Genesis chapter 2. Last week we saw the man placed in the Garden of Eden, and this evening we're going to look at the man placed in the Covenant of Works. But I want to read beginning in verse 1 of chapter 2. We'll read to the end of the chapter, then our focus will be on verses 15 to 17.
So Genesis 2.1, Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown.
For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four river heads. The name of the first is Pishon.
It is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. The delium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon.
It is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hittikal. It is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him.
Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air and to every beast of the field. But for Adam, there was not found a helper comparable to him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept, and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Amen. Well, as I said,
Introduction and Review
last week we saw the preparation of the garden in verses 8 to 14 after The creation account, we see that God made all things out of nothing by the word of His power in the space of six days and all very good. The seventh day, according to chapter 2, verses 1 to 3, the Lord God sabbathed. It says, then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. So God sets forth a pattern or an example there for the creature to follow.
Now, as we move to the garden, we saw last week that the garden is in fact a temple. We're going to consider that just briefly by way of review as we proceed through our text tonight.
Probation of the First Man
I want to look first at the probation of the first man in verses 15 to 17, and then secondly, what is called the covenant of works. If you have never heard of the Covenant of Works, I hope that tonight you will learn at least a little bit about it. I'll try and explain it to make sure that none of us are left behind in terms of the Genesis account. It's important that we not only survey the biblical text, but we also do theology.
The Bible expects us to theologize with reference to the Bible. As I said when we were going through the six days of creation, my forte is not science. I'm not certain it's theology either. but I think I'm a little bit more competent at theology than science. So we didn't do a lot of in-depth study in terms of days and the various aspects of creation.
We sought to give an overview of the six days and provide a theology of creation and what God is doing there. And the same thing is true here. We'll do a little theology in terms of what's called the covenant of works. But let's look first at the probation of the first man in verses 15 to 17.
We want to notice, first of all, the man's vocation, and then secondly, the Lord's command.
The Man's Vocation as Priest
Notice the man's vocation in verse 15. Vocation simply means his calling, what God gave him to do. And verse 15 essentially repeats verse 8, however, it adds man's commission. Notice in verse 8, the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Then in verse 15, then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden. Again, that's recapitulated or repeated from verse 8. Now we are told specifically what His calling was, to tend and keep it. Now, last week I argued that the garden was a temple.
It was the first temple, and I offered up several lines of evidence to prove that. First, a temple is a place where God's unique presence is, and that is precisely what we find in Eden. God came to dwell with Adam and Eve in the garden. Notice in Genesis 3, verse 8, it says, They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
So, if the idea of temple or tabernacle is God's presence or God's dwelling among His people, well then certainly the garden serves or functioned as a temple. Secondly, we noted that the entrance to Eden and then later sanctuaries would be from the East. Notice in verse 8, the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, but then in chapter 3 at verse 24, he drove out the man and he placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden. And the cherubim there guarded the entrance so that no one could go to the tree of life.
And so we see there's this eastward access, and that's precisely how you entered into the tabernacle and the temple later in Israel's history. And then thirdly, we notice that the identification of Adam's vocation as a priest, and we're going to explore that in more detail in just a moment, but he wasn't in the first place a farmer, he was in the first place a priest. Fourthly, we see the presence of gold and onyx here in Eden. It's very conspicuous, very specific in verse 12.
Those same things also decorated the tabernacle and the temple and the garments that the high priest wore. And then we saw the divine commentary in Ezekiel 28, 11-19. The author, the prophet there, comments or likens the king of Tyre to this Edenic figure, even Adda. And he calls this the Garden of Eden, or rather the Garden of God, and then he calls it the Mountain of God.
And so Ezekiel comments on what's happening here in Genesis chapter 2, and he uses the language of temple or sanctuary to highlight what was indeed the case in this garden temple. And then, of course, the description of Eden as the mountain of God in Ezekiel 28. And that links us together with a whole stream of biblical testimony concerning the mountain of God. Remember Mount Zion.
It's that location of the temple in Jerusalem. Well, Mount Zion is New Covenant shorthand, a theological language that speaks to the church. And so we see this constant theme of temple running from Genesis to Revelation. And Genesis chapter 2, the garden, is the first instance of temple that we see.
And then last week as well, we looked at all of the parallels between Genesis chapters 2 and 3 and Revelation chapters 21 and 22. The Bible is a consistent whole. It is not a random collection of thoughts. put together by some later editor. Rather, it is consistent from the beginning to the end.
The promised redemption of Genesis 3.15 comes to pass in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the paradise that was lost in Genesis 2 and 3 is the paradise that's restored in Revelation 21 and 22. Again, I think that if you get these concepts, it helps you to approach the Bible not only in terms of texts and principles and ideas, but to see how the whole functions together. God is infinite, God is glorious, God is wondrous, and God's Spirit moved the biblical authors to write His story in a glorious way.
