# Eve had a covenant with Satan???



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 12, 2012)

I am reading “Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored” by Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele. It’s a 2012 release with a forward by Mike Horton. In reading Chapter 3, page 61 on the Covenant of Grace, I hit some comments that I find inexplicably confusing, regarding Eve and her “covenant with Satan.” I have quoted the entire block of text dealing with the point for complete context. 

To wit, in a discussion of Gen 3:15-24:

“This becomes clear when we examine 4 features of God’s promise in this text: first, the termination of the sinful covenant between Satan and the woman; second, his placing emnity between the serpent’s offspring and the woman’s offspring; third, his promise of a messiah that will judge the serpent; fourth, Adam’s response to this promise. 

_First, God terminated the sinful covenant between Satan and the woman._ [Italics original]. The Lord says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman.” *God declares that he will not allow the devil to remain in covenant with the man and the woman, which is essentially what happened in the fall.* [emphasis added] In his tempting of the woman (Gen3:1-6), the Serpent casts doubt on God’s goodness and truthfulness by challenging the covenant stipulations. “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?’. . . . You will not surely die.” He attempts to derail God’s kingdom plan to bring his image-bearers to glory. He sees that God made Adam his servant/vassal in the covenant of works, so he tries to forestall the coming of the external blessings by getting Adam barred from the Tree of Life. He knows that if he can get Adam to violate the covenant of works, then God (being just by nature) must judge him according to the stipulations he made. At first, the Serpent’s scheme seems to work. He manages to persuade the woman (and consequently Adam) to disbelieve God and enter into league with himself. Yet, after Adam’s fall, God does not permit that sinful relationship to continue. He puts enmity between the Serpent and the woman. Reconciliation between God and humans would be made through a new covenant, since the original covenant of works was violated and broken. But the devil did not realize that God had planned to send a second Adam who would bring his kingdom project to completion.” 

The definition of “covenant” put forward by these authors on page 17 is “a covenant is a solemn agreement with oaths and/or promises, which imply certain sanctions or legality.” Using this definition, or any definition I am familiar with, I do not find a “covenant” between Satan and Eve in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. 

I am missing something here? Is there some strain of reformed theology that holds that Eve did enter into a covenant relationship with Satan? I am most perplexed.


----------



## KMK (Sep 12, 2012)

Maybe covenant is not the best word (even the author says it is 'essentially' a covenant). It was definitely an agreement. Satan promises knowledge and life if Eve will obey him and rebel against God.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Sep 12, 2012)

KMK said:


> Maybe covenant is not the best word (even the author says it is 'essentially' a covenant).



That's an understatement! How about a really poor choice of words?



KMK said:


> It was definitely an agreement. Satan promises knowledge and life if Eve will obey him and rebel against God.



I see no evidence of an agreement in Gen. 3. Satan isn't promising to do anything for them, he's appealing to the inate characteristic of what eating the fruit itself is supposed to bring about: knowledge. Of course, he was lying to/ deceiving them, but that's not the point here.



> Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, *“You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”* 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 12, 2012)

I think to use the word "covenant" here is to introduce some novel -and probably undeveloped - theology into the history of the Fall.

The act of eating was an appropriate test for God to give because eating is for life, pleasure and fellowship. In eating the fruit, the Primeval Pair were eating death unto themselves, taking pleasure in iniquity, and having fellowship with the Evil One.

To say that they were entering into a covenant with the Evil One would be a bit strong without further theologising from Scripture.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't think it's a bad choice of wording at all. Like Ken said Satan promised knowledge and that she would be like God knowing evil and good and that she wouldn't die, so Eve obeyed him. Covenant simply put means to come into an agreement. He agreed to "give" her such and such if she did such and such which she did. The outcome of that covenant was death, but God in his mercy told of a new covenant which would bring her everlasting life and broke the covenant between her and Satan. The consequence of her sin she had to bear but did receive the new covenant. It's much like ourselves before regeneration. We are in a covenant with Satan by only being able to sin until God brings us into his new covenant.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 12, 2012)

The kernel of sense in the idea is that Eve and Adam did _side_ with the serpent over against God. But I think setting that out under the notion that there was an agreement between them messes up the text rather badly. The serpent did not directly and obviously tempt them to devil worship, but to self-determination. He uses indirect methods; his temptation was subtle. No fealty or obligation to him is expressed or implied - he leaves himself out of the reckoning, so to speak. The idea that some kind of league between them was understood, or ought to be inferred from subsequent enmity, seems quite an imposition onto the text. Can enmity only take place where there was previously a covenant? Obviously not.
I wonder if it comes from the modern penchant, perhaps stemming from neo-Calvinism, to seek to understand everything in terms of a covenant.


----------



## sevenzedek (Sep 12, 2012)

I think I see where Brown and Keele are going with their assertion, but I would have placed the onus of this so called agreement with Satan on Adam rather than Eve because of Numbers 30:6-7,

"And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand."

But who am I? I have only been steeped in the word for a few years compared to some of you. Still, I don't know that I would call it a covenant. Satan didn't promise that he was going to give Eve neither the smarts nor the pleasure that eating the fruit would cause.



py3ak said:


> I wonder if it comes from the modern penchant, perhaps stemming from neo-Calvinism, to seek to understand everything in terms of a covenant.



