Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
[Source: Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 303–321]
The
Covenant of Works
The original relation between God and Adam is called a
covenant relation. The Reformed confessions, the Three Forms of Unity, never speak of a covenant of works; of a
so-called covenant of works, these confessional standards certainly know
nothing.
A brief statement concerning this covenant is found in the Irish Articles of Religion:
Man being at the beginning created
according to the image of God (which consisted especially in the wisdom of his
mind and the true holiness of his free will), had the covenant of the law engrafted
in his heart, whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life upon condition
that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments, according
to that measure of strength wherewith he was endued in his creation, and
threatened death unto him if he did not perform the same.1
The Westminster
Confession also expressed itself on the covenant of works:
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.2
In these confessions, therefore, we meet with the idea and
the term covenant of works.
Hodge’s
View of the Covenant of Works
Although this idea of a covenant of works was not
incorporated into the Reformed standards, it has become a common term, and the
doctrine represented by it was developed in several works on dogmatics. It is
common to speak of the relation of Adam to God as being that of a covenant of
works. An elaborate discussion of this covenant is found in Dr. Charles Hodge’s
Systematic Theology. He writes:
God having created man after his
own image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, entered into a covenant of
life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil upon the pain of death.3
He admits that this statement does not rest upon any
express declaration of the Scriptures, but he argues:
It is, however, a concise and
correct mode of asserting a plain Scriptural fact, namely, that God made to
Adam a promise suspended upon a condition, and attached to disobedience a
certain penalty. This is what in Scriptural language is meant by a covenant,
and this is all that is meant by the term as here used. Although the word covenant
is not used in Genesis, and does not elsewhere, in any clear passage, occur in
reference to the transaction there recorded, yet inasmuch as the plan of
salvation is constantly represented as a New Covenant, new, not merely in
antithesis to that made at Sinai, but new in reference to all legal covenants
whatever, it is plain that the Bible does represent the arrangement made with
Adam as a truly federal transaction. The Scriptures know nothing of any other
than two methods of attaining eternal life: the one that which demands perfect
obedience, and the other that which demands faith. If the latter is called a
covenant, the former is declared to be of the same nature.4
The elements of this covenant of works, according to Hodge,
are the usual condition, promise, and penalty. He writes:
The reward promised to Adam on
condition of his obedience was life. (1.) This is involved in the threatening:
“In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” It is plain that
this involved the assurance that he should not die, if he did not eat. (2.)
This is confirmed by innumerable passages and by the general drift of
Scripture, in which it is so plainly and so variously taught, that life was, by
the ordinance of God, connected with obedience. “This do and thou shalt live.”
“The man that doeth them shall live by them.” This is the uniform mode in which
the Bible speaks of that law or covenant under which man by the constitution of
his nature and by the ordinance of God was placed. (3.) As the Scriptures
everywhere present God as a judge or moral ruler, it follows of necessity from
that representation, that his rational creatures will be dealt with according
to the principles of justice. If there be no transgression there will be no
punishment. And those who continue holy thereby continue in the favor and
fellowship of him whose favor is life, and whose lovingkindness is better than
life. (4.) And finally, holiness, or as the Apostle expresses it, to be spiritually
minded, is life. There can there be no doubt, that had Adam continued in his
holiness, he would have enjoyed that life which flows from the favor of God.5
The life that was promised to Adam, according to Hodge, was
“the happy, holy, and immortal existence of the soul and body.”6 Nor
would perpetual obedience have been necessary as a condition of the covenant.
