Now why is that significant? It is going to be very important for you to understand that this is the point at which Karl Barth´s critique of Covenant Theology fails most dramatically. And unfortunately many evangelicals have picked up on some of Barth´s ideas at this point and have imported them unwittingly into their own Covenant Theology, so I am quite keen for you to understand how Barth errs here. Barth wants to argue that all, all of God´s dealings with man are by grace, and that all of God´s dealings with man are through Christ, and that Christ´s mediation is therefore not a post-fall office or function. It is an eternal function that occurs prior to the fall in human experience. You hear what Barth is saying there? He is saying that from the very beginning God had to relate to man by grace and through Christ. And he basically says that the reason was because of the finiteness of man. And unfortunately you see here a category confusion between finiteness and sin. Now we are going to talk about this in the next point. But I want to introduce it here.
Basically (and Professor Barth would be bouncing off the ceiling if I said this in his presence, and he would deny it up and down, but I think I could prove it to you if you gave me enough time), Barth says that man´s fundamental problem in relating to God is not sin, it is that he is man. And in my opinion, and in the historic opinion of the church for two thousand years, that is not the Bible´s view of man´s basic problem in relationship to God. Notice that God has no problem interacting and interrelating to Adam in an unmediated way in the Garden. Adam understands Him. God talks to him. They walk together in the Garden in the cool of the day. There are stipulations, obligations, relationships, blessings, and no hint of a problem of God entering into a relationship with Adam. But Barth wants to say that it is our very creatureliness that separates us from God.
Now let me say one other thing to be very careful of. Calvin dabbles with this idea. He dabbles with the idea that we always need a mediator, not just because we are sinful, but because we are so vastly inferior to God in our finiteness. And he would appeal to passages like Isaiah 6 and the angels, the beings that surround the throne are doing what? Veiling themselves as they cry, "œHoly, holy, holy." Now, were they sinful? No. But they still had to veil themselves in the presence of God. And he will sort of take that and run with that. But Calvin doesn´t use this concept like Barth will use it. Now Barth will go back and he will read all of his theology into Calvin, but he is miles away from what Calvin was trying to do with this point. But I want you to understand that this is a key part of Barth´s critique of Covenant Theology. He does not like the idea of a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Nature and a Covenant of Grace, because he wants grace to be the only way that God relates to man.
Barth´s major error with this is that it underemphasizes sin. You see, Genesis 3 is where Moses is going when he writes Genesis 1 and 2. He wants you to understand that things then were not like they are now. And things are like they are now because of what happens in Genesis 3, and therefore the very nature of the way that God relates to us has to be different. And I do not think that there is any way that you can do justice to the significance of Genesis 3 and man´s original sin if you say that there has always simply been one Covenant of Grace from the very beginning, and there is not a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace.
What we are beginning here is an argument for what is called a bicovenantal structure as opposed to a monocovenantal structure of creation and redemption. The bicovenantal structure of creation and redemption says there is a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Nature, and a Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Nature is prior to sin and therefore it does not have to be mediated and God does not have to provide a mediator or propitiation in order to enter into relationship with man. Whereas, after the fall of man, a mediator is provided out of the graciousness of God, sin is satisfied, and the covenant is fulfilled by Christ in order that we may experience the blessings of the covenant. So you have the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, but what Barth ends up with is an eternal Covenant of Grace.
And by the way, this is the same thing that Herman Hoeksema comes up with, and it is the same thing that many other types of hyper-Calvinists have come up with. So there is continuity between Barth and certain hyper-Calvinists. In fact, there is a sense in which Barth is the ultimate hyper-Calvinist. In fact, I would call Bart a hypersuperlapsarian. And if you want to get into that with me someday, I can explain what I am talking about there. But this monocovenantal view that says that there has been this eternal Covenant of Grace and that it was in place even before the fall, cannot help but downplay sin and see finiteness as our problem, not sin.
4. So, that moves us on to the fourth significance of this original relationship that we have been describing. By a close study of Genesis 1, 2 and 3, we are enabled to recognize the difference between finiteness and sin. For instance, one aspect of Adam´s finiteness was his need for human companionship expressed in Genesis 2:18, when God says it is not good for man to be alone. But notice that Adam is not held culpable for that. And God doesn´t say, it is not good for you to be alone, therefore I can have nothing to do with you without a mediator. No. That is not what happens in Genesis 2:18. Man is recognized to need rest because of his finiteness in Genesis 2:1-3 and so a Sabbath is made for him. He is not made for the Sabbath, but a Sabbath is made for him. Why? Because he is finite. But is that held against him? No. No. It is a blessing. He is divinely created, unfallen, he is sinless. But his constitution needs a Sabbath rest. And it needs a woman. And so sin and finiteness are not the same thing
, and less accessible ( 
, if that is possible) than many of my posts here. 
Sorry.
