00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Genesis 2 and 3 that are most
relevant to my subject this morning. First of all, Genesis chapter
2 and verse 9. Out of the ground the Lord God
caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and
good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Verses 15 to
17. Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden
to cultivate and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man,
saying, From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat. For in the day that you eat from it, you will surely
die." Genesis 3.22. Then the Lord God said, Behold,
a man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now
he might stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of
life and eat and live forever. Therefore, the Lord God sent
him up from the garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from
which he was taken. So he drove the man out, and
at the east of the Garden of Eden, he stationed the cherubim
and the flaming sword, which turned every direction to guard
the way to the Tree of Life. My subject this morning is Whatever
Happened to the Covenant of Works? And when we deal with this subject,
I want to say several things by way of introduction to it. First of all, I want to talk
about the name of the subject. I happily use the terminology
covenant of works because that is the name most often used in
the history of covenant reform theology. Some of you may know
that in my modern exposition, I opt for John Murray's terminology,
the Adamic administration. But I have been more and more
convinced that this arrangement between God and Adam in Genesis
2 may be called the covenant over the years, and I'm happy
to use that terminology. And I also want you to know that
it's also been called, and there may be reasons to prefer some
of these terminologies, the covenant of life or the covenant of creation. The title Adamic Administration
is used for this arrangement by John Murray in his article
in Volume 2 of his Collected Writings, and I owe a great debt
to John Murray on this subject and his discussion of it. Now,
he discusses their problems with the terminology covenant of works
and asks the question whether God's arrangements with Adam
may be called the covenant. And if they may be called the
covenant, whether it is aptly called a covenant of works. Now he's been roundly criticized
for doing this and using the phrase Adamic administration
in this article as opposed to the covenant of works. But frankly,
let me give you my opinion about that. I think John Murray held
all the substance and essentials of the covenant of works and
merely had reservations about the name. And to identify him
with things like the new perspective or some of the errant views of
Norm Shepard on the subject, I think it shows an ignorance
of what Murray really taught on this subject. To identify
then him with serious error is simply wrong, because though
he may have had terminological reservations, he held everything
the Covenant of Works means historically, and probably more than some people
that criticize him for the terminological reservations he had. Now, I will speak then of the
Covenant of Works and grace in this conference in harmony with
historic Reformed theology. But I have to admit that sometimes
I wonder if a number of theological problems would not be avoided
by opting for terminology like Murray's and speaking rather,
say, of the Adamic and Messianic administrations. But nonetheless,
I feel like I'm very happy and I'm submissive to the historical
momentum of the phraseology covenant of works and covenant of grace. Let me talk to you about the
outline of the lectures I'm going to give this morning, or the
one lecture I'm going to give this morning. I shouldn't be
plural there, I guess. I'm going to talk about the basic
definition of the Covenant of Works, its intended goal, its
historic formulation, its scriptural evidence. And I'm not going to
get to its redemptive historical expression. I missed that out
in my preparation because of the lack of time. And then I'm
going to talk about its crucial importance. All right? So five
points rather than six this morning. So first of all, basic definition.
We'll do this in catechetical style. What is the Covenant of
Works? Well, the Covenant of Works refers
to the sovereign gracious arrangement of God, wherein the first man,
Adam, as the representative of the human race, might attain
the destiny of a mortal life upon choosing personal, entire,
exact, and perpetual obedience to divine law, or otherwise suffer
death as the due penalty for disobedience. Now let me open
up that answer to the catechism question there. Key assertions
here. There is an arrangement with
involves the first man, Adam, in creation or the pre-fall state. This arrangement is sovereignly
imposed by God upon Adam. Sometimes covenant has been understood
as contract. Whether and how much that's appropriate
is a big question, and we certainly must not understand it in this
sense, that there's equality between God and man, or there's
some sort of agreement reached between them. No, this covenant,
this arrangement is sovereignly imposed by God upon Adam. And
I am happy to use the term gracious, and I know my using that terminology
is controversial, and I certainly agree that it needs to be explained.
When I use the term gracious, I am not talking about saving
or special grace. I'm talking about what I would
rather call creation grace. That is to say, I think that
this arrangement between God and Adam represents a free condescension
of the part of God in which promises and blessings were promised that
in no way were proportional to what Adam would do. And so, went
way beyond anything that he might have deserved. And so, it's gracious
in that sense. But I do want to say, and say
very clearly, that if we're going to use the term gracious for
something like the covenant of works or the covenant of life,
we need to have in mind and keep clearly in mind very important
distinctions between creation grace and special grace. If we're
going to talk about Adam's faith, we better have very much in mind
a clear distinction between the kind of faith Adam had and distinguish
from that quite clearly, saving faith and justifying faith, because
they are very different things. This also implies a concentrated
test as this arrangement of Adam's loyalty and freedom of choice.
And beyond that, This entails Adam acting as the representative
of humanity in his choice. There is representation, and
as a consequence of that, imputation as a result of what he does.