It all holds together, and we really need to know the beginning, so that we can know the end. In fact, there is much of the end in Genesis 2 and 3. In other words, eschatology, the doctrine of last things, finds its tap roots here in Genesis 2 and 3. So it's most important from a theological point of view.
But notice, man as priest. We see here in verse 15, the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. Before we look at that vocation, we ought to observe that he has a vocation. Paradise was not marked by leisure.
Paradise was not marked by Adam getting a lawn chair and a glass of iced tea and fanning himself in the heat of the day. Paradise was marked by labor. Labor is not a bad thing. Labor is a good thing.
Labor was made by God for the good of His creature. Now this before the curse. Adam is supposed to do his job unto the glory of God and for the good of his environment, for the good of his family. Work, labor, is good.
We ought never to think that it's a result of the fall, that it's a consequence of the curse, or that it's some sort of a necessary evil with reference to life in this world. No, work's a blessing. It's a good thing, and all of us, I think, would agree with that. Later on, when the fourth commandment is given, the argument from or at Sinai is that we are to cease from our labors, but we're also supposed to work six days.
Six days you shall do all your work. So the idea is, is not that we sit around, it's not that we just fan ourselves, but it rather is that we engage in the task that God has given us. Now specifically, the man is commanded to labor as a priest. Notice the two words used.
He is to tend and keep the garden sanctuary. G.K. Beal says, it is true that the Hebrew word usually translated cultivate or tend can refer to an agricultural task when used by itself. When, however, these two words occur together in the Old Testament, they refer either to Israelites serving God and guarding or keeping God's Word, or to priests who keep the service or charge of the tabernacle." In other words, these are priestly terms applied later in the tabernacle and the temple with reference to the Levites.
And so Moses, writing at that time, uses these two particular words to describe the vocation of Adam. Remember that Moses is not writing to Adam. Moses is writing for his contemporaries, and Moses is writing for us. Moses is describing what God called Adam to do, and he uses this terminology that would have been known by the Israelites, that had particular application to the Levitical priests, and he utilizes that with reference to Adam, to indicate, in the language of Alexander, that Adam's role in the garden had Levitical connotations.
He is to be a guardian of sacred space and not merely a gardener. Certainly his task would have involved gardening. Certainly we see sort of an agrarian bent and we see farming to be sure, but that was in the service of his greater calling, which was to function as a priest unto God in this temple, this garden temple wherein God and man communed together. And he was to guard it.
That's the second term that's used there. It's also used in chapter 3, verse 24, with reference to the cherubim. He is to guard the way to the tree of life. Well, Adam was to guard the garden, and he doesn't do that.
The serpent, who is cunning, the serpent, who is wily, gets past the guard, which was Adam. He enters into sacred space, and it's from that vantage point that he then entices and tempts Eve. She takes the fruit and then hands it over to Adam. So he fails to do what he's called to do.
And again, this particular verb is used particularly of the Levitical priests for guarding the tabernacle from intruders. So the garden is a temple. Adam is a priest. Now
The Lord's Command and Positive Law
notice God's command to Adam in verses 16 and 17. First, note the abundant provision that God has given to him. I'm going to argue when we finish tonight, I'm going to give you a bit of a foretaste of that, just how powerful sin is. Sin is a very powerful thing.
If you ever underestimate sin, consider this threefold reality. Adam was in a place where there was abundance. Adam had heard the very threatened judgment of God Almighty, and Adam is in paradise, and he nevertheless sins. If you think that you are immune to sin or you have the ability to resist sin like it's nobody's business, you want to probably reflect more on the power of sin.
This is something that man is unable to resist consistently, and Adam had the optimal conditions for resisting sin, and yet he succumbs. He resists God, rebels against God, rejects God, and wants to think apart from God, and thus plunges not only himself, but his posterity, including us, into sin and depravity. So paradise, the abundance, and the very threatening of God was not enough to dissuade Adam from sinning against his God. It's a very powerful thing.
But with reference to the abundance of provision, notice in verse 16, the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. That repeats verse 9, and out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. John Calvin said, with reference to this provision, to the end that Adam might the more willingly comply, God commends his own liberality. You see, God had given him all things And yet Adam was not content with that.
He wants to take from the one tree that God prohibits. Now when we consider this prohibition, it is a testing. It is a probation for Adam. God purposed to deal with man through two men.
Adam the first and Adam the last. Namely Adam, the garden of Eden, Adam, and then Jesus Christ. And so this probation or this testing was needful with reference to Adam's movement forward. It's unfortunately a movement downward as well.