He writes:
The question whether perpetual, as
well as perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant made with Adam, is
probably to be answered in the negative. It seems to be reasonable in itself
and plainly implied in the Scriptures that all rational creatures have a
definite period of probation. If faithful during that period they are confirmed
in their integrity, and no longer exposed to the danger of apostasy. Thus we
read of the angels who kept not their first estate, and of those who did. Those
who remained faithful have continued in holiness and in the favor of God. It is
therefore to be inferred that had Adam continued obedient during the period
allotted to his probation, neither he nor any of his posterity would have been
ever exposed to the danger of sinning.7
According to the presentation of Hodge, there would have
come a moment in Adam’s life, had he not sinned—when the period of probation would
have been finished and when the promise would have been fulfilled to him—that he would have entered into
immortality and eternal life. He would have been changed. What Hodge
understands by this promised change can be gathered from his commentary on I
Corinthians 15:45, where Paul compares Adam as a living soul with Christ as the
quickening Spirit. Writes Hodge:
From what the apostle, however,
here says of the contrast between Adam and Christ; of the earthly and
perishable nature of the former as opposed to the immortal, spiritual nature of
the latter, it is plain that Adam as originally created was not, as to his
body, in that state which would fit him for his immortal existence. After his
period of probation was past, it is to be inferred, that a change in him would
have taken place, analogous to that which is to take place in those believers
who shall be alive when Christ comes. They shall not die but they shall be
changed. Of this change in the constitution of his body, the tree of life was
probably constituted the sacrament.8
Here we have a clear and comprehensive exposition of what
is commonly meant by the covenant of works. We can summarize its various
elements as follows:
First, the covenant of works was an arrangement or agreement
between God and Adam entered into by God and established by him after man’s
creation. It was not given with creation, but was an additional arrangement.
Second, it was a means to an end. Adam had life, but did
not possess the highest, that is, eternal life. He was free, but his state was
not that of highest freedom. He was lapsible. The covenant of works was
arranged as a means for Adam to attain to that highest state of freedom in
eternal life.
Third, the specific elements of this covenant were a
promise (eternal life), a penalty (eternal death), and a condition (perfect
obedience).
Fourth, in this covenant Adam was placed on probation.
There would have come a time when the period of probation would have ended and
when the promise would have been fulfilled.
Fifth, at the end of the period of probation, Adam would
have been translated into a state of glory analogous to the change of believers
who will be living at the time of Christ’s second advent.
Sixth, the fruit of this obedience of Adam would have been
reaped by all Adam’s posterity.
Objections
to the Covenant of Works
Many and serious objections can be raised against this
generally accepted doctrine of the covenant of works. That the relation between
God and Adam in the state of righteousness was a covenant relation, we readily
admit. But that this covenant should be an established agreement between Adam
and his creator, consisting of a condition, a promise, and a penalty, and that
it was essentially a means whereby Adam might work himself up to the highest
state of eternal life and heavenly glory that is now attained by the believers
in Christ, we deny.
First, there is the chief objection that this doctrine
finds no support in Scripture. We do read of the probationary command,
prohibiting man to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, and of the penalty of death threatened in case of disobedience. However,
we find no proof in Scripture for the contention that God gave to Adam the
promise of eternal life if he would obey that particular commandment of God. It
is true, of course, that Adam would not have suffered the death penalty if he
had obeyed. But this is quite different from saying that he would have attained
to glory and immortality. This cannot be deduced or inferred from the penalty
of death that was threatened. Adam might have lived everlastingly in his
earthly state. He might have continued to eat of the tree of life and live
forever, but everlasting earthly life is not the same as what Scripture means
by eternal life. The Scriptures nowhere suggest that Adam would have attained
to this higher level of heavenly glory and that there would have come a time in
his life when he would have been translated.
Besides, this giving of the probationary command and this
threat of the penalty of death are no covenant or agreement, and constitute no
transaction between God and Adam. Adam simply receives a command and is
threatened with just punishment if he disobeys. Such a command might
conceivably be connected with the covenant relation, but that it is the covenant Scripture does not even
suggest. A command is no covenant; nor is the command imposed on man in the
form of a condition unto eternal life. It is true that elsewhere in Scripture
it is emphasized that obedience and life are inseparably connected: “The man
that doeth them shall live in them” (Gal. 3:12). But even this does not mean
that man by the keeping of the law could ever attain to the higher level of
heavenly life and glory. In vain does one look in the word of God for support
of this theory of a covenant of works.
Second, it is impossible that man should merit a special
reward with God. Obedience to God is an obligation. It certainly has its
reward, for God is just and rewards the good with good. Obedience has its
reward in itself: to obey the Lord our God is life and joy. Sin is misery and
death. Life and joy there are in obedience. To keep the commandments of God and
to serve him is a privilege. But the covenant of works teaches that Adam could
merit something more, something special, by obeying the commandment of the
Lord. This is quite impossible.