This arrangement identifies death as the penalty for sin and says
that death is not merely the result of some natural way that
God made the world. It requires perfect obedience
to God's law to reach its intended goal of immortal or eternal life.
That brings me in the second place to the intended goal of
the Covenant of Works. What is the intended goal of
the Covenant of Works? of this pre-fall arrangement?
The answer to that question, in my view, is this. Immortal,
or what is synonymous, eternal life is the intended goal of
this arrangement of man's original destiny and situation in relationship
to God. Immortal life is the intended
goal. And so eternal life, we know
from Christianity and from our understanding of the Bible, is
a result of Christ's cross, salvation coming from Christ's cross, and
what Paul calls in Romans 6, the benefit or the end, eternal
life. And we are accustomed to the
notion that eternal life is the consummation of man's salvation. However, What I am asserting
here is that immortal life is not just the last thing, it is
a first thing. It was intended to be the consummation
of man's creation. Human creation and then the obedience
of Adam to the covenant of works was to result in the human destiny
in the original order of immortal life. And this is the view of
Gerhardus Voss, insofar as the covenant of works posited for
mankind an absolute and unchangeable future, the eschatological may
be said to have preceded the satiric religion. What's Gerhard
de Sois saying? He's saying there was an ex-eschatology
before there was the need for salvation. The world and mankind
was supposed to go someplace and reach a destiny even before
man fell. That's what he's saying. The
eschatological precedes the esoteric religion. And I want to say something in
the third place here about the historic formulation of this. And this is all too brief, but
at least it gives a flavor and some support for the notion that
this whole idea of the Covenant of Works is not a novel invention
of 17th century scholastic Reformed theologians. Let's talk about
the early church fathers. Louis Burckhoff says of them,
in the early church fathers, the covenant idea is seldom found
at all, though the elements which it, the Covenant of Works, includes,
namely the probationary command, the freedom of choice, and the
possibility of sin and death, are all mentioned. Herman Boving says, quote, still
everyone acknowledges that Adam did not yet possess the highest
humanity. Especially Augustine made a clear
distinction between the ability not to sin, posse non peccari,
and not to die, posse non mori, which Adam possessed, and the
inability to sin, non possi peccari, and the inability to die, non
possi mori, gifts that were to be bestowed along with the glorification
of the first man in case of obedience, and now granted to the elect
out of grace. Do you understand what Hermann
Bavink is saying there? He's saying what we receive as
a result of the grace of Jesus Christ, Adam would have received
and his children would have received as a result of his obedience
to the covenant of works. We'll say more about that. He
is saying that Adam, though created innocent, was not created with
the inability to sin and the inability to die, but rather
with the ability not to sin and the ability not to die. Now this brings us to Augustine's
view of Adam. As created, Adam possessed morally
these things. He was both able to sin and able
not to sin. And physically, he was both able
to die and able not to die. As glorified, this is not possessed
by Adam, he would have become morally unable to sin and physically
unable to die. And so the glorified state, as
Bobbink said, is superior to the created state in at least
these two ways. The medieval scholastics. Now
the notion of a higher state of existence for Adam is continued
in them, and yet this higher condition could be, in the language
of Thomas Aquinas, merited by Adam. God would be indebted to
reward Adam as a matter of strict justice on the basis of his intrinsic
worth if he obeyed God's law. And that brings us to the Reformation,
John Kelvin and the Reformed Tradition. Kelvin, I think it's
fairly well known, did not hold a fully developed doctrine of
the covenant of works or Adamic administration. And yet Calvin
clearly held to this whole notion of the intended goal of the covenant
works, that is to say that it was intended to bring Adam to
a higher state of existence, or what we are calling immortal
or eternal life. On Genesis 2.7, Calvin says this,
Paul makes an antithesis between this living soul and the quickening
spirit which Christ confers upon the faithful. 1 Corinthians 15.45. You remember the passage. I won't
turn you there right now. But in contrasting the Adam with
Christ and our present state with the resurrected state, Paul
quotes a text from Genesis 2 that speaks of Adam not as fallen,
but as created. Adam became a living soul. And
he contrasts with Adam being a living soul, what Adam was
as created, he contrasts with that what we become as resurrected. Christ became a life-giving spirit. Adam, this is the implication
of 1 Corinthians 15.45, Calvin is saying, was not created in
the highest state of existence to which he could attain. He
was created a living soul. But the resurrected and glorified
state is a higher state of existence. Calvin goes on to say, Paul makes
an antithesis between his living soul and the quickening spirit,
which Christ confers upon the faithful, for no other purpose
than to teach us that the state of man was not perfected in the
person of Adam. But it is a peculiar benefit
conferred by Christ that we may be renewed to a life which is
celestial, whereas before the fall of Adam, notice what he's
saying here, before the fall of Adam, man's life was only
earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy. Adam only
had earthly life, says Calvin, in contrast to the celestial
