Covenant Theology Made Simple

[Andres]

The best and most succinct explanation of covenant theology is Chapter 7 of the WCF. If you understand this, you will have a solid, reformed view of the covenants.

 

[Ethan]

I've never heard of the positive command related to the cultural mandate as being part of the covenant of works. Is this historically the position of Reformed and Puritan teaching?

I’ve always heard the conditions of the CoW described as moral law and positive law, moral being the law written on Adam’s heart and positive being the command not to eat the fruit of the tree.
On page 26 he elaborates, “This means Adam could break the covenant either by pinching the fruit or by sitting on his backside and doing nothing to obey God.” To me this sounds like the same concept, just worded differently.
I agree with you that his quote on page 21 regarding family, marriage, art, and science is an interesting way to put it but I think his point is that complete submission to God through his moral law necessarily entails the fulfillment of the cultural mandate.
As for the historical aspect of your question, I’m not qualified to answer. I’m sure someone here can chime in.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I’ve always heard the conditions of the CoW described as moral law and positive law, moral being the law written on Adam’s heart and positive being the command not to eat the fruit of the tree.
On page 26 he elaborates, “This means Adam could break the covenant either by pinching the fruit or by sitting on his backside and doing nothing to obey God.” To me this sounds like the same concept, just worded differently.
I agree with you that his quote on page 21 regarding family, marriage, art, and science is an interesting way to put it but I think his point is that complete submission to God through his moral law necessarily entails the fulfillment of the cultural mandate.
As for the historical aspect of your question, I’m not qualified to answer. I’m sure someone here can chime in.

I am definitely not qualified to delve too deeply into this! But just wanted to offer one more thought of it. Taking Andres’ advice I’m studying Chapter 7 of the WCF, using Robert Shaw’s Exposition. Shaw: “That God entered into a covenant with Adam in his state of innocence appears from Genesis 2:16-17: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ Here, indeed, there is no express mention of a covenant; but we find all the essential requisites of a proper covenant... There is a condition expressly stated, in the positive precept respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man’s obedience.”

So for Shaw, the entering into the covenant happens explicitly in Genesis 2:16 and 17; the conditions are tied specifically to the eating of the fruit of the tree, and apparently this was the view of the Westminster divines. Reading through some past, pertinent discussion on this on the PB, I came across some hopefully helpful conversation.

Comment:
“While the specific Tree probationary stipulation carried a unique application to Adam as our federal head, it did not exhaust the covenant stipulations, did it? Didn't God command mankind through Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it for the glory of God? If so, isn't that covenant sanction still in effect?”

Reply:
“... (There) was a creation mandate in the covenant of works, but this creation mandate is founded in the moral order governing creation as a whole; it was not a positive commandment which could serve as a test for man to be confirmed in life. The old divines were surely correct to point out that the prohibition to eat from the tree served as an ideal means for man's probation, seeing as it was well suited to his earthly appetites while abstinence would prove his spiritual and heavenly nearness to God.”

Discussing O. Palmer Robertson’s “Christ of the Covenants” in regard to his view of the CoW:
“...(Robertson) refers to it as the Covenant of Creation and discusses its general aspects and focal aspect. Under the general aspects he demonstrates that the Sabbath, Marriage, and Labor are established in this Covenant. He then goes on to discuss its focal aspect on pages 81-87. Some excerpts:

“In considering the prohibition of Genesis 2:17, it is essential to appreciate the organic unity between this commandment and the total responsibility of man as created. The requirement concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must not be conceived of as a somewhat arbitrary stipulation without integral relation to the total life of man. Instead, this particular prohibition must be seen as the focal point of man's testing.”

“Adam under the covenant of creation did not have one set of duties relating to the created world, and another more specific duty of an entirely different nature which could be designated as "spirituaL" All that Adam did had direct bearing on his relation to the covenant God of creation. The creational ordinances of marriage, labor, and Sabbath did not have a distinctive existence separated from Adam's responsibility to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His life as a covenant creature must be viewed as a unified whole.”

“When this focal character of the probationary test is appreciated, something of the reality of the entire scene becomes apparent. The narrative does not recount a silly story about a stolen apple. Instead, a most radical test of the original man's willingness to submit to the specific word of the Creator is involved.”


In response to comments re: Mr. Robertson’s views, the statement was made, “The ‘mutual’ aspect of covenant, as seen in the excerpt from a Brakel, has been removed. The older divines only perceived a covenant in the Adamic administration because of the two elements of promise and condition tied up with the probation. Remove the mutuality of covenant, as they conceived it, and there is really no basis for saying that the Adamic administration is a covenant. One is forced, then, to posit a broader covenant of creation which incorporates more than the probation.”

So it seems to me that as Mr. Robertson’s view represents a departure from earlier Puritan and Reformed thought; and made a conflation, if that’s the right word, of the creation mandate with the actual explicit terms of the covenant as presented in Genesis; that the same view seems to be represented in Mr. Rhode’s book.
I don’t know how this would impact the rest of his teaching, but that it would do so seems unavoidable.