Gerhardus Vos says the tree is called the knowledge of good and evil because it is the God-appointed instrument to lead man through probation to that state of religious and moral maturity wherewith his highest blessedness is connected. Notice in verse 17, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not die, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Literally, dying you shall die. It is a strict condemnation upon the man should he breach this prohibition and should he take that fruit and eat it as God had forbidden him. Now this is an example of something that's called positive law.
You've all heard of moral law, you've heard of the moral law of God, that's the Ten Commandments. When we look at, you shall have no other gods before me, you shall not make an idol, you shall not blaspheme, or take the name of the Lord your God in vain, remember the Sabbath day, be subordinate to governing authorities, be subordinate to parents, Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet. That's the moral law of God. That reflects who God is.
That's God. That's His will. That's what He's about. And so moral law is always binding on the people of God.
Positive law is something that God enacts for a time. Positive law is seen, for instance, in the Saturday Sabbath versus the Sunday Sabbath. The moral law is Sabbath. There is to be one day set apart, holy unto the Lord.
Positive law stipulated that in the old covenant it was on Saturday. Positive law stipulates in the new covenant that it's on Sunday. Positive law is this prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It wasn't intrinsically evil to take this fruit.
It wasn't poison fruit. It wasn't full of worms or botulism or anything like that. It was a positive law that God enacted for a temporary time in order to test Adam in terms of his obedience to his Creator. Would he listen to the word of God?
Would he be governed by the law of the Lord? Would he submit, would he be subordinate to that governing authority which was Yahweh of Israel? So that's a positive law. Now, notice what we find with reference to the judgment threatened.
He says, the day, or rather in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. Now, in chapter 3, we'll know, or we do know, that Adam eats. But he doesn't die. Physically, he doesn't die.
And some will say, well, doesn't it say in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die? He did die. His communion with God was breached. It was damaged.
It was disrupted and distorted.
The Threefold Death Threatened
He died spiritually. He would be prone to die physically, and he would die eternally unless the Lord God redeems him. That's the death that's in view in this particular section. It is spiritual, it is temporal, and it's certainly eternal as well for all those who die apart from the mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
To see the commentary in terms of the temporal or the physical ramifications, just turn to Genesis chapter 5. It's a genealogy punctuated by the phrase, and he died, and he died, and he died. That's the commentary that what God had promised does in fact come to pass. So Adam takes the fruit, he plunges not only himself but his posterity into sin, and as a result we're all subject to this spiritual death, to temporal death, and to eternal death, unless by the grace of God we look unto the Lord Jesus Christ.
Every man everywhere has sinned against God. The Bible teaches that in Adam all die.
The Covenant of Works Defined
This is what we'll call in a moment Covenant theology, the covenant of works, in Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive. So man apart from Jesus Christ is a rebel sinner against a holy God. Because of Adam's sin, we're all born with what's called original sin, and unless by the grace of God we believe the gospel, we will die in that sinful condition and we will suffer eternal death. Separation from God.
Distance from our Creator. No smile, no presence, no goodness from our God. That will be the lot of every son of Adam that doesn't believe the gospel and that doesn't repent. There is that spiritual death.
Until one is born again, they are spiritually dead. This is Paul's point in Ephesians 2.1. He made you alive who are you being dead in your trespasses and sins. He made you alive.
The situation that man faces isn't that he's a little crippled, that he's a little lame, or that he's a little maimed. He is dead in his trespasses and sins. We die temporally. The wages of sin is death.
Romans 6. If we didn't sin, we wouldn't die. And then, as I said, if we don't repent and believe the gospel, We die eternally away from the presence of God, and this is why it's important for us to understand what's happening here in Genesis chapter 2 is what has been historically called in theology the covenant of works. Now, a covenant, by the most basic definition, means an agreement between two or more persons.
A children's version of the shorter catechism asks, what is a covenant? A covenant is an agreement between two or more persons. That's great. Keep that in mind.
But when we get to biblical covenants in terms of God making covenants with men, it's a little bit more than just an agreement. It's a commitment on the part of God to better His people by virtue of this particular arrangement. And within that particular arrangement, there is typically a condition, as we'll see here with reference to Adam in this covenant of works. There are threats of judgment or punishment should the persons or parties in the covenant not fulfill their obligations, and there's promises of benefit and blessing.
So a covenant is an agreement between two or more persons, but when we talk about covenant with reference to the Bible, and there are several, we think of or we speak of this sort of framework of covenant theology, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. But then there are these historical covenants that you find in the Bible. God makes a covenant with Adam, God makes a covenant with Abraham, or with Noah, and then Abraham. He makes a covenant with Israel, and he makes a covenant with David.
And each of those are what our confession calls farther steps that advance the promise that God gave in Genesis 3.15 to crush the seed of the serpent by the seed of the woman, or rather to crush the serpent by the seed of the woman. That's the first promise of the gospel concerning our Lord Jesus and those farther steps advance that promise until the full discovery is made in what's called the New Covenant. You've all heard that language, the New Covenant. Our Lord Jesus inaugurates or initiates this New Covenant on the night that He was betrayed.
