The Covenant with Adam?
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
According to Genesis 1 Adam was created tov(good - morally sound) but not shalom (completeness - telelogically sound). Indeed, the rest of God on the seventh day after creation held out to Adam the possibility of eternal life which he had not yet obtained. This could, however, be obtained by his obedience to the command to tend and keep the garden for, as Paul says in Romans 7:10 "the commandment was to bring life".
Having now been thrust out of God's presence (and thus excluded from eternal life life itself), we can now only obtain our rest or wholeness through the perfect second Adam (Romans 5:21), by whom we receive eternal life as a gift of God (Romans 6:23).
Having now been thrust out of God's presence (and thus excluded from eternal life life itself), we can now only obtain our rest or wholeness through the perfect second Adam (Romans 5:21), by whom we receive eternal life as a gift of God (Romans 6:23).
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Hosea 6:7 - The Holman Christian Standard Bible
But they, like Adam, have violated the covenant; there they have betrayed Me.
But they, like Adam, have violated the covenant; there they have betrayed Me.
Douglas P.
Puritan Board Freshman
Rev 2:7 and Rev 22
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks for the link, I found this in the end notes: http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2006.pdf
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
It wasn't perfect but "good". Adam was not incapable of sinning and his body and world were also therefore corruptible i.e. capable of corruption.
It was not the perfect eschatalogical City of God which Adam - having fulfilled the probation - and his offspring were to build in the Creation Mandate.
The mention of gold in Genesis 2:11-12 points to the incorruptible eschatalogical City of God which unfallen Man was to draw out of the corruptible Earth and which was to receive God's blessing:
The particular weekly times of rest with and in God his Father on the Sabbath, were pointers to the time when Adam would enjoy eternal rest with and in God His Father in the eschatalogical Heavenly kingdom which he was building, and which God would render permanent and incorruptible.
What do you mean by "eternal life"? Perpetual life, at least, seems implied in the very terms of the threatening. If Adam dies the day he sins, then as long as he does not sin, he does not die. But if you mean some kind of glorified life, well, there is an area of intramural debate among the Reformed.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You are welcome.
Please note that moral perfection does not imply maturity or having reached one's full potential/goal. One can be a 'perfect' child i.e. without any flaw or defect, for example, and yet still need to attain to adulthood, thus achieving their (biological) purpose in this life.
That Adam had potential for 'more' is already indicated by the fact that (at one point): 1) Adam was created alone and only when God gave him Eve could it be said that humanity (mankind) was complete 2) Adam was told that the potential for death was very real (Genesis 2:17). It must be asked: at one point would Adam not have this threat of death hanging over him and wouldn't it be a better world if the probation was removed? Even if one cannot conceive that Adam had a conception of eternal life, surely he could imagine a world where there was no possibility of sin and corruption, even if it was only through an outside source (the serpent). Hence the command to obey: had Adam obeyed God and kept (protected) the garden, eternal life with no possibility of death would have been his and his posterity's inheritance (again see Romans 7:10).
See Genesis 1:26-28, applied in Hebrews 2:5-8. Likewise, Genesis 2:1-3, applied in Hebrews 4:3-11. Likewise, Genesis 2:7, applied in 1 Corinthians 15:44-50. Eternal life was the goal of creation.
It is not enough to say that eternal life was conditional on Adam's obedience. It is also necessary to say that Adam was predestined to enter into life by Christ, and that the heavenly and spiritual order was properly brought in by Christ as the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:14-18.
Hoeksema redefined "covenant," and his redefinition as a bond of friendship led him to deny a covenant of works. Other reformed theologians have also redefined covenant and denied the covenant of works. Their reformed orthodoxy is still established by essential elements in their teaching which virtually amount to a covenant of works, e.g., original righteousness, condition of obedience, promise of life, probation, fall, curse, and redemption by Christ. All the ingredients are there.
It is not enough to say that eternal life was conditional on Adam's obedience. It is also necessary to say that Adam was predestined to enter into life by Christ, and that the heavenly and spiritual order was properly brought in by Christ as the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:14-18.
Hoeksema redefined "covenant," and his redefinition as a bond of friendship led him to deny a covenant of works. Other reformed theologians have also redefined covenant and denied the covenant of works. Their reformed orthodoxy is still established by essential elements in their teaching which virtually amount to a covenant of works, e.g., original righteousness, condition of obedience, promise of life, probation, fall, curse, and redemption by Christ. All the ingredients are there.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, that's it. He did and I missed it. lol I'll have to go back and re-read it. Thank you Rev. Winzer.