What the Lord says to his disciples is always applicable to
man in relation to God: “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those
things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done
that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). Adam was God’s with all his being
and life in the world. To consecrate himself with all things in love to the
living God was simply his obligation. He could do nothing for God. He could
work no overtime with God. He could never earn anything extra. The privilege of
serving God was all his.
Nor could Adam have expected such an extra reward on his
obedience. Suppose that he had served the Lord in perfect obedience a thousand
years: could he possibly have felt that it was about time that his God should
reward him with something special? Suppose the Lord had inquired of him at that
time: “Adam, thou hast served me faithfully all these years. How much do I owe
thee?” What would Adam have answered? He would have said, “Thou owe me, O Lord
my God? All these thousand years thou hast filled me with thy goodness. Pure
delight it was to me that I might live before thee and serve thee in love. I
owe all to thee; but thou canst not possibly owe me anything at all.”
Suppose this conversation had continued, and the Lord had
inquired of Adam: “But wouldest thou not rather be taken out of thy earthly
paradise and be translated into another glory? What would the earthly first man
have answered? Conceivably this: “No, Lord; I do not like to be unclothed. I am
serenely happy here by the tree of life. I cannot long for anything else than
that I may stay here forever and live with thee in the friendship of thy
covenant.”
Suppose further that the Lord had asked: “But hast thou not
merited another thousand years in this earthly paradise by thy faithful
obedience?” What would have been the inevitable answer? This: “Thou, Lord, art
my benefactor every day anew. Surely I could never earn my next breath. If thou
shouldest drop me back into nothingness, thou wouldest do me no injustice.”
To be sure, as long as Adam obeyed God, the Most High in
justice could not inflict upon him the suffering of death. But this does not
mean that he owed to his creature another moment of existence at any time of
his life. Never can man merit anything with God. Nor is there any indication in
Scripture that God voluntarily placed man in a position in which he could merit
eternal life.
Third, how must we conceive of this promise of eternal life
to Adam? Suppose that Adam would have obeyed the commandment of God. Then,
according to the idea of the covenant of works, he would have been glorified
and raised to a heavenly plane of immortal life. The question arises, When
would this have happened?
The usual answer is that the matter would have been decided
in a comparatively short time, perhaps soon after Adam and Eve had resisted the
temptation of the devil. It is usually supposed that this moment of Adam’s
reward would have come before there would have been descendants, because Adam
stood in paradise as the representative of the whole human race.
What then? Adam and Eve would have been translated to a
kind of immortal, heavenly glory. Would they have brought forth the human race
in that state of glory? This seems quite impossible, for the propagation of the
human race and the replenishing of the earth appears inseparably connected with
the present earthly state of man in his physical body. In heaven they do not
marry and bring forth children. And what of the earth and all the earthly
creation? Would it also have been glorified or would Adam simply have been
taken out of it? Someone might object that in this way of argumentation we
speak of things that did not actually happen and that therefore were not in the
counsel of God. True. But I claim that God’s promises are sure; he does not
promise anything that is not possible of fulfilment within the economy of his
counsel and the whole of his works.
It is quite conceivable that Adam would have obeyed and
that in the way of obedience he would have continued and perpetuated his
earthly life and happiness. It is also conceivable that in this earthly state
of perfection he would have represented the whole human race and brought forth
children. However, the theory that Adam had the promise of God that he would
inherit eternal life had he obeyed the probationary command does not fit in
with the rest of Scripture, nor with any possible dogmatic conception.
Fourth, the covenant of works presents the covenant
relation as something incidental and additional to man’s life in relation to
God. The covenant relation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is
not given with man’s creation, and therefore is not a fundamental and essential
relationship, but an agreement established sometime after man was called into
being. The question as to how long after Adam was created God made this
agreement with him is quite irrelevant. Whether it was a week, a day, or even
an hour after his creation that the probationary command was given to him, the
fact remains that this covenant was imposed upon the relation Adam already
sustained to God by reason of his creation. What then was Adam’s relation to
God apart from this covenant of works? The word of God, however, does not
present the covenant relation as an accidental relationship, but as fundamental
and essential. It is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. In its
highest perfection in Christ, it is life eternal: “And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent” (John 17:3).