or heavenly life we attain by way of the resurrection. And
why was it only earthly, he says? Because it was not guaranteed
to be permanent. It could be lost. He could sin
and he could die. We are accustomed to say, well,
Adam was perfect. And of course, in some sense,
that's true. He was certainly innocent, certainly without the
stain of sin. But if we mean by perfect that
he possessed the life of the resurrection and the glorified
life that he could attain no higher life, that's certainly
not. Calvin also comments on 1 Corinthians
15.45. In short, Paul's meaning is that
the condition that we obtain through Christ is greatly superior
to the lot of the first man, because a living soul was conferred
upon Adam in his own name and in that of his posterity. But
Christ procured for us the Spirit, who is life. Well, that's clear, and growing
out of that, the Reformed tradition developed the doctrine of the
covenant of works. By 1596, the doctrine was clearly
enunciated in all its essential features in Robert Raleigh's
development of federal or covenant theology. The Latin here is foetus,
of course, for covenant. By 1615, an abbreviated statement
of the doctrine appears for the first time in creedal form via
the Irish Articles of Religion. And the Irish Articles of Religion
are very important for the Westminster Confession. And so it's not surprising
that by 1647, an explicit, mature statement of this doctrine appeared
in the Westminster Confession of Faith and later in our own
1689 Baptist Confession. All right? And that brings us to the all-important
question of the scriptural evidence for the covenant of works. And
we're going to look at the evidence for four things. The representative rule of Adam,
the specific requirement of perfect obedience, the threatened punishment
for disobedience, and then the intended goal of obedience. First of all, the evidence for
the representative role of Adam. And you know, this comes primarily
in two ways to us. It is implicit in the universal
scope of God's curse. Genesis 3.17b and 19b tells us
that though Adam alone sinned, all of the race was cursed. It wasn't Adam alone who couldn't
go back into the garden. Adam's children could not go
back into the garden. Adam sinned, but the race was
cursed. This was the representative role
of Adam. And this is certainly how Paul reads Genesis in Romans
chapter 5, 12 to 21 and also 1 Corinthians 15, 21 and 22.
You know those familiar texts. Romans 5, 12-21 contains language
like this, "...just as through one man sin entered into the
world, if by the transgression of the one the gift is not like
that which came through the one who sinned, for judgment arose
from one transgression, if by the transgression of the one
death reigned through the one, through one transgression the
result of condemnation to all men." And of course, you're familiar
with 1 Corinthians 15, 21 and 2, which among other things says,
since by a man, a man, came death. It talks about the fact that
as in Adam, all die. This is the representative role
of Adam. About this, there should be no doubt in the heart of any
Bible believer. But then, we need to talk as
well about the specific requirement of perfect obedience. This is
something that is up for a lot of question and debate among
modern evangelicals and especially in seminaries under the influence
of the New Perspective on Paul. But again, it is something that
is clear. What Adam was required to do
was not simply be generally faithful and persevere in some gracious
covenant. What he was required to do was
be sinlessly perfect and especially manifest this in his obedience
to the arrangement there in Genesis 2, 16 and 17. And this, of course,
is implied by the one transgression language of Romans 5 and is explicit
in Genesis 2, 16 and 17. In the day you eat of it, you
will surely die. Not after being disobedient and
apostatizing for 12 days. But in the day you eat of it,
you shall surely die. One act of transgression resulted
in the loss of life, resulted in the threat and punishment
for disobedience. Death. And the death here is
both temporal and eternal. It is both physical death that
results from the disobedience of Adam to the covenant of works
and eternal death that results from it. And a reading of Genesis
2.17 in light of the unfolding message of Scripture in Romans
5 and 1 Corinthians 15 makes this, I think, clear. But the
place about which one has to gather the most evidence, and
it's perhaps the most controversial, is with regard to this whole
matter of the intended goal of obedience. The intended goal
of obedience. And I want to give you scriptural
evidence for this intended goal, and here's how we're going to
do it. We're going to look at implicit evidence for the intended
goal, the dynamic nature of the creation scene. And then we're
going to look at the very fact of the existence of the Tree
of Life as further implicit evidence. Then we're going to look at the
explicit evidence for the intended goal, the quality of the Tree
of Life. And then we're going to look
at the cleared evidence. I'm going to answer some objections
that are raised to this whole matter of the intended goal of
obedience being eternal life. But first of all, the implicit
evidence. And first of all there, the dynamic nature of the creation
scene. One thing that's often missed
in our naive statements about, well, creation was originally
perfect, which is, as I said, in some sense true. Adam was
innocent. Sin was not in the world, true
enough. But one thing that that naive assertion of the perfection
of the original creation does is make us miss the dynamic nature
of the creation scene. Because when you read Genesis
1 and 2, it is clear that creation was intended to go somewhere. Yes, the train was on the tracks. huffing and puffing there at
the station from which it was going to leave. But there was
a road to be followed. There was a trail to be pursued. There was a goal to be gotten
