# Should we speak of a Covenant of Works?



## Bernard_Marx (Feb 10, 2004)

Over the past little while I have been doing some studing regarding the Covenant; especially the Covenant of Works as this is a most controversial doctrine. From this studing I have come to some interesting thoughts and I'm not sure if I'm thinking correctly. 

&quot;The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.&quot; (WCF Ch. VII s. 2)

and

&quot;Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by the way of that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace.&quot;

The Westminster Standards use Gal. 3:12 and 3:21 as proofs. However it seems to me that these verses aren't talking about the state of humanity before and after the fall, but is opposing Judaist teaching that salvation is obtained through works of the Law.

While I do believe that God made a Covenant with Adam, I'm not sure about a Covenant of Works. Could someone please provide me with some positive Biblical proofs for this?

Cheers,

Rich


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 10, 2004)

Rich,

The two things are related. The reason that Judaizers point to salvation by the law is that they are thinking that they can fulfill the covenant of works - which is, &quot;do this {obey} and live&quot; (or its opposite in Gen 2, &quot;do that {disobey} and die&quot; )

The heart of a bi-covenantal structure is that man is cursed for not &quot;doing this&quot; (per Gal. 3) and in fact he is completely [i:2c442f7c89]incapable[/i:2c442f7c89] of &quot;doing this&quot; (namely, all the works of the law) ; but that these works are done [b:2c442f7c89]for[/b:2c442f7c89] him by Christ.

Is that a start?


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Feb 10, 2004)

Fred,

Thanks for your imput. I've not thought of that interpretation.

You said that in this covenant of works Adam had to &quot;do this and live?&quot; Can you show me where this is found? 

This thinking seems similar that of Berkhof: &quot;[Adam] was temporarily put on probation, in order to determine whether or not he would willingly subject his will to the will of God&quot; (Systematic Theology, p.216). He also says, on the same page: &quot;...it is perfectly true that Scripture contains no explicit promise of eternal life to Adam.&quot;

My question is what was to be made evident in this probationary period?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 10, 2004)

Well, just keep in mind that when you do away with the covenant of works, you now have to explain what Christ actually did. Without out a covenant structure, why did Christ have to be made subject to the law? Why did he have to take upon himself the curse of the law? Where did the curse of the law come from in the first place? What righteous demands does he fulfill and for what purpose? Some considerations...


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Feb 12, 2004)

Puritan Sailor,

Why is this the case? I've never heard this before?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 12, 2004)

[quote:ca4bd348a1][i:ca4bd348a1]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:ca4bd348a1]
didn't Murry have some problems with the language: &quot;covenant of works?&quot;

-Paul [/quote:ca4bd348a1]

He wasn't crazy about the word &quot;works&quot; but he agreed with the concept and that God did make a Covenant with Adam. 

The Westminster Standards also uses Covenant of Life (WSC Q.12).

Wayne


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 12, 2004)

The term &quot;Covenant of Works&quot; has been apart of Reformed Theology for 400 years and used to define the covenant between God and Adam. The fact that some theologian has a problem with the term should not mean that it should be excluded from Reformed vocabulary. We should hold to both the language and the concept.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Feb 13, 2004)

Could someone please tell me where this concept is found in scripture? 

Puritan Sailor,

I would also like to know how it is that one can't believe those things you listed without affirming a Covenant of Works. Right now I'm working through a book that denies this doctrine and seeing as I don't know where to look I need some help.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 14, 2004)

[quote:86e0a2ef19][i:86e0a2ef19]Originally posted by Richard B. Davis[/i:86e0a2ef19]
Could someone please tell me where this concept is found in scripture? 

Puritan Sailor,

I would also like to know how it is that one can't believe those things you listed without affirming a Covenant of Works. Right now I'm working through a book that denies this doctrine and seeing as I don't know where to look I need some help. [/quote:86e0a2ef19]

Well, the first thing is that Christ was made under the law for us, and satisfied the righteous requirements of the law for us. But where are such demands required of us? In the traditional scheme, this is found in the covenant of works. Christ satisfies the demands of the law as a covenant of works for the elect that Adam failed to satify for all men. 

But in a one covenant scheme, how does that fit? I can't really think of a way. Now, there are some one covenant views out there. I know the Protestant Reformed Church has one, and the Canadian Reformed Church has one. I have only read a basic laymens book from the CanRC about their view of the covenant and they didn't address this issue in it. 