Fifth, from the viewpoint of God’s sovereignty and wisdom,
this theory of a covenant of works appears quite unworthy of God. It presents
the work of God as a failure to a great extent. Even though God will be
victorious in the end and the devil will suffer defeat, the devil nevertheless
succeeded in inflicting heavy damage upon the works of the creator. If the
covenant of works theory were true, then Adam stood in a position in which he
could attain to eternal life and glory and merit that same glory and life for
all his posterity by obeying God’s command. The glory Adam could inherit for
himself and all his descendants was the same or similar to that which believers
presently receive in Christ through the deep way of suffering, sin, and death.
Now it is merited only through the death and perfect obedience of the Son of
God in the flesh. Now it is attained only by some, the elect, while the
majority of the race perishes. Will this not everlastingly appear as a failure
on the part of God? Or rather, can this possibly be true in view of the wisdom
and absolute sovereignty of the Most High?
If eternal life and glory could have been attained in the
first man Adam, would God have chosen the long and deep way through the death
of his Son? He would not. The fact is that it was quite impossible for Adam to
attain to the heavenly level of immortal life. Immortality and heavenly glory
are in Christ Jesus alone. Outside of the Son of God come in the flesh, they
were never attainable. We cannot accept the theory of the covenant of works,
but must condemn it as unscriptural.
The
Nature of the Adamic Covenant
Even though the first three chapters of Genesis do not
mention the covenant, there can be no doubt that the relation between God and
Adam was a covenant relation. This truth does not have to be based upon a
single text, such as Hosea 6:7, although this passage certainly can be quoted
with reference to this truth. The Lord in that passage accuses his apostatizing
people of transgressing the covenant “like Adam.” Some prefer here the
translation “like men” instead of “like Adam.” Although the translation “like
men” is most probably correct, it does not make a great deal of difference with
respect to the question we are now discussing. If “like man” or “like men” is
considered correct, the text speaks in a broad sense of the relation between
man and God as fundamentally a covenant relationship. If the rendering “like
Adam” is preferred, the text refers directly to the covenant relation between
Adam and God. But all of Scripture proceeds from the truth that man always
stands in covenant relation to God.
All God’s dealings with Adam in paradise presuppose this
relation: God talked with Adam and revealed himself to him, and Adam knew God
in the wind of the day. Besides, salvation is always presented as the
establishment and realization of God’s covenant. By the flood God destroyed the
first world and saved his church in Noah and his seed, and with these he
established his covenant embracing all creation. With Abraham and his seed God
made his covenant as an everlasting covenant, and he gave them the sign of
circumcision as a seal of the righteousness which is by faith (Gen. 17:7; Rom.
4:11). This covenant could not be disannulled by the law which came four
hundred and thirty years later, which means that the covenant of Sinai is
essentially the same covenant as that with Abraham and his seed, even though
for a time the law is superimposed upon that relationship (Gal. 3:17).
In the new dispensation God establishes a new covenant with
his people, a higher realization of the same covenant of the old dispensation,
based on the blood of Jesus and consisting in the truth that God will remember
their iniquities no more, that he will write his law upon their hearts and
minds, and that all shall know him (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 10:16-17).
Scripture often refers to this covenant relation without
expressly mentioning it. Enoch and Noah walked with God (Gen. 5:24; Gen. 6:9).
To walk with God is an act of friendship and intimate fellowship. Abraham is
called the friend of God (Isa. 41:8; James 2:23). The tabernacle and temple
foreshadowed the truth that God dwells with his people under one roof, in the
same house, as a friend with his friends. This covenant relationship is
centrally realized in the incarnation of the Son of God: “And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
Through the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Lord
Jesus Christ and the outpouring of his Spirit upon the church, that church is
become “the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (II
Cor. 6:16). The highest realization of the glory that God prepared for those
who love him is expressed in Revelation 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is
with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
himself shall be with them, and be their God.” Indeed, all Scripture presents
the covenant relation as fundamental and essential. If the work of redemption
and the work of creation are related to each other, there can be no doubt that
Adam in his state of integrity stood in covenant relation to God.
