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,
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. 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. 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 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.
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. 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, 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 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, 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 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. 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.
