The Covenant of Works
Richard Barcellos quotes some other professor from Westminster (Poythress? Gerstner?) as saying, "If you get the Garden wrong, you get everything wrong." Where this might be a slight hyperbole, the gist of the issue is true. How you interpret what takes place in the garden will affect the interpretation of everything else in Scripture. I also think it will display your personal theological bent as well (is sin a sickness or disease, or is it a judicial issue). Personally, I have wrestled so much with this doctrine, and I hope here to tease out the issue.
There is so much riding on the concept of the Covenant of Works (CoW) that it seems almost foolish to me that we would permit such a doctrine that is so easily debatable. If the CoW is denied, then everything about Reformed Theology falls apart. Soteriology, the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of man, understanding the purpose of Christ, etc... all are affected deeply if the CoW is lost. And with the doctrine so highly contested, and one that is not easily identifiable in Scripture, immediately it comes under scrutiny in my mind. I can see where it is potentially derived from theological underpinnings as opposed to true exegesis, creating the foundation for an eisigetical system. And any good student of hermeneutics knows that eisigesis=bad. So, does eisgesis or exegesis drive one to the CoW?
First, maybe I should attempt to explain what the Covenant of Works is. Some might call it the Edenic Covenant, the Adamic Covenant or Administration, or the Creation Covenant. Each have there reasons why they might call it one over the other. Often it would seem that many feel there is too much theological baggage with the term "Covenant of Works" so they change it. For example, Gentry & Wellum call it in Kingdom Through Covenant "the covenant with creation," believing that the concept of the CoW is on the right track, but is slightly off. At no point do they really express the difference between their view of the covenant with creation with the the covenant of works, but they imply that there is a difference. I would say that their arguments for the covenant with creation have helped me immensely in seeing that there was a covenant of works in the garden. If I attempted to guess why the disagree with the covenant of works language, it is on the idea that Adam is attempting to earn his salvation:
So what is the covenant of works? Simply put, it was a covenant made with creation at the beginning with Adam being the federal head, representing all of creation. If he obeyed God, everything would be great. If he didn't obey God, everything would go bad. It really isn't that complicated of a doctrine to wrap your head around at its core. The sticky issues arise as you begin to analyze the details of the circumstance and consequences of such a covenant.
Adam was created upright and in the image of God. For everything that language can mean, for my purpose here, it shows that Adam was created morally good, and that righteousness or uprightness as a part of his being. The Confession says it this way, "God made man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law" (VI.1), "God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart" (XIX.1), "The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall" (XIX.2). In paragraph 3 of chapter XIX, is says that this law is "commonly called moral." Why do we know when something is good or evil? Because of God's divine image stamped upon our hearts. Adam, being made upright and morally good, was given a positive law not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If he obeyed, he would get to eat of the tree of life and be confirmed in his righteous state, forever unable to sin (Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689, pg 98). It's not that there was some "higher life" he would have attained to (though I believe some CoW advocates argue for such), but I believe he would have been permanently established in his already perfected state when he partook of the tree of life. However, if he disobeyed, death would be the consequence, "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).
Questions without end could arise from the aforementioned summary, touching on the topics of moral law, the divine image, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, and whether this was a covenant. As I engage with this concept, I will try to hit upon what were pertinent issues for myself.
Some might oppose the title "moral law", especially as later applied to a tripartite division of the Mosiac Covenant. I personally don't care for the title "moral law" nor the division, and have often debated if such a thing is valid. After all, you don't see any clear division in the Law, finding moral, civil, and temple laws all intermingled. Nor are such titles ever given to various laws. But as I've analyzed the concepts behind the title and division, I believe most arguments against it are simply feeling like certain words aren't biblical or contain baggage. For example, ethics and morality is a philosophical field and therefore the use of such a term could carry the baggage over from it and perhaps cause people to put more weight upon philosophical argumentation over against Scripture. I think that is a valid concern because such teachings as Open Theism (and Arminianism in general) I believe are driven more by philosophical underpinnings than theological ones. Very few true Christian philosophers are Calvinists as well in my experience. Most nowadays are Molinists or Open Theists. (Ironically, my background in philosophy is what taught me how to read Scripture and drove me toward Calvinism.) But in the end, those who repudiate such titles and divisions (and remain orthodox, NCT guys are who I currently have in mind) are merely quibbling over words, and getting tripped up on something of no real consequence. They actually create their own extra-biblical divisions. Of course, the reason for some of this division is because people on each side of the fence have specific laws from the Mosaic code that they feel either apply or don't apply to us today, namely the Sabbath. Maybe someday I'll touch on that topic, but for now I'll merely direct you to a book by Richard Barcellos entitled In Defense of the Decalogue. I hope to acquire a copy and read it someday myself, but from what I've heard of it and the other articles by Barcellos engaging the topic that I've read, I believe it is a formidable argument for anyone wanting to study the Christian and the Law.