to. Creation was going somewhere
according to Genesis 1 and 2. This account of creation is dynamic
and not static. The heavenly lights, for instance,
would mark the progress of seasons, days, and years. Water, air,
land creatures, and man were to multiply and fill the earth. Adam was given authority, and
yet he must subjugate, cultivate, and preserve the garden. And the seventh-day creation
Sabbath was given, not in Exodus 16 or 20, but in Genesis 2, 1
to 3. And the seventh-day creation
Sabbath, according to Hebrews 4, 1 to 11, I'm not going to
turn you to these passages, but I think what I'm saying is really
quite evident in them. The seventh-day creation Sabbath
was not only a moral law to be obeyed so that Adam was to keep
every seventh day holy and find it blessed to his soul, But the
seventh day, Creation Sabbath, was also a type and sign. It's
not either or, moral or typical. It's both. And the seventh day,
Creation Sabbath, this seventh day according to Hebrews 4, 1
to 11, was symbolic of eternal rest and the final rest of the
people of God. So that when we think of the
pattern of creation, six days of labor and a seventh day of
rest, we are not only to think of a moral pattern for the structuring
of human life and the blessing of having rest once a week, we
are to think of the creation Sabbath and this structure as
typical of the history of the world. That is to say, there
is labor and then there is rest. The seventh day is typical, a
significant of, a final rest to which we are to attain. That we attain in Christ, the
world was to attain through the obedience of the first father,
Adam. So, we see in these things the
dynamic nature of the creation scene. It was going somewhere. It was intended to go somewhere. But that's just the problem.
Instead of taking it somewhere, Adam derailed the train by his
disobedience. There is also, by way of implicit
evidence, the very fact of the existence of the Tree of Life.
the fact of its existence. Here we can think of this in
terms of a syllogism. Major premise. Adam was created
as a living being. That is to say, death is the
result of sin, not nature. Clearly. Minor premise. And yet, in spite of this, strangely,
we might think, there existed a tree of life in the midst of
the garden. There existed a tree of life in the midst of the garden.
What is the conclusion we should draw? Well, that the tree of
life held forth the quality of life not possessed by Adam as
he was created. Because otherwise the very existence
of the tree of life is frankly meaningless. What could it mean
if Adam already had all the life that he was ever going to have? But that brings us to the explicit
evidence. And here we think first of all about the new quality
of life symbolized in the Tree of Life and which is biblically
declared in Genesis 3.22. Then the Lord God said, Behold,
the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. And
now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the Tree
of Life and eat and live forever." The passage goes on to say how
they're driven from the garden and the cherry beam with the
flaming sword is stationed to keep the way of the tree of life.
Now this language, live forever, the Hebrew there literally live
unto the ages, is the language, the typical language of the Bible
everywhere that describes immortal or eternal life. The Greek has
similar language. The Hebrew speaks of this language.
And the new quality of life symbolized in the Tree of Life is explicitly
declared here. To eat of the Tree of Life is
to live forever. Let me say that again. To eat
of the Tree of Life is to live forever. To live on to the ages. And of course, for Adam to eat
of the tree of life in a condition of sin was to doom him forever
to that condition. The new quality of life symbolized
in the tree of life is biblically defined in many places. This
eternal life is what we get when we eat of Christ. John 6, 50
and 51. He who eats of me, who believes
in me, shall have, has eternal life. Now, you're a Calvinist.
You preach that. And what do you say to your Arminian
friends about eternal life? You say it's eternal life. That
means if you have it, you can't lose it, right? Eternal life
is eternal life. Once you have eternal life, you
can't lose it, because if you have eternal life, it's eternal.
That's what you say, right? Well, how can then other people
say, how can some people say that Adam had eternal life and
then lost it? But that's what you have to say if you don't
agree with my assertions here right now. So it's used of believers. Believers
possess eternal life. They possess a life they cannot
lose. A life that is irreversible,
unchangeable, and glorified. This language of eternal life,
of living forever, is also used of God. Now, which of you would
really want to assert that God could lose eternal life. No,
what it means for God to live on to the ages is that He has
an indestructible, immortal, irreversible, and unchangeable
life. What it means is He's self-existent
and He has a life that He cannot lose. But this very language
is used of the blessing bestowed by the tree of life. This language is used of the
glorified Christ. who lives forever, who has eternal
life. Again, we know that this means
it's irreversible and unchangeable. So in every case, whether of
believers or of God or of the glorified Christ, in every case
it's clear that this quality or condition of living forever
is biblically defined as unchangeable, irreversible, and immortal life.
and this unchangeable, irreversible, immortal, eternal life is bestowed
by the Tree of Life. This means that Adam had not
eaten of it, because if he had eaten of it, he would have lived
forever. There's a third thing that is
explicit evidence, I think, for this view, and that is that the
new quality of life symbolized in the Tree of Life is biblically
described in several places. It's described in 1 Corinthians
15, 42 to 45. Would you please turn there now?
