# Covenant of Works; Trial Period or Not?



## Sonoftheday (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm brand new to this site, been reading posts but this is my first to post. I tried posting this question at the Carm discussion board to little answer so here it goes.

Is the teaching that the Covenant of works was for a trial period biblical? As I read the genesis account I do not doubt that there was a CoW made with Adam, but I do not see why it is taught that was for a trial period. Through reading the text I get the impression that Adam had open access to the tree of life and this access was revoked when he fell, rather than access to the tree being a reward he sought. I have a very virtually no understanding of the original languages so perhaps I am missing something, because I have heard this taught by many excellent bible scholars. Thanks for all responses.


----------



## Casey (Nov 19, 2007)

This doctrine is derived from comparing Genesis 1-3 with Romans 5:12ff. If Christ doesn't remain in a perpetual state of trial (i.e., he is glorified), neither would Adam have (he would have been glorified had he obeyed through the probationary period). I think that's the simplest way of explaining it -- and I hope this short note will at least give you a place to look.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 19, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> This doctrine is derived from comparing Genesis 1-3 with Romans 5:12ff. If Christ doesn't remain in a perpetual state of trial (i.e., he is glorified), neither would Adam have (he would have been glorified had he obeyed through the probationary period). I think that's the simplest way of explaining it -- and I hope this short note will at least give you a place to look.





It is clear that Adam broke Covenant with God and all fell in him. We can see that the Tree of Life is a reward below:

Rev 2:7:


> 7He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, *I will give the right to eat from the tree of life*, which is in the paradise of God.


Rev 22


> 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations





> 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[g] that they may *have the right* to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.


It is interesting to note that God did not forbid Adam to eat from it prior to the Fall. I've always been curious how long Adam and Eve lived before they fell. I sometimes think it might have been nearly right away and maybe they never got around to eating it. Things do seem pretty busy from the very beginning with Adam being created, given a command, then naming the animals to find if anyone could help him in his vocation, being shown his need for a helpmeet, having a wife formed from his rib, naming her, and then the next thing you know they've fallen. Maybe everything happened really quickly.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 19, 2007)

Let's presume for a moment it wasn't probationary. If Adam was the federal head of the human race (which he was) then what would have happened if he would have had children who were living in obedience and then he decided to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2007)

I do not think that eating of the Tree of Life was a kind of "portal" to eternal life. Adam's probation before eternal life was not, as I understand it, to culminate in eating of that tree.

Both trees had a sacramental function. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was a tree NOT to be eaten of. The nature of that sacrament was negative--as Adam obeyed God, he would gain "Godlike" understanding of good and evil. God, after all, knows evil himself NOT experimentally either, that is, knowledge by negation.

The Tree of Life (ToL) would have functioned in a manner similar to the other sacramental meals (Passover, Communion). By partaking with God, man would be confirmed or strengthened in his faith.

We do not know 1) how long the period of probation would have been, or 2) actually was. Nor 3) do we know whether Adam ever had his first taste of the ToL--I tend to think "never", because I think the fall happened soon. But even if this supposition is incorrect, and he did have at least one fellowship meal prior to the fall, that would simply show that a single meal was not finally "confirmatory".

Another fact this understanding of the Trees signifies, is the distinguishment between the sign and thing signified. Note, that when we are once again permitted to partake of the ToL in glory, it will be AFTER we have been confirmed in holiness. So there is nothing about "eating", then or later, that sort of "keeps the grace-gastank full". It is not the case that Adam was to eat of the ToL in the garden SO THAT he could stay strong and sin-free, and so make the end of his probation. This would, however, fit a Roman sacramental view (and the _donum superadditum_). Not-eating the ToL at the appropriate times would not have _*led*_ to sin or increased it's probability; it _would have been_ sin, just as eating the TKGE _was_ sin.

No doubt a correlation exists between neglect of the ordinance and corresponding weakness of faith--it is a sacrament after all. But a view that makes the ToL a necessary factor (that is, beside God's promise) to eternal life--to come back to the "portal" idea--is to come much to close to Roman attitudes toward efficacy. As Calvin said, in respect of the bar of access God set up by means of the flaming sword to the ToL post-fall: Adam and Eve could have snuck back and eaten the whole tree--fruit leaves and bark--and they would not have lived a day longer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 19, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Adam and Eve could have eaten the whole tree--fruit leaves and bark--and they would not have lived a day longer.



I love how that puts things into great perspective.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 19, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do not think that eating of the Tree of Life was a kind of "portal" to eternal life. Adam's probation before eternal life was not, as I understand it, to culminate in eating of that tree.
> 
> Both trees had a sacramental function. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) was a tree NOT to be eaten of. The nature of that sacrament was negative--as Adam obeyed God, he would gain "Godlike" understanding of good and evil. God, after all, knows evil himself NOT experimentally either, that is, knowledge by negation.
> 
> ...