That's the fulfillment of God's covenant of grace wherein He blesses His people with abundance in terms of salvation. So the basic framework, covenant of redemption, covenant of works, covenant of grace. Now, some people will say, why is this important? Because it's kind of like the bones that you hang the flesh and blood on in a body.
It's kind of like the girders and all the unseen things that keep a building intact. It's the central architecture of the Bible. And I would submit that if you understand at least the covenant of works and what later comes in the covenant of grace, you will be a happy camper, especially when you understand the implications involved in the covenant of works and in the covenant of grace. So I want to make sure everybody's with me.
If you're with me, give us a quick nod. Everybody's awake, and they're alert, and they're alive. That's good. Now, covenant agreement between two or more persons, but with reference to biblical covenants, God's commitment to better His people through a particular means, and it's oftentimes accompanied by sanctions or threat sanctions, and then promises of blessing upon those, and then as well conditions involved in terms of the parties to the covenant.
So, let's look at this arrangement and see if, in fact, it is the covenant of works. Now, I should tell you, a lot of people don't believe this. A lot of people do not think that there is a covenant of works in Genesis chapter 2. Those people would be called dispensationalists, and those people would be called New Covenant theology adherents.
So, those two groups reject the idea of a covenant of works. So, with that in mind, let's ask the question,
Defending the Covenant of Works
does Genesis 2, 15 to 17, teach the covenant of works? Now, I'm going to ask that we indulge and look at other portions of Scripture to help us understand Genesis 2, 15 to 17. Now, the first observation that persons generally make is that the word covenant isn't found in verses 15 to 17. unless you have a different translation of the Bible, covenant is not there in 2.15-17. And so that's one of the most basic arguments against this idea of a covenant of words.
Well, covenant is absent from Genesis chapter 2, so therefore there can't be a covenant in Genesis chapter 2. That's called the word-concept fallacy. And essentially what it means is if the word is absent, then the concept must be absent. But several examples in the scripture ought to show you how foolish this word-concept fallacy really is, and how it really ought not to be upheld when it comes to Genesis chapter 2.
The Word-Concept Fallacy Answered
The first is the doctrine of the Trinity. That's a word that is not found in Genesis to Revelation. That is a word that is absent when you take out your concordance. Well, I guess we don't take out concordances anymore.
I have concordances on my top shelf, but I find it's easier to just look at my phone or to look at my computer, because, I mean, who wants to walk three or four steps to go get a heavy book? We're becoming soft. At least I have. The phone and the computer, why move to go get the book?
But there was a day when many people used to pull these big books off their shelves, and they were called the concordance. And they would look for that word. It was alphabetized, and they would look for the word, and then it would show all the verses where that word was used. Well, if you do that with Trinity, you're going to come up short.
But is the concept present in Scripture? Absolutely, from Genesis to Revelation. Secondly, we're going to notice this Sunday, most likely in the morning, in Acts chapter 2, the Apostle Peter cites Psalm 16 as a proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But when you read Psalm 16, neither the words Christ or resurrection are found in Psalm 16.
And yet Peter, commenting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us that the psalm is precisely about the resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord. As well, Luke 3, verse 38, the genealogy there traces Jesus back to Adam and refers to Adam as a son of God. Now, Adam's not called son of God in Genesis 1-3, not anywhere that I have seen. But he was, in fact, a son of God all that time, even up until Luke tells us.
So the absence of the word son of God from Genesis 2 and 3 doesn't mean the absence of the concept of Adam as a son of God. I've used the illustration of Romans 5.14, where the apostle Paul tells us that Adam was a type of Him who was to come. Now, Genesis 1-3 doesn't tell us anything about Adam being a type of Jesus Christ who was to come. But he was, even though the word is absent.
Moses doesn't tell us in Genesis 2 or 3. Adam, by the way, is a type of him who is to come. Though that word is absent, the concept is present. You see, later writers in Revelation, I don't mean the book of, I mean later redemptive history, theologize.
They tell us what's happening in Genesis 1 to 3, and we need to pay attention to that and take note of that. And probably the most powerful argument, with reference to covenant especially, is the argument from the Davidic covenant. Now, those of you who have been with us for any amount of time on Wednesday night will remember 2 Samuel chapter 7. We call that the Davidic Covenant.
That's where God makes a promise to David that one of his sons will sit on his throne and will reign over the house of God. It's interesting because the word covenant is not utilized in 2 Samuel 7. But later authors tell us, and they use the word covenant, that applies to that particular arrangement, specifically in Psalm 89, verses 3 and 4, and then again in Psalm 132, I think, verses 11 and 12. The psalmist tells us specifically that what happens in 2 Samuel 7 is a covenant.