1 Corinthians 15, 42 to 45. What is eternal life? In contrast
to the life that Adam had as created. Look at the text. So
also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable
life. It is sown a perishable body.
It is raised an imperishable body. It is sown in dishonor. It is raised in glory. It is
sown in weakness. It is raised in power. It is
sown a natural body. It has raised the spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there
is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, the first
man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving
spirit. Now, notice what text Paul chooses
to quote to illustrate a natural body. Does he choose to quote
a text that is spoken of Adam after the fall? No. He quotes a text that is used
of Adam before the fall as uncreated and sinless. As uncreated and
sinless, Adam had a natural body. But he did not have this powerful,
this glorious, body that Paul calls a spiritual, should be
capitalized, a spiritual body. There is a difference between
Adam's unfallen body and the glorified state to which the
resurrection of Jesus Christ brings us. Revelation 2.7 and
22.2 and 14 are also relevant here. Would you turn
there? Revelation 2.7, He who has an
ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him
who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which
is in the paradise of God. When do we eat of the tree of
life? when we attain to a mortal, unchangeable, irreversible life
in glory. Revelation 20-2. In the middle of its street,
on either side of the river, was the tree of life bearing
twelve kinds of fruit. yielding us fruit every month,
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
This is speaking, of course, of the new heavens and new earth,
the eternal state. Verse 14, blessed are those who
wash their robes so that they might have a right to the tree
of life and might enter by the gates into the city. The tree
of life, eternal life, is tasted only by those who have washed
their robes in the blood of Jesus Christ. So getting the right
and access to the Tree of Life is a central quality pertaining
to the Garden City of God, the New Jerusalem, in the age to
come. Now there is a fourth line of
thought here. The new quality of life symbolized in the Tree
of Life is biblically assumed in the creation narrative. So
we ask the question, though created, indisputably a living being,
Could Adam die? Of course, there's no doubt about
the answer to that. Not only could Adam die, he did
die. He sinned, and he died, of course. Then, whatever may
be said of the level of life Adam possessed as created, it
was clearly not a mortal life. Because one possessed of a mortal
life, like God, and Jesus Christ, and believers in Christ, cannot
die. Immortal life, by definition,
as we have seen, is unchangeable, irreversible, and eternal. Therefore, we conclude straightforwardly
that Adam did not possess it as created. Now, that brings me to the cleared
evidence, and I want to deal with some objections here. The
first objection, and I understand these objections, And I think
they need to be answered. I think there are answers for
them that are adequate. First objection is the assumption
of people that Adam was already partaking of the tree of life
before the fall. Now, I assume that people think
this because they quote the text that says that Adam could eat
of every tree of the garden. So, there was permission given
to eat of every tree of the garden. Now, if we assume that the tree
of life was included in that permission, The permission still
doesn't mean that he'd actually eaten of it, does it? Permission
is not the same as actually eating of it. And, in fact, there's reason
to know that he had not already partaken of the tree of life
before the fall. You say, well, how could he have
permission to eat of it and not actually eat of it? Well, maybe
there was no fruit on the tree yet. I don't know. See, now look,
what I'm about to do here is not tell you what I know for
certain to be the case. I'm only going to give you a
plausible way of answering an objection. And I don't need to
show that it's absolutely and indisputably true. So, it's sufficient
for me to say, well, maybe there was no fruit on the tree yet,
so I couldn't eat of it. Maybe that was the case. How
do you know? I don't know, but you don't know
that he was eating of the tree of life either, merely from the
fact that he had permission to do so, if that's true at all. But in fact, Genesis 3.22 actually
shows that partaking would have been a new activity never before
performed. Look back at Genesis 3.22 again,
would you please? And I have to hear, I suggest
to you that it's embedded in Genesis 3.22 as a little word
that actually shows that he had never eaten of the tree of life.
Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of
us, knowing good and evil. And now he might stretch out
his hand and take... What's the next word? Also. of
the tree of life and eat and live forever. Now, are there
other ways to take that little Hebrew word, gam, also? Yes, there are. But the way I'm
taking it is perfectly appropriate. perfectly possible and provides
a perfectly plausible response to this notion that Adam was
already eating of the tree of life. Victor Hamilton, the Hebrew
commentator, says, taken by itself, the wording of verse 22 could
suggest that man is not yet eaten of the tree of life. How else
is one to explain the use of also, Hebrew, gam, in the verse? And where gam was used earlier
in the narrative, it implied new and additional activity.