So is there a covenant with Adam? Many say "no" because it is never called a covenant (and the passage in Hosea is not permissible by this group, believing that it refers to something else; John Calvin doesn't even think the Hosea passage refers to an Adamic covenant). Others say that those who look for the word are simply committing a word-thought fallacy. Barcellos argues that if given the words home-run, base-hit, strike-out, and double, you immediately know he is talking about baseball even though he never used the word. But, it could perhaps be argued back against him that he could be referring to fast- or slow-pitch softball or tee-ball. All are very similar, but they are not the same sport, each having different rules and different ways the game is played. Perhaps the same idea is taking place in the Garden, something that looks like a covenant in many ways, but isn't one exactly, like a relationship between a master and a slave isn't one of a contractual basis. Depending how you define a covenant, a parent and child relationship might not be one. Gentry quotes Hugenberger saying, "A covenant, in its normal sense, is an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath" (KTC pg. 132). He summarizes and clarifies Hugenberger stating, "a covenant always entails (1) a relationship (2) with a nonrelative (3) that involves obligations and (4) is established through an oath" (KTC pg 132). If a parent-child relationship isn't covenantal, then when Adam is referred to as the "Son of God" in discussion of the divine image and in Jesus' genealogy, could it be rightly said that the what we see in Genesis is parental and not covenantal? This is why the definition of a covenant becomes a sticky issue. In a personal discussion I had with a Presbyterian pastor, he believed that a relationship between a parent and child is covenantal. Depending on how you want to define it could ultimately affect whether you see a covenant with Adam, and therefore determine if you are committing a fallacy with the text.
Let's suppose Hugenberger is right and that covenants are only with nonrelatives. We know Scripture clearly teaches that Adam is the "son of God", but is he the son of God as Jesus is the Son of God? No he isn't. Jesus, we openly confess to be the only eternally begotten Son. Since Jesus is the ONLY begotten, then Adam cannot be a son who was begotten, but rather adopted. When reading Gentry's exegesis, it becomes evident that the purpose of Adam's sonship was for regency. The movie Ben Hur provides an excellent example for what's taking place. The man who owned Ben adopted him for the purpose of having Ben oversee and take over his estate. Sonship acquired through adoption was used for such political purposes. Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavius would be another good example. Sonship and bearing the image of another does not necessitate a natural relationship as a father begetting a son, but is also used for the establishment of government and dominion over a kingdom. In this sense, adoption then is contractual because the greater is promising to bring the lesser under his care to establish the lesser and continuing the reign of the greater. Most often, this is because the nonrelative has shown great faithfulness and obedience to the one adopting. Thus, even if Hugenberger's definition is right regarding nonrelatives, what we see taking place in the garden is actually quite fitting for the establishment of some covenant agreement.
To conclude, is there a covenant in the garden? It would seem so. We have the parties (God & Adam), we see the purpose (dominion), we see the stipulation and expectation (obedience), and we see the curse (death). All of these points can be found at a cursory reading of the text. The only thing not clearly seen in the text is the promise of reward. This is reasonably inferred from the text. The tree of knowledge represents the curse, and beside the tree of knowledge sat the tree of life (promise of reward). If this wasn't the reward, why then was Adam cut off from it? When we read the curses in Deuteronomy, we see that they are the exact opposite of the reward, so if death is the curse, the reward must be life, which could've been acquired by the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24). So with very little deduction, we can conclude that there is a reward to be had, giving us everything needed for a covenant.
