theological errors in the church. None of my post can be comprehensive due to the nature of the subjects and the nature of a blog.
Jason, all previous posts aside, I will return to my original question.
Do you agree with Sproul that if the CW is rejected, we are all left hopeless in our sins?
It is Kime, btw.
Thanks Jason for the speedy reply. I certainly understand the problems with linking exegesis to a post. My point (which has been pointed out by others) is that any argument should be driven by exegesis and not systematic theology concerns. I did read the links you provided and they are very good at explaining from a theological vantage point what the CW is and what it means for the covenantal system but forgive me again I didn’t notice exegesis of the any texts. Second-hand word studies is not exegesis. I hope you understand what I’m saying brother.
Actually I didn’t know that “Genesis is a collection of Moses’ books”. I think the more traditional understanding is that the Torah is the collection of Moses’ books that should be read and understood as a unit but maybe you are referring to something I’m not familiar with. If you’re referring to the divisions of genealogies (within Genesis) then I think I see where you’re coming from but I don’t think I would use that as an argument to say that Moses has a unique vocabulary for each section (some like Sailhamer have gone to great links to show that hard divisions within the Torah are often forced upon the text, see his “The Pentateuch as Narrative”). So if I assume your position is correct then how do you know what words and phrases would have been unique to certain generations? Have you done any research into this or is this something you read from another scholar? Saying that the word “covenant” was not a word used in the time of Adam as an explanation of it absence seems to be an argument from silence.
Thanks for letting me think this through with you. I am interested in this discussion and your thoughts are appreciated.
Kime, yes I believe if the substance of the CW is rejected then we have lost our bases for the need of a Second Adam/Substitutionary Atonement. One does not have to be a CT’er to embrace the substance of CW. Actually, I personally believed in the substance of it long before I knew it existed because I was trained in Dispensational theology. That is why I believe that you are mistaken to believe that Sproul and MacArthur are at odds with this theology. Yes, they explain it differently and use different terms, but the substance of their teaching is the same.
Paul, I actually did a couple of posts on the issue of “covenant” not being literally found in the Edenic story. But I believe that it is clear that the elements of a covenant (or you may insert a different word like promise) were present. Yes, I have researched other scholars on this. It is just an option from a literary/grammatical/historical standpoint which is valid in inductive study as you know.
Further I would say that we must remember as exegetes that Scripture interprets Scripture. No exegesis is complete if the rest of the Bible is not used to interpret a given text. Thus, I used Hebrews and Romans in this post to prove my point. Lets just say that for the sake of blogging, I cut to the chase.
I truly believe that if the first three chapters of Genesis were left out of the Bible the Gospel would make no sense and vice versa. So please do not fault me for using systematic theology in my interprative process. I know that you and our readers are fully aware that Biblical theology alone is not sufficient for accurate interpretation. Biblical theology comes exclusively from an exegesis of a text, but one text alone can lead to a thousand heresies if it is not interpreted through the lense of the entire revelation of Scripture. That is were systematic theology comes into play. Not before the exegesis but afterwards. Biblical theology and systematic theology working together is what enables an Bible scholar to formulate a consistent hermeneutic throughout the Bible.
So sometimes my posts are an exegesis, sometimes a commentary based on systematic theology, and sometimes a mixture of both. I believe this was the practice of the Reformers and the practice of those who desire to “get it right” today.
By the way, in this particular post I relied more heavily upon the Apostle Paul’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3.
Jason,
I checked out the link by Matt Perman. In it, he writes: “In a sentence, a covenant exists when there are parties, a stipulation, a promise, and a threat. And if we look at the narrative of Genesis 2 and 3, we see that these elements are all present in God’s relationship with Adam. Thus, a covenant was present.”
In which verse in Genesis 2-3 is the promise found?
Thanks Jason,
Would you say that the meaning of a text(s) cannot be determined until sifted through the lens of biblical theology or systematics? This statement “So please do not fault me for using systematic theology in my interprative process” seems to indicate that one cannot interpret the meaning of Scripture until systematic theology comes into the picture. Another way of asking this is at what point do you believe one has the meaning of a given text (in the process)?
Matt beat me to the punch but I was also wondering where exactly this promise occurs in Gen 2-3.
Thanks again for your time.
In the CW you have positive ordinances and negative ordinances and a consequence for disobedience. The penalty of disobedience is death (blood). The issue is life versus death. Furthermore, the presence of the Tree of Life is an ever-present promise. Why? Because this tree reappears in Ezekiel and Revelation in the company of the redeemed. Thus, the Tree of Life represented the promise of incorruptible immortality (eternal life). Instead Adam was disobedient, he was a covenant breaker. That is why the curse became universal = it was a covenantal curse, not a personal curse. It affected Adam, mankind and creation. We see similarities in the Covenant with Noah.
Furthermore, I believe when one understands that Eden in terms of a Covenant, one realizes what motivated God to have grace upon Adam. God was being faithful to Himself by redeeming Adam. God is faithful to Covenant even though man is a covenant breaker = that is the amazing grace of the Gospel!
Indeed, when we see that God did not create man and then react to man’s actions, but God created man because of a covenant God made with Himself, then we understand that what happened in the Garden was perfectly planned with what happened at the Life and Death of Jesus Christ = planned precisely in eternity past and carried out by God’s providence.
Thus everything is link to Covenant in some manner. Nothing is outside of God’s preordination and purpose, especially not the creation and fall and redemption of man.
Paul, I believe the meaning of a text can be determined during one’s exegetical study, but without consistent systematic theology one’s interpretations are open to personal fallacies, biblical near-sightedness, and theological inconsistencies and contradictions.
I am personally never comfortable with my “interpretations” until I have completed my process of inductive study which includes not only grammatical/historical/literal studies but also contextual studies, cross-references, and comparisons with other reformed scholars whom I feel are more skilled than me. Even Paul told Timothy to guard what had been told him. None of us are blessed with “personal interpretations,” we all should test our conclusions with the whole council of God’s Word and with the commentaries of Godly men. Only the Scripture is infallible, authoritative, and inerrant. Heresies abound and grow more deceptive with each generation. So I test my interpretations constantly. And, yes, I have discovered that Covenant Theologians have historically been the most consistent with accuracy, the most comprehensive theologically, the most biblical in scholarship, and the most Christ-centered in interpretations. And I say that as a Southern Baptist who was once a Dispensationalists and still consider my dispensational colleagues men of God and Biblical theologians.