Look at Genesis 3.6. He's referring to there. Genesis
3, 6, which using this little Hebrew word says, When the woman
saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight
to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,
she took from its root and ate, and she gave also to the man. He hadn't eaten of it yet. Now
he also eats of it. See the meaning? So, I think
Hamilton has a point. In fact, I think that's how we
ought to understand Genesis 3.20-22 in the little particle gam there. But, there are further things
that can be said about this. Adam was already partaking of
the tree of life before the fall. Well, but aren't you forgetting
something, sir? Isn't it true that with regard to the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, a single partaking of the
forbidden tree acquired its attribute. How many times did Adam have
to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before he received,
in a condition of sin, the attribute, the quality of knowing good and
evil? Genesis 3.22 says that he attained that quality. And
how many times did he eat of it? How many times? Just once. And that imparted
the attribute. So why should we think that it's
any different with the tree of life? Why should we think that
it's any different that he has to eat of the Tree of Life every
day to maintain his mortal life? Really? Really? You think that's
what Genesis 2 and 3 actually teaches? That somehow Adam had
to eat of the Tree of Life every day to maintain his life? And
how does that match up with the fact that it's a mortal, eternal
life that it imparts, and that, assumedly, like the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil, one partaking imparts its attribute,
eternal life. So on the basis of the irreversible
attribute and the analogy in connection with the forbidden
tree of knowledge, we must conclude that a single partaking of the
tree of life would acquire its attribute. Now, I don't think
this is my notes. This is always dangerous to do,
to say something that's not your notes. You're a preacher, you
know that, right? Stick to your notes. But I'm going to say something
that's not in my notes here. There's something else that I
think tends to commend this whole idea. A single partaking of the
forbidden tree acquired its attributes. On the basis of its irreversible
attribute, the analogy and connection with the forbidden tree of knowledge,
we must conclude that a single partaking of the tree of life
would acquire its attributes. In the Scriptures, wisdom, that
is to say, a proper understanding of knowledge of good and evil,
is always the pathway to eternal life. I mean, that's the analogy. Throughout the Scriptures, coming
to a proper, not a sinful, but a proper maturation and knowledge
of the good and evil, being made wise unto salvation, being made
wise in the gospel of Jesus Christ to wash our robes in the blood
of Christ, this is the pathway that always leads to eternal
life. Oh, that's what the rest of the Scripture teaches, but
now we're going to ignore that in Genesis 2 and 3? And we're
going to say that Adam was actually eating of the tree of life before
he had attained the knowledge of good and evil, when the rest
of Scripture says that a proper godly understanding and knowledge
of good and evil and wisdom is the pathway to eternal life?
You see how that notion contradicts the very pathway and understanding
of the rest of Scripture? So God went to great lengths.
to prevent Adam from accessing the tree of life after his fall.
Now why? If you had to keep eating of
it to have eternal life, if one eating wouldn't give you eternal,
immortal, irreversible life in a state of sin and therefore
equivalent to damnation, if that was the case, Why did God so carefully bar
Adam from eating of the Tree of Life even once after the Fall? Well, all of this tells us clearly,
assumes clearly, that Adam was not partaking of the Tree of
Life before the Fall. It contradicts everything we
know about the Tree of Life from the rest of Scripture and from
the passage. The second objection, only one
tree was forbidden. All other trees of the garden
were permitted. Now, again, I'm answering objections, and so
all I need to do is not prove that something is actually and
for certain the case. I just need to give you a plausible
alternative. Do you agree with that? When
you're answering objections, you don't have to prove that
your answer is is absolutely correct and without doubt, you
just have to offer plausible alternatives. I'm about to offer
you a plausible alternative. What I think is a very plausible
alternative, but I'm not asserting here that I can prove this beyond
a shadow of a doubt, but I think it's very suggestive and it does
offer a response to the second objection that only one tree
was forbidden, all other trees of the garden were permitted.
And it is this, I think this objection forgets the twofold
structure of the garden. In Genesis 2, 9, 3, 2, and 3, the
garden and the midst of the garden are both mentioned and, I think,
contrasted. Look at Genesis 2, 9 again. Out of the ground the Lord God
caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and
good for food. That's the garden. The tree of life also in the
midst of the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. Three, two and three. The woman said to the servant,
from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from
the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden,
God has said, you shall not eat from it or touch it or you will
die. But here's the point. Both the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil garden, apparently, right next
to each other. Now, this twofold structure, garden and midst of
the garden, I think provides a possible answer to the objection. Permission to eat from any tree
of the garden may have had exclusive reference to the outer circle. In fact, nothing at all is said
about the tree of life in the permission to eat from all the
trees of the garden. Now, if they could be from all
the trees of the garden, certainly they could eat from the trees
in the middle of the garden. Well, they couldn't eat from the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, and that was in the middle of the garden.
And so, but people try to assume that all the garden includes
the middle of the garden. Well, just a second. You're aware
of, and this is very common, and I think there's powerful
evidence for it, that the Garden of Eden was a kind of temple.
You're aware of that. Greg Beals, famous for asserting
that. and other people. And I think
it's true that the Garden of Eden was a kind of temple to
God. Now, let's just speculate a little bit. In later temples,
there was a difference between the Holy Place and the Holy of
Holies. And the fact that you could go
into the Holy Place did not mean that you could go into the Holy
of Holies. Permission to enter the Holy Place was not permission
to enter the Holy of Holies. So is perhaps there's something
like that here going on in Genesis 3 that permission to eat of the
trees of the garden was not and did not assume permission to
eat of the trees in the midst of the garden. That is to say
either the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or the tree
of life. Well, I think that's possible.