But does having all of the pieces of a covenant really necessitate that it is one? Like I said, baseball and softball are two different games, but have almost everything in common. I would actually have to argue in return that though baseball and softball are different games, they are the same type of game. Likewise, there are different forms of covenants, but they are all covenants nonetheless. Maybe it doesn't look exactly like one covenant or another, but it does have every necessary feature of a covenant and ought to be considered one.
There is so much riding on the concept of the Covenant of Works (CoW) that it seems almost foolish to me that we would permit such a doctrine that is so easily debatable. If the CoW is denied, then everything about Reformed Theology falls apart. Soteriology, the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of man, understanding the purpose of Christ, etc... all are affected deeply if the CoW is lost. And with the doctrine so highly contested, and one that is not easily identifiable in Scripture, immediately it comes under scrutiny in my mind. I can see where it is potentially derived from theological underpinnings as opposed to true exegesis, creating the foundation for an eisigetical system. And any good student of hermeneutics knows that eisigesis=bad. So, does eisgesis or exegesis drive one to the CoW?
First, maybe I should attempt to explain what the Covenant of Works is. Some might call it the Edenic Covenant, the Adamic Covenant or Administration, or the Creation Covenant. Each have there reasons why they might call it one over the other. Often it would seem that many feel there is too much theological baggage with the term "Covenant of Works" so they change it. For example, Gentry & Wellum call it in Kingdom Through Covenant "the covenant with creation," believing that the concept of the CoW is on the right track, but is slightly off. At no point do they really express the difference between their view of the covenant with creation with the the covenant of works, but they imply that there is a difference. I would say that their arguments for the covenant with creation have helped me immensely in seeing that there was a covenant of works in the garden. If I attempted to guess why the disagree with the covenant of works language, it is on the idea that Adam is attempting to earn his salvation:
Second, theologically, some have questioned the notion of a covenant of works. Is Adam attempting to earn his salvation? Does he not already stand in a right relationship with God? And, though he obviously has everything to lose if he disobeys, should we think of it in a "works" sense? (pg 612)These rhetorical questions precede Wellum's systematic defense of a covenant with creation, and he would seem to answer affirmatively that Adam's obedience would lead to permanent state of uprightness. Since Adam's obedience would technically be passive (namely, he would merely avoid doing something), perhaps the idea of that being a "work" is the issue. Otherwise, their doctrine of the covenant with creation seems exactly in line with what the covenant of works is.
So what is the covenant of works? Simply put, it was a covenant made with creation at the beginning with Adam being the federal head, representing all of creation. If he obeyed God, everything would be great. If he didn't obey God, everything would go bad. It really isn't that complicated of a doctrine to wrap your head around at its core. The sticky issues arise as you begin to analyze the details of the circumstance and consequences of such a covenant.
Adam was created upright and in the image of God. For everything that language can mean, for my purpose here, it shows that Adam was created morally good, and that righteousness or uprightness as a part of his being. The Confession says it this way, "God made man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law" (VI.1), "God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart" (XIX.1), "The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall" (XIX.2). In paragraph 3 of chapter XIX, is says that this law is "commonly called moral." Why do we know when something is good or evil? Because of God's divine image stamped upon our hearts. Adam, being made upright and morally good, was given a positive law not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If he obeyed, he would get to eat of the tree of life and be confirmed in his righteous state, forever unable to sin (Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689, pg 98). It's not that there was some "higher life" he would have attained to (though I believe some CoW advocates argue for such), but I believe he would have been permanently established in his already perfected state when he partook of the tree of life. However, if he disobeyed, death would be the consequence, "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).
Questions without end could arise from the aforementioned summary, touching on the topics of moral law, the divine image, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, and whether this was a covenant. As I engage with this concept, I will try to hit upon what were pertinent issues for myself.