And that my friend is why you are the man.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2007)

ok, Barnpreacher, whatever you say: no more "private", now i've been dubbed ... {says the avatar}


----------



## Barnpreacher (Nov 19, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> ok, Barnpreacher, whatever you say: no more "private", now i've been dubbed ... {says the avatar}



 - Hey, it could have been worse. I almost went with da' man.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Nov 20, 2007)

Thanks for the post it is very helpful. I never thought that the portal, one bite and live forever type idea to the TOL fit with the bible, but never thought of a sacremental view on it. 

Would you consider the trial period to be something that is a certainty, or is something that must be derived from a logical study of scripture rather than directly taught by scripture. How certain would you be in teaching this trial period and the implications that stem from it?


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Nov 20, 2007)

Sonoftheday said:


> I'm brand new to this site, been reading posts but this is my first to post. I tried posting this question at the Carm discussion board to little answer so here it goes.
> 
> Is the teaching that the Covenant of works was for a trial period biblical? As I read the genesis account I do not doubt that there was a CoW made with Adam, but I do not see why it is taught that was for a trial period. Through reading the text I get the impression that Adam had open access to the tree of life and this access was revoked when he fell, rather than access to the tree being a reward he sought. I have a very virtually no understanding of the original languages so perhaps I am missing something, because I have heard this taught by many excellent bible scholars. Thanks for all responses.



Not. John


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 20, 2007)

Sonoftheday said:


> Thanks for the post it is very helpful. I never thought that the portal, one bite and live forever type idea to the TOL fit with the bible, but never thought of a sacremental view on it.
> 
> Would you consider the trial period to be something that is a certainty, or is something that must be derived from a logical study of scripture rather than directly taught by scripture. How certain would you be in teaching this trial period and the implications that stem from it?



I think it is a necessary implication derived from two facts:
1) That Jesus obedience on our behalf is that period of his earthly life, that is, a _specified period_. His ongoing mediation is an application of obedience and sacrifice already wrought for us, not MORE obedience for us.
2) That we are not promised restoration to the Adamic condition, but to a superior condition in which another Fall is impossible. Therefore, Adam would also have awareness that his creation state, being _mutable,_ was less perfect or desirable than an impeccably immutable one.

It is not impossible to _conceive_ of an interminable status of "do this and live," and certainly our present, *fallen* condition makes the thought of that prospect somewhat wearisome--more so than if we were currently perfect actors. But all the same, it is vain to ignore the sheer _goodness_ of God made evident in the potential elimination of an impediment to endless bliss, namely its mutable character. Even if by "practice" of holiness the likelihood of falling were reduced to statistical insignificance, the difference between "able to fall" and "not able to fall" is the difference between servanthood and sonship. It is not a thing one could ever work for within the bounds of creaturehood, either. It would have to be a matter of divine raise.

I would not hesitate (In other words,, I would teach it as a *truth*) to call the first estate "probationary", that is, temporary with the prospect of glory. I believe it adds immeasurably to our appreciation of the whole concept of the story of Redemption. While it compounds Adam's failure, it also compounds Christ's saving efficacy.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Nov 21, 2007)

> 1) That Jesus obedience on our behalf is that period of his earthly life, that is, a specified period. His ongoing mediation is an application of obedience and sacrifice already wrought for us, not MORE obedience for us.



That's good stuff, not something I have ever thought about before. I notice your the Pastor of a church, do you have any sermons online?


----------



## Casey (Nov 26, 2007)

Here's something that might be helpful regarding the trees in the garden: Link.


----------



## bradofshaw (Nov 27, 2007)

I've been thinking a lot about this recently after hearing a lecture by Sproul on the problem of evil. I'm also trying to teach some young kids the subject of the covenant of works, and this thread has been really helpful.


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2007)

Consider for a moment these remarkable declarations of Scripture.

"Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

"What is man... Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour." Or, as it is in the margin: "Thou madest him a little while inferior to the angels."

"All flesh is not the same flesh... There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body... Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual... Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ... we shall all be changed."


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 27, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Let's presume for a moment it wasn't probationary. If Adam was the federal head of the human race (which he was) then what would have happened if he would have had children who were living in obedience and then he decided to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?



Good thought here. Many good posts already offered.Sometimes working through an issue,or question like this can be very useful. Jesus is spoken of as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Jonathan Edwards in his work-The history of redemption points out that Christ already was active as mediator even to allow for the fall to take place to begin with.
Moses obviously writes Genesis by special revelation from God. God reveals only what is essential to establish,That He alone is Creator,Sustainer, Redeemer, and Judge.
The original condition of Adam [original righteousness] is not dwelt upon,but stated almost as if to set the stage for the fall, and the first gospel promise to be given.
The Holy Spirit amplifies this in the already posted Romans 5:12-21.
I try to remind myself that our covenant keeping God is immutable. Any hypothetical question by virtue of God's eternal decree- does not really exist. here is from the 1689

Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof
1._____ Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 ) 
2._____ Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 ) 

3._____ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. 
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 ) 

4._____ From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 ) 

5._____ The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. 
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )


----------