Even though the word covenant is absent from the text in 2 Samuel 7, the concept is present. Just because the word trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is present. Just because the word covenant is not found in Genesis 2, the concept is present. Secondly, that concept is seen by the fact that
Covenant Elements Present in Genesis 2
all of the elements of a covenant are present. All of the elements of a covenant are present. You've heard the old adage, if it walks like a duck or it quacks like a duck, we would call it a duck. Well, if it walks like a covenant or it quacks like a covenant, then we call it a covenant.
And that's what we need to appreciate is going on here in Genesis 2, 15 to 17. Covenant demands parties. Well, there are two. In this instance, God and Adam.
Those are the parties to the covenant. Covenants include conditions, and the condition in this particular covenant is that Adam obeys the prohibition of God. God forbids him from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That's the condition.
Adam, you're supposed to fulfill this condition. Thirdly, there are promises involved with reference to the obedience of a covenant. Now, the promise is not spelled out here, but it is by inference. If the threatened judgment is on the day that you eat, dying you shall die, then by inference or implication we could say that on the day that you don't eat, living you shall live.
So there's not only the threatened judgment of death, should Adam break this covenant, but there is the promise of reward. Should Adam not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will be bettered. And now, many have asked the question, does this simply mean he would be confirmed in this temporal existence, or is there a betterment? Is there an eternal existence that Adam would win for him and his posterity?
I'll argue, not here, but for the latter. It's not simply confirmation in this temporal state, but it rather is betterment. There is eternal blessedness for Adam should he in fact obey God with reference to this particular condition. But there is this promise of reward.
Everybody get that? He says, the day that you eat, dying you shall die. Implication, if you don't eat, Living you shall live. That's the kind of theology called good and necessary consequences, and we need to engage in that.
And so there's a promise of reward for obedience, and then of course there is the penalty involved in the breach of the covenant. So all elements involved in covenant are present in Genesis 2, 15 to 17. So though the absence of the word, concept is present. We see the presence of the elements of a covenant, and then
The Covenantal Name Yahweh Elohim
notice the use of the covenant name of God. Remember last time, I think it was last time or probably, no, it was last week, Genesis 2.4. The author moves from a strict use of Elohim, which is God, Creator, in Genesis 1, to Yahweh, Elohim, in Genesis 2. Now, Yahweh Elohim dominates the narrative in Genesis 2 and 3.
Again, Moses writing later. Adam knows what's happening because he's having direct dealings with God. When Moses uses the covenant name of Yahweh in Genesis 2-4, no doubt the mindful Israelite would have thought covenant Lord. And the fact that he employs this and the fact that it's conspicuous, the fact that every movement we're dealing with Yahweh Elohim indicates that there are covenantal overtones with reference to this particular arrangement.
And then notice as well, with reference to later redemption,
Isaiah 24 and the Everlasting Covenant
you can turn to Isaiah 24. Isaiah 24. We're just building the case, trying to show or demonstrate that there is, in fact, a covenant of works in Genesis 2, 15 to 17. We're going to see the importance of this as a theological concept in a few moments, but it's important that we see that, in fact, it is a covenant of works.
So, we have divine commentary in Isaiah 24. Remember, we saw that with Ezekiel 28. We have a later prophet writing on an earlier situation, doing theology, and filling in for us the blanks. In other words, the first sort of go-around when you read Genesis 1, 2, and 3, you probably don't think this is a temple.
You probably don't think this is typical. You probably don't think there's a lot of connection between the garden, the later tabernacle, the later temple, Mount Zion, the church, Jesus Christ, New Jerusalem. You probably don't make that connection, and that's okay. But when you go to the prophets, who are theologians, they're not simply scribes penning the Word of God, they're also doing theology.
And there's a great sort of move in biblical studies today on using the New Testament or looking at the New Testament and how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. And that's a good field of study. We ought to go to the New Testament and see how, for instance, we did on Sunday morning, how Peter interprets Joel 2 in the context of the Day of Pentecost. But it's a good study to see how the Old Testament does the Old Testament.
In other words, there is connection between the biblical authors in the Old Testament. Later authors are doing theology with earlier revelation, and we should appreciate that. Again, it shows us something concerning the mind and the wisdom of God in how He moved these men and used these men to not only pen Scripture, but to show them theological connections and concepts, and to show what was going on at sort of earlier stages in redemptive history. And you have that here in Isaiah 24.
He speaks of an everlasting covenant. Notice in verse 4, the earth mourns and fades away, the world languishes and fades away, the haughty people of the earth languish. The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, the curse has devoured the earth and those who dwell in it are desolate.
Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned and few men are left." This is more comprehensive than just Israel. This is more comprehensive than just Jew. This deals with the earth. This everlasting covenant is more comprehensive than the local specific situation facing Isaiah in terms of a godless nation of Judah.