Moral Law
First off, what is the moral law? No where does such a law ever come into discussion until Romans 2 when Paul declares that there is a written law upon the heart of every person. What is this law upon the heart and where did it come from? What it is exactly is probably best left to a blog post all its own, but for now I'll permit the Confession to state what it is,The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.Another way to summarize it would be to say "Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, " where loving the Lord would be the first four commandments, and the last six our duty to man (cf Rom 13:8-10).
Some might oppose the title "moral law", especially as later applied to a tripartite division of the Mosiac Covenant. I personally don't care for the title "moral law" nor the division, and have often debated if such a thing is valid. After all, you don't see any clear division in the Law, finding moral, civil, and temple laws all intermingled. Nor are such titles ever given to various laws. But as I've analyzed the concepts behind the title and division, I believe most arguments against it are simply feeling like certain words aren't biblical or contain baggage. For example, ethics and morality is a philosophical field and therefore the use of such a term could carry the baggage over from it and perhaps cause people to put more weight upon philosophical argumentation over against Scripture. I think that is a valid concern because such teachings as Open Theism (and Arminianism in general) I believe are driven more by philosophical underpinnings than theological ones. Very few true Christian philosophers are Calvinists as well in my experience. Most nowadays are Molinists or Open Theists. (Ironically, my background in philosophy is what taught me how to read Scripture and drove me toward Calvinism.) But in the end, those who repudiate such titles and divisions (and remain orthodox, NCT guys are who I currently have in mind) are merely quibbling over words, and getting tripped up on something of no real consequence. They actually create their own extra-biblical divisions. Of course, the reason for some of this division is because people on each side of the fence have specific laws from the Mosaic code that they feel either apply or don't apply to us today, namely the Sabbath. Maybe someday I'll touch on that topic, but for now I'll merely direct you to a book by Richard Barcellos entitled In Defense of the Decalogue. I hope to acquire a copy and read it someday myself, but from what I've heard of it and the other articles by Barcellos engaging the topic that I've read, I believe it is a formidable argument for anyone wanting to study the Christian and the Law.
Covenant or Not?
What is a covenant? I think I've heard someone say that if you put 100 theologians into a room and have them answer this question, you will walk away with 100 different answers. Be that as it may, I will provide a shorthanded answer. A covenant is similar to a contract. There are parties, stipulations, expectations, promises of reward, and curses for breaking the covenant. Look at any of the biblical covenants and you can find most or all of these aspects. I won't try to define it any further though, because it can only get hairy from this point onward.So is there a covenant with Adam? Many say "no" because it is never called a covenant (and the passage in Hosea is not permissible by this group, believing that it refers to something else; John Calvin doesn't even think the Hosea passage refers to an Adamic covenant). Others say that those who look for the word are simply committing a word-thought fallacy. Barcellos argues that if given the words home-run, base-hit, strike-out, and double, you immediately know he is talking about baseball even though he never used the word. But, it could perhaps be argued back against him that he could be referring to fast- or slow-pitch softball or tee-ball. All are very similar, but they are not the same sport, each having different rules and different ways the game is played. Perhaps the same idea is taking place in the Garden, something that looks like a covenant in many ways, but isn't one exactly, like a relationship between a master and a slave isn't one of a contractual basis. Depending how you define a covenant, a parent and child relationship might not be one. Gentry quotes Hugenberger saying, "A covenant, in its normal sense, is an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath" (KTC pg. 132). He summarizes and clarifies Hugenberger stating, "a covenant always entails (1) a relationship (2) with a nonrelative (3) that involves obligations and (4) is established through an oath" (KTC pg 132). If a parent-child relationship isn't covenantal, then when Adam is referred to as the "Son of God" in discussion of the divine image and in Jesus' genealogy, could it be rightly said that the what we see in Genesis is parental and not covenantal? This is why the definition of a covenant becomes a sticky issue. In a personal discussion I had with a Presbyterian pastor, he believed that a relationship between a parent and child is covenantal. Depending on how you want to define it could ultimately affect whether you see a covenant with Adam, and therefore determine if you are committing a fallacy with the text.