I've read A. W. Pink's work on the covenants and he does a great job, I've also read O. Robertson's work as well...what else should I read on the covenants?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Now Christ the Last Adam has fulfilled the probation for us (circa 5 B.C. - circa A.D. 33).
The human race - including believers - have been carrying out the Creation/Cultural Mandate before then and since then.
Will the Lord allow the Creation Mandate to run until it is completed and what would that look like? Or are these wrong-headed musings?
The human race - including believers - have been carrying out the Creation/Cultural Mandate before then and since then.
Will the Lord allow the Creation Mandate to run until it is completed and what would that look like? Or are these wrong-headed musings?
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
I still do not read anywhere in Scripture that Adam was ever promised eternal life, based on the probation, or that the probation would ever be removed. Nor that Adam could ever merit anything...Adam had perpetual life to look forward to. Only the second Adam, Christ, could ever merit eternal life.
And, the Biblical evidence very strongly suggests that Hoeksema's covenant view is correct, it being unilateral and a covenant of friendship. I would even dare to say, more than friendship, and a Father-son relationship. In that I am going further than Hoeksema though...
and stating that Hoeksema denies a 'covenant of works' can lead to misconceptions.... while he (and I) deny the traditional concept of a covenant of works, there was a covenant made with Adam. But, as I stated above, nowhere does Scripture say that covenant could have led to merit or to eternal life. That is simply conjecture.
And, the Biblical evidence very strongly suggests that Hoeksema's covenant view is correct, it being unilateral and a covenant of friendship. I would even dare to say, more than friendship, and a Father-son relationship. In that I am going further than Hoeksema though...
and stating that Hoeksema denies a 'covenant of works' can lead to misconceptions.... while he (and I) deny the traditional concept of a covenant of works, there was a covenant made with Adam. But, as I stated above, nowhere does Scripture say that covenant could have led to merit or to eternal life. That is simply conjecture.
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
while the PRCA does have much material on its website, to understand Hoeksema and his covenant view I really recommend his Dogmatics, as well as his 'Believers and their seed'....
but will scrour the website....
---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------
comments by Prof. Hanko on the Westminster standards:
A Comparison of the Westminster and the Reformed Confessions
The Westminster devotes the whole of Chapter VII to a discussion of God's covenant with man. This more extensive treatment of the covenant undoubtedly reflects certain advances which had been made in the area of federal theology. At the same time, it is in this chapter that mention is made of the covenant of works. Art. 2, which deals with this subject, reads: "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 obedience and faith." The covenant of works is once again mentioned in XIX, 1: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it."
---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------
Rev. Hoeksema:
The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men
That there nevertheless was such a relation between God and man before the fall has become a very current notion in Reformed teaching. The relation is known as the "covenant of works." This covenant, according to the traditional view, consisted of a promise, a condition, and a penalty. The promise was eternal life for Adam and his posterity. The condition was perfect obedience, put to the test by the probationary command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The penalty was death. These were the elements of the agreement into which God is supposed to have entered with Adam.
---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------
Rev. Hoeksema:
The Curse-Reward of the Wicked Well-Doer
Yet, the first Man, Adam, stood in covenant relation to God, not accidentally, not by virtue of any special agreement or contract, but by virtue of his creation after the image of God. Man was created in the covenant-relation. The very fact that he was so created that in a creaturely way he resembled God, so that he knew Him, could understand His revelation, could speak with Him as a friend with his friend, could love Him, enter into His secret and most intimate fellowship, could serve Him and consecrate himself and all things to Him in the obedience of love - this very fact made him a covenant-creature, and placed him in that covenant-relation the moment he stood in paradise as a conscious creature. In this covenant-relation he was God's friend-servant; and God was his Sovereign-Friend. In that relation God would bless him with his favor and fellowship, and man was called to serve God freely. He was no slave to serve the Lord in fear; nor was he a wage-earner to serve God for the sake of a reward. But freely, in love, he was to serve the Most High with all his soul and mind and power, and with all things. He was God's officebearer, His prophet to know Him, speak for Him, and glorify His name; His priest to love Him and consecrate himself and all things to Him; His king, to represent Him in all the earthly creation and reign over all things in the name of his Lord.