And this idea is the covenant of works, this arrangement God made with Adam in the garden that Adam broke, Adam transgressed, and as a result, all men everywhere are guilty of breaking this everlasting covenant. This is the way E.J. Young, in his famous, most excellent commentary on Isaiah, took it. He says, "...it must be noticed, however, that those who have frustrated the eternal covenant are not merely the Jews, but the world generally.
The frustrating of the covenant is something universal. For this reason, we may adopt the position that the eternal covenant here spoken of designates the fact that God has given His law and ordinances to Adam, and in Adam to all mankind." One other book, a book authored by two men, Brown and Kiel, they say, for all mankind to be under such a covenant, it must be the same covenant God made with Adam as the father of all humanity. Isaiah then assumes the covenant of works in order to apply it to all fallen humanity. So you see what's going on, Genesis 2, 15 to 17.
God gives this command, though the word is absent, the concept is present, the parties, the elements, the stipulations, the promises, the threats. We see the use of the covenantal name Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim, with reference to His creature Adam. And then we have later redemptive history telling us, commenting to us, that this was in fact a covenantal arrangement.
Hosea 6:7 and Adam's Transgression
Notice the prophet Hosea in Hosea chapter 6. Hosea chapter 6. The New King James is not preferable in terms of the translation here. Preferable is the ESV and the NASB.
The ESV and the New American Standard. Notice Hosea 6, 7. The New King James reads, but like men, they transgressed the covenant. There they dealt treacherously with me.
The ESV has it, but like Adam, they transgressed the covenant. There they dealt faithlessly with me. NASB, but like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant. There they have dealt treacherously against me.
New King James has Adam in the margin. The word's the same, man and Adam. It's both an appellative and a proper noun. It's used that way in Genesis.
You can either read Adam and either say man or or Adam. It's either the name, dirt or ground, or it's the man Adam. And so, the ESV and the NASB interpret it as Adam. Now, the NIV reflects a more modern understanding which interprets Adam as a place.
There's a place named Adam in Joshua 3. And the NIV, following some commentators, some interpreters, I think in the 19th century follows that. So it's at Adam they transgressed the covenant. But the preferable reading is what we have either in the ESV, the New American Standard, or in the Margin of the New King James.
But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant. Now the definitive sort of article on this is by B.B. Warfield in his Selected Shorter Writings, Volume 1. He has a great study on Hosea 6-7.
Is it Adam? Is it man? And he deals with, is it at Adam? And basically, he concludes his study by saying this, no such exegetical objections, the one he previously discusses, lie against the rendering like Adam.
Any difficulties that may be brought against it indeed are imported from without the clause itself. In itself the rendering is wholly natural, nor is it without commendations of force. The transgressing of Adam, as the great normative act of covenant breaking, offered itself naturally as the fit standard over against which the heinousness of the covenant breaking of Israel could be thrown out." So basically what he's saying is that Hosea is reproving the nation of Israel. And he's essentially saying to them, you're acting just like our first father, Adam.
Just like Adam transgressed the covenant, just like Adam broke the prohibition, just like Adam resisted and rebelled and rejected God, you are likewise following in his train. He goes on to say, and Hosea, who particularly loves allusions to the earlier history of Israel, was the very prophet to think here of the sin of our first father. And in sort of coordinate with this is Job 31.33. Job says, if I have covered my transgressions as Adam by hiding my iniquity in my bosom.
So it does seem to indicate that later authors are seeing the breach of the covenant of works as sort of typical or pattern of what subsequent sinners engage in. But
Romans 5 and Federal Headship
probably the strongest argument as to why we're dealing with a covenant in Genesis 2.15-17 is Romans 5. There's a parallel between Adam and Jesus. Paul couldn't be more conspicuous. In fact, you can turn to Romans chapter 5.
Again, the word covenant is not present in Romans chapter 5, but the concept is. You've heard of covenant theology at times being referred to as federal theology. Those are synonymous terms, federal headship, representation. But as I said earlier, God looks at Adam, he looks at Jesus.
You're either in Adam or you're in Christ. And that's Paul's point in Romans 5. And so I'm going to suggest something. If we mess up the covenant of works in Genesis 2, 15 to 17, we're most likely going to mess up the covenant of grace later on.
This is why it's important. Because if we have a faulty understanding of what God does with Adam in the garden, we will likely come to a faulty understanding of what God does with Jesus in the New Covenant, and us by virtue of our union with Him. And herein lies the problem. Persons who neglect, negate, or reject the concept of the covenant of works are persons, not always, but more often than not, the sorts of persons that see for us to be saved.