Let's suppose Hugenberger is right and that covenants are only with nonrelatives. We know Scripture clearly teaches that Adam is the "son of God", but is he the son of God as Jesus is the Son of God? No he isn't. Jesus, we openly confess to be the only eternally begotten Son. Since Jesus is the ONLY begotten, then Adam cannot be a son who was begotten, but rather adopted. When reading Gentry's exegesis, it becomes evident that the purpose of Adam's sonship was for regency. The movie Ben Hur provides an excellent example for what's taking place. The man who owned Ben adopted him for the purpose of having Ben oversee and take over his estate. Sonship acquired through adoption was used for such political purposes. Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavius would be another good example. Sonship and bearing the image of another does not necessitate a natural relationship as a father begetting a son, but is also used for the establishment of government and dominion over a kingdom. In this sense, adoption then is contractual because the greater is promising to bring the lesser under his care to establish the lesser and continuing the reign of the greater. Most often, this is because the nonrelative has shown great faithfulness and obedience to the one adopting. Thus, even if Hugenberger's definition is right regarding nonrelatives, what we see taking place in the garden is actually quite fitting for the establishment of some covenant agreement.
To conclude, is there a covenant in the garden? It would seem so. We have the parties (God & Adam), we see the purpose (dominion), we see the stipulation and expectation (obedience), and we see the curse (death). All of these points can be found at a cursory reading of the text. The only thing not clearly seen in the text is the promise of reward. This is reasonably inferred from the text. The tree of knowledge represents the curse, and beside the tree of knowledge sat the tree of life (promise of reward). If this wasn't the reward, why then was Adam cut off from it? When we read the curses in Deuteronomy, we see that they are the exact opposite of the reward, so if death is the curse, the reward must be life, which could've been acquired by the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24). So with very little deduction, we can conclude that there is a reward to be had, giving us everything needed for a covenant.
But does having all of the pieces of a covenant really necessitate that it is one? Like I said, baseball and softball are two different games, but have almost everything in common. I would actually have to argue in return that though baseball and softball are different games, they are the same type of game. Likewise, there are different forms of covenants, but they are all covenants nonetheless. Maybe it doesn't look exactly like one covenant or another, but it does have every necessary feature of a covenant and ought to be considered one.
Covenant of Works
Once one admits that there is a covenant at creation, it really is semantics as to whether we define it as a covenant "of works" or "with creation". The reason being is that everyone must deal with the fact that history rests upon the shoulders of two men: Adam and Christ (Rom 5). Everyone is born under one administration and remains there unless he is born again under the other. We are represented by one of these two federal heads. Adam was the disobedient son, Christ the obedient Son. With Adam's disobedience, he brought death to all of his offspring. With Christ's obedience, He obtained eternal life for all of His offspring. Call it the Adamic Administration and Christ's Administration, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, or the Covenant with Creation and the New Covenant, in the end they all must contain the exact same theological explanations or else they are being deficient in their use of Scripture. Like I said, Gentry & Wellum's work actually convinced me more of the CoW than most Reformed Baptist work, because of how well it handled the Adamic covenant. Their exegesis and arguments are those used by covenant theologians. Truly, when I finished the sections on Adam, I walked away uncertain how they differed themselves from Covenant Theology on this point. Sam Renihan expressed similar sentiments in his review of the work.
As I mentioned above, perhaps the issue with those who don't want to admit it as a covenant of works, is because of the implied baggage of the term "works". It would seem that Adam had to actively gain his eternal salvation because of the term. But what is obedience but actively obeying the law, even if active obedience is passively complying? Let's apply this standard to other laws, "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not commit adultery," to actively obey all of these laws requires passive compliance. "Do not" necessitates an active passivity, because you are avoiding doing something. Yet to avoid doing it is to actively obey it. So this really isn't an issue to consider Adam's passive obedience a "work."
So where does this leave us? At a covenant made in the beginning with Adam as the federal head. And his breaking the covenant brought death to us all. Disobedience is the breaking of the Law, therefore obedience is the keeping of the Law and must be considered a work. Ergo, we have established the Covenant of Works, and have consequently discovered that we need an obedient federal head to fulfill this work for us. Praise God that the Father gave us His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ to be this for us.
Comments
Post a Comment