---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------
Rev. Stewart:
Common Grace and Psalms; Covenant of Works
Having answered the reader concerning the place of children in the covenant, only this part of her question remains for my response: “With whom was the covenant of works made? The visible or the invisible church? How does all that work out?”
After a close scrutiny of the covenant of works, Herman Hoeksema came to the conclusion that it was an erroneous view. I here summarise Hoeksema’s carefully developed analysis and arguments (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 308-312):
---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
Rev. Lee:
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: November 2003 Brief Study
Thus, for Dutch Reformed theology, the covenant of works became a part of orthodoxy, and rejection of it would be deemed heretical. Indeed, in its being used to reject Arminian and Socinian error, the idea of Adam’s federal status had become intimately but far too narrowly10 equated to subscription to the doctrine of the covenant of works in Dutch Reformed theology — Ypeij and Dermount then, and presently also implicitly in Berkhof’s thought (as is evident in the citation above), and even in Kersten’s treatment in his Reformed Dogmatics.11 Yet, by God’s providence, the covenant of works is not mentioned in the Three Forms of Unity, neither explicitly nor implicitly.12
but will scrour the website....
---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------
comments by Prof. Hanko on the Westminster standards:
A Comparison of the Westminster and the Reformed Confessions
The Westminster devotes the whole of Chapter VII to a discussion of God's covenant with man. This more extensive treatment of the covenant undoubtedly reflects certain advances which had been made in the area of federal theology. At the same time, it is in this chapter that mention is made of the covenant of works. Art. 2, which deals with this subject, reads: "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 obedience and faith." The covenant of works is once again mentioned in XIX, 1: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it."
---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------
Rev. Hoeksema:
The Covenant: God's Tabernacle with Men
That there nevertheless was such a relation between God and man before the fall has become a very current notion in Reformed teaching. The relation is known as the "covenant of works." This covenant, according to the traditional view, consisted of a promise, a condition, and a penalty. The promise was eternal life for Adam and his posterity. The condition was perfect obedience, put to the test by the probationary command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The penalty was death. These were the elements of the agreement into which God is supposed to have entered with Adam.
---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------
Rev. Hoeksema:
The Curse-Reward of the Wicked Well-Doer
Yet, the first Man, Adam, stood in covenant relation to God, not accidentally, not by virtue of any special agreement or contract, but by virtue of his creation after the image of God. Man was created in the covenant-relation. The very fact that he was so created that in a creaturely way he resembled God, so that he knew Him, could understand His revelation, could speak with Him as a friend with his friend, could love Him, enter into His secret and most intimate fellowship, could serve Him and consecrate himself and all things to Him in the obedience of love - this very fact made him a covenant-creature, and placed him in that covenant-relation the moment he stood in paradise as a conscious creature. In this covenant-relation he was God's friend-servant; and God was his Sovereign-Friend. In that relation God would bless him with his favor and fellowship, and man was called to serve God freely. He was no slave to serve the Lord in fear; nor was he a wage-earner to serve God for the sake of a reward. But freely, in love, he was to serve the Most High with all his soul and mind and power, and with all things. He was God's officebearer, His prophet to know Him, speak for Him, and glorify His name; His priest to love Him and consecrate himself and all things to Him; His king, to represent Him in all the earthly creation and reign over all things in the name of his Lord.
---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------
Rev. Stewart:
Common Grace and Psalms; Covenant of Works
Having answered the reader concerning the place of children in the covenant, only this part of her question remains for my response: “With whom was the covenant of works made? The visible or the invisible church? How does all that work out?”
After a close scrutiny of the covenant of works, Herman Hoeksema came to the conclusion that it was an erroneous view. I here summarise Hoeksema’s carefully developed analysis and arguments (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 308-312):
---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
Rev. Lee:
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: November 2003 Brief Study
Thus, for Dutch Reformed theology, the covenant of works became a part of orthodoxy, and rejection of it would be deemed heretical. Indeed, in its being used to reject Arminian and Socinian error, the idea of Adam’s federal status had become intimately but far too narrowly10 equated to subscription to the doctrine of the covenant of works in Dutch Reformed theology — Ypeij and Dermount then, and presently also implicitly in Berkhof’s thought (as is evident in the citation above), and even in Kersten’s treatment in his Reformed Dogmatics.11 Yet, by God’s providence, the covenant of works is not mentioned in the Three Forms of Unity, neither explicitly nor implicitly.12
The traditional reformed teaching on the covenant of works also denies that Adam could have "merited" anything, hence the focus on the fact that life was promised. Further, supralapsarian teachers like Samuel Rutherford emphasised the provisional nature of the covenant and the way it looked forward to Christ.