We need to be justified by faith and we need to have good works. In other words, the argument is this, God demands good works. Now, if we have a faulty understanding of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace in Jesus, we're gonna come to this place where we think that the covenant of grace includes both our faith in Jesus plus our faithfulness to Jesus in order to be justified. Again, not always, but more often than not, persons who reject the covenant of works mess up when it comes to the Covenant of Grace.
There are happy exceptions. There was a man by the name of John Murray, who I highly recommend read anything that John Murray wrote. He didn't, however, accept the sort of reform doctrine of the Covenant of Works. He didn't reject it altogether.
He reworked it a little bit. But nevertheless, he managed to come out on the other side, maintaining justification by faith alone. He's one, though, and he is the exception. Most people that tamper with the covenant of works end up having a problem with the covenant of grace.
Now, time forbids us from tracing out all of the particular corollaries, but I am suggesting it's very important that you get this doctrine, that you get this understanding as part of the central architecture of Scripture. It is what the bones and the sinews that the flesh and the blood hangs upon. It's the structure behind the scenes of this particular building. These covenants are how God orchestrates or administrates His dealings with people.
So it's very important. But notice in Romans chapter 5, verse 14, Paul sets forth the covenantal connection. Verse 14, nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come. Now, Paul makes this connection that Adam was a type of him who was to come.
The him who was to come is Jesus. He doesn't need to tell you, okay, I'm talking about Jesus. He's obviously talking about Jesus. Now, notice verse 18.
Again, we're just getting right to the nitty gritty here to show the parallel. Therefore, as through one man's offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. See what I'm saying? Through Adam, this is what your lot was.
Through Christ, this is what your lot is. Even more clearly, more specific in verse 19. For as by one man's disobedience, This indicates that Adam was a federal head. He was a covenant head.
He stood as a public person. His sin was not private. His sin was for himself and his posterity. That's why Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 15, in Adam all died.
Notice, verse 19, "...for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." So God looks at the earth, and again, the languages in the manner of men. God doesn't have to examine and look and scrutinize the way that we do, but there's only that kind of language to describe it. God looks at us either in Adam or in Jesus Christ. If we are in Adam, we are subject not only to that spiritual death and that temporal death, but to eternal death.
But if we are in Christ, we are subject to or beneficiaries of eternal spiritual life, eternal life, and all blessings that God has conveyed upon us in our Lord Jesus Christ. So you see the parallel. Everybody see that Romans 5? I think it's crystal clear.
There's a link, by Paul, between Adam and Jesus. By the one man, disobedience, the many were made sinners. By the one man's obedience, the many are made righteous. And the made there is probably better translated as constituted.
The language is legal. It's not transformational. In other words, it's not a making. We're somehow getting better.
It's constituted, imputed, that sort of legal language. Well, those are some reasons why I believe Genesis 2, 15-17 teaches a covenant of works. Now, really quickly,
The Confession and Covenant Theology
we hold the Second London Confession of Faith of 1677-1689. It removes a paragraph that's found in its parent documents. There's the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration. Both contain this in their section on covenant.
It says, 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. Great definition of what the Covenant of Works is. I probably should have read that 40 minutes ago and we could have all went home, but that is what the Covenant of Works are. Now, some people say, well, since the Particular Baptist took that out, therefore the Particular Baptist reject the idea of a Covenant of Works.
That is simply untrue. The Covenant of Works is present several times in the 1677-1689 Confession of Faith. The particular Baptist did not reject it. Sort of the grandfather, the granddaddy of our very Confession of Faith was a man by the name of Nehemiah Cotts, who acts as eloquent on the Covenant of Works.
Particular Baptists, probably, I don't know the historical sort of research, but I would say to a man, held to the doctrine of the Covenant of Works. So if anybody ever says, well, you're one of those Reformed Baptists, you guys reject Covenant theology because you don't have a Covenant of Works. I've spent, what, 50 minutes trying to tell you that we do hold to a covenant of words, and hopefully given you some arguments to think about and say, wow, I'm seeing what's happening here. But the confession of faith contains this language as well.
And then with reference to
Practical Importance of the Doctrine
the importance of the doctrine. I realize that if this has been a bit of a struggle, the two quotes I'm about to read may not add a whole lot of light, but listen and hopefully it will. There's a Dutch Reformed theologian by the name of Brockel. He said, whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works will not understand the covenant of grace and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus.
Such a person will readily deny that Christ, by His active obedience, has merited a right to eternal life for the elect." See, that's something that differentiates us from a lot of other people. We not only look at the death of Jesus as absolutely crucial, but we look at the life of Jesus. Remember I said, God demands good works. If we reject the active obedience of Jesus, guess who has to pony up the good works?
We have faith in Jesus plus faithfulness, and then God justifies us. No, the context of the covenant of works shows us that Adam was subject to obedience under God. Basically, what Jesus is engaged in is the covenant of works. What is called the covenant of redemption and what is called the covenant of grace is for our Lord a covenant of works.