Hoeksema (in the PRC view) also denies a covenant of works, because he feels its too PlanA-PlanB sounding as if God had failed in his covenant with Adam. Now, I agree with his criticism of the covenant of works there, because often the Systematic theologies of the Hodges, Vos, and Berkof give that impression even though they would probably deny it if asked. But the substitute &quot;covenant of friendship&quot; he submits to replace the works-grace paradigm still leaves the above questions unanswered, at least for me. For, how can Christ be a second Adam in that one covenant and only save the elect? 

The CanRC calls it the covenant of love (Stam). This covenant was made with Adam and Adam broke it thereby earning the covenant curses for all. And they usually have a view of covenant keeping/breaking in which they have the demands of the law which must be met on the one hand and the fact that man can only satisfy those demands by grace. But they also would place all men under this one covenant. Yet they would readily admit that only the elect will fulfill the demands of the covenant because of the work of Christ in satisfying the demands of the law and in keeping them faithful. But then this leaves them with the same dilemma, are the elect in the same covenant as the rest of the world or in a seperate one because of their for-ordained place in Christ? It still needs to be worked out for me to swallow it. I went through a time where I didn't like the covenant of works idea. But after wrestling with it, it seems to me to be the best explaination of the principles involved. So until a better way comes around I'll stick with it. 

But I will submit, that it was never a Plan A -oops God messed up- Plan B model. God instituted the covenant of works with the express purpose that Christ should fulfill it for us. The covenant of grace was made in eternity past in Christ, and therefore the covenant of works was a tool to bring about the redemption of God's elect in Christ. So, I don't know if my rambling helped at all. But maybe it will spark some thought for your studies. If you have any observations about the one covenant view that may answer my concerns I would be happy to hear them. :wr50:

[Edited on 2-14-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 14, 2004)

Tom,

You may find the following lectures helpful on the covenant of works. They are by Ligon Duncan, who has probably done more work in covenant theology (especially in the Church Fathers) than anyone in recent times. Take a look at them and then let's &quot;talk&quot; some more.

Duncan on Covenant of Works

Duncan on Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace


----------



## blhowes (Mar 3, 2004)

I was reading [i:85273fbd72]Covenant of Works[/i:85273fbd72] by Duncan today. I don't understand something he said about the covenant with Noah. I was wondering if somebody could help me out?
[quote:85273fbd72]
Duncan wrote:
Why am I mentioning this? Because you will have noticed that nowhere in Genesis 1 and 2 is the term &quot;Covenant&quot; used. In fact, that term ?Covenant? will not occur until Genesis 6:18. But let me hint ahead and steal my thunder a little bit ahead of time, it is very interesting that there are two ways of speaking about the making of a Covenant in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament. One can speak of making a Covenant firm. Sometimes your translations translate that as &quot;establishing a Covenant&quot; and one way is to speak of &quot;cutting a Covenant.&quot; The one, the latter, the cutting of the Covenant, often refers to the inauguration of the Covenant. The other phrase often refers to the confirming of an already established Covenant relationship, to make that Covenant firm. Is it not interesting to you that in Genesis 6:18, the passage says that the Covenant was &quot;made firm&quot;. Now that is the first usage of &quot;Covenant&quot; in the Bible. But the very language forces you to understand that there was a Covenant before it was mentioned. And the only question is, how far back did it go? Now we will look at that passage in detail because that is important. But it is very important for us to understand that the whole structure of the Covenant of God with Noah implies with massive force that it is a continuation of a previously established relationship.
[/quote:85273fbd72]

Genesis 6:18
But I will establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons wives with thee.

Why does he say that the very language forces you to understand that there was a covenant before it was mentioned? Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Bob

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 3, 2004)

[quote:40a82d2bc1][i:40a82d2bc1]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:40a82d2bc1]
I was reading [i:40a82d2bc1]Covenant of Works[/i:40a82d2bc1] by Duncan today. I don't understand something he said about the covenant with Noah. I was wondering if somebody could help me out?
[quote:40a82d2bc1]
Duncan wrote:
Why am I mentioning this? Because you will have noticed that nowhere in Genesis 1 and 2 is the term &quot;Covenant&quot; used. In fact, that term ?Covenant? will not occur until Genesis 6:18. But let me hint ahead and steal my thunder a little bit ahead of time, it is very interesting that there are two ways of speaking about the making of a Covenant in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament. One can speak of making a Covenant firm. Sometimes your translations translate that as &quot;establishing a Covenant&quot; and one way is to speak of &quot;cutting a Covenant.&quot; The one, the latter, the cutting of the Covenant, often refers to the inauguration of the Covenant. The other phrase often refers to the confirming of an already established Covenant relationship, to make that Covenant firm. Is it not interesting to you that in Genesis 6:18, the passage says that the Covenant was &quot;made firm&quot;. Now that is the first usage of &quot;Covenant&quot; in the Bible. But the very language forces you to understand that there was a Covenant before it was mentioned. And the only question is, how far back did it go? Now we will look at that passage in detail because that is important. But it is very important for us to understand that the whole structure of the Covenant of God with Noah implies with massive force that it is a continuation of a previously established relationship.
[/quote:40a82d2bc1]

Genesis 6:18
But I will establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons wives with thee.