I do not believe that there is much difference between Hoeksema and the reformed who advocate a covenant of works. The substance of the teaching is much the same. Also, having read Homer Hoeksema's "Unfolding Covenant History," it is clear that the Prot. Ref. have their own way of explaining "conditional" features which become apparent in connection with the reprobate.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I like to think that the reward of the Adamic Covenant (which is by pactum merit) was not just perpetual, but eternal life, because it would most greatly demonstrate the superiority of Satan against man. No matter how great the motivator (eternal life!), Satan's lies have the power to undermine even the greatest of motivations. Man is no match for the Devil. God, who is immutable and all-knowing, cannot be affected by the Devil. But man, who is mutable and doesn't and indeed cannot know all things, is totally defenseless and vulnerable to the Devil's lies that introduce him to a new worldview he never knew existed. Satan holds in his hands the trigger to change perfect, yet mutable, men to imperfect ones. (Of course, when the circumstances are appropriate.)
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Bert
Adam couldn't merit anything by congruent or condign merit, but since God had made Adam peccable i.e. capable of sinning, capable of withdrawing his love from God, God graciously entered a Covenant of Works with him, whereby he could secure his original righteousness on a permanent basis by pactum merit.
See this link where Rev. Lane Keister explains different kinds of merit:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/
If the probation was never removed Adam and his offspring would have been in a permanent state of the possibility of sinning.
Quote from Hoeksema
God in making Man owed it to His own righteousness to treat him in a certain way. E.g. to take an extreme example, it would be unrighteous for God to immerse the innocent Adam in Hell. So everything Hoeksema says about Adam's relationship to God by creation is correct, but the CoW was an added act of God's bountiful goodness to Adam and Eve and their posterity.
God by virtue of His own righteous nature owed Adam a certain duty of care as His creature and son. But God didn't owe Adam the CoW or its favourable terms by virtue of His own righteousness.
God didn't need, by His own righteousness, to enter into a CoW with Adam and His posterity, nor offer such favourable conditions for his keeping of it by pactum merit.
This showed God's bountiful goodness (or grace) to Adam before the Fall. I prefer to reserve the words "grace" and "gracious" for covenants made after the Fall, in order to avoid falling into the monocovenantalism which denies any merit as a factor in the CoW with Adam, and thus puts a question mark over the CoW with Christ.
See Robert L. Dabney's "Systematic Theology" on this subject.
Adam couldn't merit anything by congruent or condign merit, but since God had made Adam peccable i.e. capable of sinning, capable of withdrawing his love from God, God graciously entered a Covenant of Works with him, whereby he could secure his original righteousness on a permanent basis by pactum merit.
See this link where Rev. Lane Keister explains different kinds of merit:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/
If the probation was never removed Adam and his offspring would have been in a permanent state of the possibility of sinning.
Quote from Hoeksema
God in making Man owed it to His own righteousness to treat him in a certain way. E.g. to take an extreme example, it would be unrighteous for God to immerse the innocent Adam in Hell. So everything Hoeksema says about Adam's relationship to God by creation is correct, but the CoW was an added act of God's bountiful goodness to Adam and Eve and their posterity.
God by virtue of His own righteous nature owed Adam a certain duty of care as His creature and son. But God didn't owe Adam the CoW or its favourable terms by virtue of His own righteousness.
God didn't need, by His own righteousness, to enter into a CoW with Adam and His posterity, nor offer such favourable conditions for his keeping of it by pactum merit.
This showed God's bountiful goodness (or grace) to Adam before the Fall. I prefer to reserve the words "grace" and "gracious" for covenants made after the Fall, in order to avoid falling into the monocovenantalism which denies any merit as a factor in the CoW with Adam, and thus puts a question mark over the CoW with Christ.
See Robert L. Dabney's "Systematic Theology" on this subject.
Last edited:
Dabney does a good job with this in His Systematic Theology. Sorry but I can't find my copy to give the reference pages. It has come up missing.
Herman Witsius Addresses this subject in Chapter 4 also. I lean more toward the probationary period but points have been made on both sides.
- Status