Since learning of covenant theology and hearing a handful of people speak on the subject, I did happen to notice how some people get a little rambunctious about making EVERYTHING into a covenant. I am glad that I am not the only one who has noticed happy people doing such things.

Kind of reminds me of when I learned about the doctrines of grace. Oh yes, I was happy once upon a time—everybody just had to know about what I was learning.

Don't get me wrong. I am not referring to Brown and Keele as immature in any way. They're probably out of my league. I've never written a book before.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 12, 2012)

Although others obviously have different views, I see no covenant or agreement in these verses at all without importing it into the text. If I were reading this book as a first cut at CT, I doubt I would have stayed with the program when I hit that part. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## sevenzedek (Sep 12, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Although others obviously have different views, I see no covenant or agreement in these verses at all without importing it into the text. If I were reading this book as a first cut at CT, I doubt I would have stayed with the program when I hit that part.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Amen. I might have dropped out too. Perhaps I might have dropped the book instead. Seems like grasping for handfuls of air–no substance.

If I told a friend that he would really enjoy a "magical" brownie–that it would make him wise like God–and he ate it, does this mean that he is now in covenant with me? I doesn't seem so.

But...

Although their choice of words seems unfavorable, these authors have to be pointing to something valid. There must be some way to understand exactly how the sons of Adam are sons of Satan. Are they wrestling with the topic? Maybe.

I wouldn't call it a covenant, but they are onto something here. There is only one time in man's history to which I can point and say, "That is where mankind became enslaved to Satan." If these guys are wrong in how they term it, how are we to define the transfer of authority really did take place between Adam and Satan? Romans 6:16 is helpful here,
"16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
Does obedience mean covenant? Evidently it means something. Adam and his posterity became slaves when he obeyed Satan's antinomian advice. One could stretch the terminology and call this obeisance (I did not say obedience) an agreement (one could argue that Adam's obedience was one of deferential respect to an authority other than God). Further? Stretch agreement and come up with a covenant between two willing parties. I don't like it. It muddies the truth of God's covenant. His covenant is one-sided. He made it sovereignly. One could argue it is two sided, but the only reason it is two sided is because God fulfills conditions of his covenant in us at the expense of his Son so that we may be willing to agree to his covenant.

Some MAY say their conclusions are wrong because they introduced them with a term that seems unwarranted. I, on the other hand, see some warrant for their conclusion and seek for a term that better fits my understanding. Perhaps I may one day find their definition and application of the word "covenant" pleasing. I do, however, think I see what they are getting at.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 12, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> If I told a friend that he would really enjoy a "magical" brownie–that it would make him wise like God–and he ate it, does this mean that he is now in covenant with me? I doesn't seem so.



I thought you said you were against the eating of magical brownies...


----------



## sevenzedek (Sep 12, 2012)

MarieP said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > If I told a friend that he would really enjoy a "magical" brownie–that it would make him wise like God–and he ate it, does this mean that he is now in covenant with me? I doesn't seem so.
> ...



I AM against marijuana. That thread has really been on my mind lately.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 12, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Although others obviously have different views, I see no covenant or agreement in these verses at all without importing it into the text. If I were reading this book as a first cut at CT, I doubt I would have stayed with the program when I hit that part.



Wasn't there a covenant of some sort? Adam and Christ are both covenant heads, and Hosea 6:7 says Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant (at least the note in my margin says Adam- it can also mean "men"). But yeah, speaking of a covenant with Satan is probably reading into the text!


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2012)

> Wasn't there a covenant of some sort? Adam and Christ are both covenant heads, and Hosea 6:7 says Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant (at least the note in my margin says Adam- it can also mean "men"). But yeah, speaking of a covenant with Satan is probably reading into the text!



There was the breaking of a covenant by Adam, and by us in him.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2012)

I totally agree with the above post. There is no issue in my mind that Adam (and Eve ) broke the CoW with God. To bring things back to the original post, I still do not see hide nor hair of a covenant agreement, exchange of promises, etc. between Eve and Satan from the text cited. It bugs me, and plays into dispensational criticisms of CT when folks start manufacturing covenants right and left other than the ones in scripture. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2012)

Thread done.

I don't think the authors mean for the reader to imagine a demonic covenant that even informally approaches the outline set by the Covenant of Works (which is itself in form a kind of reconstructed covenant, since it is only an outline we're given). One may disagree with the authors' choice of expression, but all their proposal amounts to is that the true covenant between God and man is replaced by... something, rather than nothing. A kind-of counterfeit covenant. There's no reason why the reader should then seek to uncover all the "elements" of a true covenant in the lying "covenant."

What should we call this perversion? When today, certain fools enter into a contract (that is, they sign paper, shake hands, exchange some money), and then later discover that their get-rich-quick scheme was a fraud, there's no reason why we should be forbidden from calling the original agreement a "contract." Formally speaking, it fails the test of a contract, which includes legitimacy, and elements of truth that are behind the paper. What's more, the suckers may not even understand the idea of "contract" or even have words to describe the situation, besides "the papers we signed."

It's pretty clear that the authors are doing little more than setting up as strong a contrast as they can, pitting the legitimate covenant between God and man promising life for obedience, with an alternative _something_ that ultimately enslaves and kills.


----------