I think it's even plausible. But I don't need to prove that
it's absolutely true. I just need to offer a plausible
response to this objection. And maybe you'll think I'm proud
or wrong. But I think I just have. So look at it this way. PowerPoint slide, it's not intended
to assert that the garden was in the shape of an oval. It's
only intended to illustrate the fact that there was the garden,
and of this it is said, from any tree of the garden you may
freely eat. And then there was the midst
of the garden, in which were both the forbidden tree, the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and also, also the
tree of life. Genesis 2.9, Genesis 3.2, and
3. So I'm just saying, maybe there's
a two-fold structure of the garden here that this objection is forgetting
all about. And maybe if we remember it,
we have a plausible answer to this objection. I think we do. So that brings me to an interim
conclusion. And it is the conclusion that
the psalmist reaches in Psalm 8. Behold with the psalmist the
majesty of God displayed in the mystery of man. From the beginning
God determined to create and raise the lowly creature known
as man to a position of exalted authority and eternal fellowship
with himself. He takes this lowly creature
so much weaker by creation, by his original creation, than the
glorious beings of heaven. So much weaker by creation, so
much more lowly by creation than the seraphim and cherubim. And yet it is God's purpose to
exalt man far above those glorious beings and to do that, originally
by means of the covenant of works. O Lord, our Lord, says the psalmist,
how majestic is your name in all the earth. But that brings
me to some conclusions. What's the crucial importance
of all this? Well, I have four things I want to say. I hope
I don't get to vehement here. I'm getting some things off my
chest this morning, however, that have been on my chest for
a long time. I'm so grateful to the organizers
of this conference to give me the opportunity to get these
things off my chest. The Covenant of Works, as here
presented, is a doctrine taught in both the Westminster Confession
and the 1689. Some of you know why I have to
assert that. This is not controversial with regard to the Westminster.
But some question is raised if the 1689 asserts a covenant of
works. It is true that this phraseology,
where it occurs in the Westminster and Savoy in chapter 7-2 and
19-1, is omitted in the parallel places in the 1689. And this
is why some question has been raised. What is forgotten when that is
used as to imply that the framers of the 1689 and its signers did
not believe in a covenant of works, what is forgotten is that
in both 1906 and in 20 paragraph 1, the framers of the Baptist
confession retained the phraseology, the covenant of works. And many
of the most important signers of the Baptist Confession approved
of the Covenant of Words terminology and were emphatic advocates of
it, I think including Nehemiah Cox, the framer. So the omissions
of this phraseology in two of its four occurrences in the Westminster
Confession and Savoy Declaration appear to be the result not of
any objection to the Covenant of Works itself, but rather of
editorial considerations, not doctrinal considerations. Now, got that off my chest? Now
let me say something else. This doctrine of the Covenant
of Works is basic to salvation as a whole. To understand salvation,
to understand where Christ is taking the train, you have to
understand what was God originally doing with the train. The eschatology
assumed in the covenant of works is basic for understanding the
structure of the covenant of grace. Or to put it in different
language, the Adamic administration lays the foundation for the Messianic
administration. The covenant of works is the
foundation for the covenant of grace. The train Adam derailed,
Christ puts back on the tracks and drives to its goal. That's
what salvation is. So how can you understand salvation
if you don't understand the covenant of works? How can you understand
the covenant of grace if you don't understand the covenant
of works? Misunderstand here and you're liable to misunderstand
the whole biblical teaching about salvation and not get it right. This doctrine is basic to salvation
as a whole. And this doctrine is basic especially
to the contrast between law and grace. And let me tell you, that's
an important contrast these days to assert and have clear biblical
basis for. Basic to the doctrine of a justification,
basic to a Protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification is
the dichotomy or contrast between law and grace. There's a reason
following Karl Barth that Daniel Fuller entitled his book with
the opposite terminology, Grace and Law. No. This doctrine is basic, especially
the contrast between law and grace. So, crucial to a Reformed
and Protestant doctrine of justification, so left of day, is the dichotomy
between law and grace, or works and faith, in the Bible. And
the deepest and clearest foundation for this dichotomy and distinction
is the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of
grace. This is why it's so important
to get this right. Now, some attempt to ground this
dichotomy and the distinction between the Old and New Covenants.
Not a few people think that they believe in this dichotomy, but
they think that, well, it can be grounded, you can forget about
the Covenant of Works and just contrast the Old and New Covenants.
Old Covenant, Covenant of Works, New Covenant, Covenant of Grace.
Well, I'm thankful these people believe in the dichotomy between
law and grace. I don't think you can believe
in a biblical doctrine of justification unless you do. I think that distinction,
dichotomy, contrast is crucial to a Protestant doctrine of justification.