Why does he say that the very language forces you to understand that there was a covenant before it was mentioned? Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Bob
[/quote:40a82d2bc1]

Bob,

The primary way to say in Hebrew &quot;to make a covenant&quot; is to say literally &quot;to cut a covenant&quot; or [i:40a82d2bc1]carath berith[/i:40a82d2bc1]. That is not what God says to Noah. He uses a different phrase &quot;to establish&quot; or better yet &quot;to make firm&quot; a covenant [i:40a82d2bc1]qum berith[/i:40a82d2bc1].

It does indeed imply making firm, or making to stand, or causing to be established a covenant in existence. It is further in the Hiphil stem, which (briefly) is a causative sense of the verb. Therefore Brown Driver Briggs gives [color=blue:40a82d2bc1]&quot;establish (make, ratify) covenant, Gn 6:18; 9:9, 11; 17:19, 21 Ex 6:4 (all P), Ez 16:62&quot; as its meaning.[/color:40a82d2bc1]

There is a pretty clear implication in the Hebrew. Duncan fleshes this out a bit later in the article:

[quote:40a82d2bc1]And let me quote to you another passage from Dumbrell's book, where he addresses this. The heading of this section, by the way, is called, Is the Covenant with Noah established or Confirmed? "Outside the book of Genesis, the terminology of covenant entry appears to be consistently maintained. Such a consistency may cause us to reflect whether by the use of heckeem, with birith, and you will want to look at your Hebrew text at this moment, in Genesis 6:18, the use of heckeem with birith in the context of Genesis 6:18 and then if you want to flip over to Genesis 9:18, you will see heckeem used again with birith, all of which refer to covenants as established or given. The beginning of a new covenant relationship is being referred to, whether in each case the continuation of some prior understanding is in mind. A decision here is bound up with the way in which the Hebrew word, heckeem is to be taken in these references." The evidence of this character makes it more than likely that in the context where heckeem birith stand, and that is Genesis 6:18, Genesis 9:9, Genesis 9:11, 9:17, Genesis 17:7 and the Covenant of Circumcision there, Genesis 17:9 and 21 also Exodus 6:4 and I could give you other references as well. But the evidence of this character makes it more than likely that in context where heckeem birith as opposed, you remember we said the other language was karat birith, to cut a covenant. This is to establish or to make firm or to confirm a covenant depending upon your Bible translation at that point. 

What is the difference now? All we are talking about is what is the difference between heckeem birith and karat birith. Here is what he says. Evidence of this character makes it more than likely that in contexts where heckeem birith stands, the institute of a covenant is not being referred to, the institution of a covenant is not being referred to but rather, its perpetuation. So what he is saying, when you see heckeem birith, it is not saying that for the first time, a covenant relationship is being established. It is saying that it is being preserved. It is being confirmed.
[/quote:40a82d2bc1]

Does that help any?


----------



## blhowes (Mar 4, 2004)

[b:fa08b98c6a]Fred wrote:[/b:fa08b98c6a]
Does that help any?

Yes, that was very helpful. Thanks. 

(and thanks also for the links to those two articles - the first was very interesting reading and the 2nd looks like it will be as well).

I understand now the distinction that is being made, but I guess it loses something in the translation - either from Hebrew to English or from English to my brain...not sure which.

In English, when I first think of the word establish, I think of it as being something new, although I can see how you can make a covenant and then establish it later (make it more firm). When I first think of the word, I think of as its used in the following paragraph about a WWII battle:

Meanwhile, north of the Hulloch-Vermelles road, which ran across the battlefield, I Corps made less progress, with the British gas attack far less effective than in the Loos Valley. Even so, 7th and 9th Divisions managed to [b:fa08b98c6a]establish a foothold[/b:fa08b98c6a] on the Hohenzollern Redoubt.

In this case, they established something that they didn't have before - control of a certain piece of the enemy's territory. 

Does the use of the Hebrew text rule out this kind of interpretation of the English word &quot;establish&quot;?

Must be nice to know Hebrew, etc.

Bob

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Mar 5, 2004)

Fred,

Thanks for the links. I've read through them once. I'm going to look at them in more detail perhaps this weekend and then I'll contact you so that we can talk, as you suggested.

Tom


----------