But He ponies up the obedience. He ponies up the good works so that we, by virtue of not only His passive obedience at the death on Calvary, but His active obedience in terms of His fulfillment of the law, That's imputed to us and received by faith alone, so that we don't have to do some faith, some works in order to be saved. That's what Brockwell's speaking to here. Those who have no doctrine of the covenant of works are typically those who reject the imputed righteousness of Jesus, the active righteousness of Jesus.
He goes on to say, This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well. There's a modern author by the name of Ward. I can't remember his first name.
He's presently alive, modern, alive. God and Adam, it's on the Covenant of Works. He says, minimizing the difference between the pre-fall and post-fall covenant seems to mean you get more grace before the fall and less grace afterward. Our covenantal obedience is emphasized as the way of maintaining the covenant relationship and inheriting its blessing.
It would probably take a whole other session to show how these things are uniquely tied up. Covenant of works, covenant of grace, active obedience of Christ, the imputation of that. But suffice it to say, people that reject the covenant of works are people that more often than not have a problem in the covenant of grace. They want faith in Jesus plus good works.
Faith and faithfulness. This is the problem of Romanism. This is the problem in the new perspective on Paul. This is the problem of much of the federal vision, though some of them do affirm the active obedience of Jesus Christ.
But there's this common theme. Guess what they all deny? They all deny the covenant of works with Adam in the garden in 2.15-17. It is a very important doctrine.
It's not one to carelessly dismiss, well, the word covenant's not in Genesis 2. Therefore, that is irresponsible. Please take the data. Please take the text.
Please reflect on Isaiah 24, Hosea 6. Reflect on the fact that all the elements of a covenant are involved. The Bible shows us the strict parallel between Adam and Jesus in Romans chapter 5. Paul couldn't make it any more clear.
He is a type of him who was to come. By his disobedience, the many are made sinners. By his obedience, the many are made righteous. So just understand to reject the covenant of works is probably to tamper with the covenant of grace.
Now, Adam ultimately was a son of God, a sinless representative of mankind, an image bearer of God, given a prohibition concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and promised death if he sinned and life if he did not. Christ was a son of God, a sinless son of God, a representative, a public man, one that was a surety, one that was a covenant head, one that was a federal representative. And he obeyed and he carried out all that the Father laid upon him. So that when we by grace believe, we receive not only the benefits of his death, but the benefits of his life.
We receive the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to our account. 2 Corinthians 5.21, God made him Christ. who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Now, this is good news for this reason. We need a perfect righteousness to enter into the favor of God, to enter into the presence of God. That is afforded to us by virtue of what Christ has accomplished. If we think that we can have faith plus our faithfulness and then be justified by God, We have not understood the nature of God's law, we have not understood the nature of our own sinfulness and waywardness, and we have not understood the nature of the covenant of grace.
It's all about what Christ has done. Now, to the objection. Well, if we affirm the active obedience of Jesus having been imputed to us, well then it doesn't matter how we live. No, those who receive by faith the act of obedience of Jesus Christ want to please God.
They want to live a life of gratitude. They want to glorify the Lord, not because they think they're going to be saved, but as a consequence of them having been saved. It's a beautiful thing. The true gospel does not promote license.
The true gospel promotes biblical holiness. We don't need legalism. We don't need to browbeat the people of God. We don't need to threaten them.
We need to point them to Jesus Christ and His glorious gospel, and yes, to the normative use of the law as the means, as the motivation, as that standard by which we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Berkhoff, final thing and then we close. The covenant of grace is simply the execution of the original agreement by Christ as our surety. He undertook freely to carry out the will of God.
He placed himself under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law and were no more in a position to obtain life by their own fulfillment of the law. He came to do what Adam failed to do and did it in virtue of a covenant agreement. I think it was Sam Renahan, and when I asked him about it, he said he got it from somebody else. But I first heard it from Samuel Renahan.
He said, the covenant of grace is the covenant of works kept for us. That's what the covenant of grace is. It's the covenant of works kept for us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So please, consider this doctrine, consider covenant theology as that architecture, as that framework upon which the flesh of Scripture hangs.
Consider it because it is most important to understanding God's redemptive plan as He deals with His people through the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, let us close in a word of prayer.
Closing Prayer
Father, thank You for Your Word. Thank You for the book of Genesis and for the theology that we see there and that we see elsewhere and in later commentary on this book of Genesis. Help us to be faithful with reference to our understanding and help us, God, to be moved by these realities, to consider how glorious Jesus Christ, the last Adam is, who rendered a perfect obedience unto the Father, who died in our place on the cross, and who was raised the third day, and who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. How we thank you for the grace of the Gospel, how we thank you for your mercy toward us, and we ask now that you would go with us, and we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.