I'm glad they believe in it. All I'm going to say is, I think
it's really problematic to ground that distinction in the contrast
or distinction between the Old and New Covenants. It may be true. I'm not taking
a position here. I'm only granting this for the
sake of argument. It may be true that the dichotomy
between law and grace can in some way be found and proved
in the contrast between the Old and New Covenants. That may be
true. We may grant that for the sake
of argument, but it is also true, gentlemen and ladies, that there
is vast disagreement about this issue in the Reformed tradition. There are three, four, five,
or six, or seven different positions that people take about the Old
Covenant and its relationship to the New Covenant. And whether
it's a covenant of works, or whether it is an administration,
as the Westminster Confession actually says, of the covenant
of grace. And so, here's my concern, and
here I'm speaking as a systemetician and a Christian. It is true that
there is vast disagreement on this issue of the Old and New
Covenants, and especially about the nature of the Old Covenant
in the Reformed tradition. And it's not just true that that
was true in the 16th and 17th century. It is just as true today. And therefore, to attempt to
ground the vital, the crucial, the critical distinction between
law and grace, dichotomy between law and grace and faith and works,
to attempt to ground it in the distinction between the old and
new covenants, I think is not wise. Many different views of the Mosaic
Covenant are taught, including many Orthodox theologians who
believe that it is an administration of the covenant of grace. The
dichotomy between law and grace, faith and works, can only find,
in my view, more obscure and qualified support in the contrast
between the old and new covenants. So I think It's really important
to ground this dichotomy between law and grace, so vital to a
Protestant doctrine of justification, so of the day, to ground that
distinction and dichotomy in the truths summarized in the
Reformed tradition as the covenant of works. And this, this is why
it's so vital to have right views of this. Lose a right understanding
of the covenant of works and you obscure the contrast between
law and grace, and then you obscure the doctrine of justification.
Lose this and you open the door to neo-Nomian and new perspective
views of justification as by faith plus words. Advocates of
novel views of justification, men like Daniel Fuller and Norman
Shepard and Don Garlington, and the whole raft of new perspective
on Paul people, consistently, it's amazing how consistently
they do this, consistently deny the Covenant of Works. There's
a reason the Covenant of Works gives you the dichotomy between
law and grace that they simply don't believe. And their errors, Shepard, Fuller,
Garlington, and the New Perspective people, their errors about justification
can be traced, among other things, exactly back to their problems
with the covenant of works. Finally, this doctrine is basic
to the gospel doctrines of the active and passive obedience
of Christ. and double imputation. The true
and most ultimate grounds of the doctrines of active and passive
obedience of Christ, the distinction between the active and passive
obedience of Christ, the true and ultimate ground of double
imputation and clear views of that subject are to be found
in clear views of the contrast between the covenant of works
and the covenant of grace. This is, again, why it's so important. Active and passive obedience
and double imputation are, of course, closely related as the
accomplishment and application of Christ's Word. Christ's passive
obedience, you know, refers to his suffering for sin and how
it satisfies our guilt Christ's act of obedience, fulfilling
God's law, provides positive righteousness and the title to
eternal life that Adam forfeited. And of course, these two things
are what come to us when we believe in double imputation. In double
imputation, the guilt of our sin goes to Christ and the righteousness
of Christ comes to us. Double imputation. And this,
some of you, many of you, most of you, preach as the very gospel
of Christ. But this must be rooted, if it
is to be clearly understood and plainly defended in proper understanding
of the covenant of works. Seeing Christ as the last Adam,
repairing the failures of the first Adam, gives clear support
for the distinction between the active and passive, I should
have written, obedience of Christ. Here's how it looks to me. See
if you agree. The obedience of the last Adam.
Passive and active. Passive obedience. This is Christ
undoing. what Adam did by suffering the
penalty for sins that resulted from Adam's sin and condemned
us to hell. That's Christ's passive obedience,
undoing what Adam did by his suffering, which satisfied God's
wrath against our guilt. What is his active obedience?
It is doing what Adam failed to do by becoming obedient unto
death and perfecting a righteousness that gives us a title to eternal
life. This is the passive and then
the active obedience of Christ. This is the foundation of double
imputation. And this is why it is so vitally
important that you have right views of the covenant of works,
of God's administrative arrangement with our first Father. Thanks for letting me get that
off my chest. But I hope you realize now that it's more than
something a mere man had to get off his chest. I think, I think
this issue is crucial to our defense of the gospel itself. Let's pray. Father, we thank
you for the privilege of studying these things, of taking the time,
these men giving the time, freely to carefully walk through these
important issues, to think about their biblical support, to think
about the answers to objections to them, and to think about why
these issues are so crucially important. We ask this in Jesus'
name. Amen.
Whatever Happened to the Covenant of Works
| Sermon ID | 121132010515 |
| Duration | 1:04:23 |
| Date | |
| Category | Conference |
| Bible Text | Genesis 2:9 |
| Language | English |
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.