This covenant relation was not something incidental, a
means to an end, a relation established by way of an agreement, but it was a
fundamental relationship in which Adam stood to God by virtue of his creation.
It was not essentially an agreement, but a relation of living fellowship and
friendship given and established by Adam’s creation after the image of God.
Fellowship, the intimate relation of friendship, requires likeness as its
basis. Like knows and can have fellowship only with like. For this reason the
ultimate covenant life is found in God himself, and is based on the Trinity.
Being essentially one, yet personally distinct, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
live in eternal covenant friendship with one another.
For this reason, the reflection of God’s trinitarian life
of friendship that is found in God’s covenant with man was realized when Adam
was created in the image of God, that creaturely likeness of God consisting of
true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness. From the very first moment
of his existence, and by virtue of his being created after the image of God,
Adam stood in covenant relation to God and was conscious of the living
fellowship and friendship which is essential to that relationship. He knew God,
loved him, and was conscious of God’s love to him. He enjoyed the favor of God.
He received the word of God, walked with God, talked with him, and dwelt in the
house of God in paradise the first. And as Adam stood at the pinnacle of all
created things on earth, the whole creation through him was comprehended in
that covenant relation of fellowship. In Adam’s heart the whole creation was
united to the heart of God.
Adam’s
Part in the Covenant
In this covenant relation Adam was the friend-servant and
officebearer of God in all creation. He was God’s co-worker. This calling of
Adam in the state of righteousness is to be understood very concretely and
realistically. His life is not to be romanticized in our imagination as a sort
of mystical enjoyment of sweet communion with the Lord under the tree of life.
He had work to do. He had a very definite mandate. God had blessed Adam and Eve
and said to them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). When
the Lord prepared for man the garden of Eden and placed him in it, God gave man
a specific commandment to dress the garden, that is, to cultivate it and to
keep it, which probably meant that he had to guard it against the inroads of
the devil (Gen. 2:15). Adam therefore had a very definite task to perform.
In all his life and work Adam was to be busy as the
friend-servant of God, not as a slave who works from the motive of fear for the
whip, nor as a wage earner who puts in his hours merely for his wages, but
freely from the love of God, as being his co-worker and as being of his party.
As the friend of God he was to function as God’s superintendent over all the
works of God’s hands. As God’s friend he must replenish and subdue the earth,
cultivate and keep the garden, and bring to light all the wonders and powers of
the world. Adam’s pure delight of it in the favor of God was his reward.
We may truly say that Adam was God’s representative in the
earthly creation, his officebearer: his prophet, priest, and king. This implies
that he had the calling, the mandate, but also the privilege, the right, the
ability, and the will to be the servant of God. The must, the may, the can, and the will, to be God’s co-worker were in perfect harmony with one
another in Adam. As prophet he knew his God in all the earthly creation and
praised him in a great congregation. As priest he dwelt in God’s house and
consecrated himself and all things to him. As king he declared and maintained the
will of God in all the earth. All things served Adam in order that he might
serve his God.
Adam
as First Father
We must still consider the questions concerning the
relation in which Adam, the first man, stood to his posterity, the rest of
mankind, and to the world about him.
As to the question of Adam’s relation to his posterity, to
which we shall have to return when we discuss the universality of sin (chapters
17 and 18 of Reformed Dogmatics), we answer that the relation of Adam to the human
race was threefold. First, he was the first father, the bearer of the entire
human nature so that organically the entire human race was in him. Second, he
was the head of all mankind so that he legally represented them. Third, he was
the root of the race so that, figuratively speaking, all the nations, tribes,
families, and individuals are branches of the tree of which Adam was the root.
It strikes our attention that the Reformed confessions emphasize
the organic rather than the legal relation of Adam to his posterity.
The Heidelberg Catechism instructs
us:
Whence, then, comes this depraved
nature of man?
From the fall and disobedience of
our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise, whereby our nature became so
corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin.9
The same note is struck in the Belgic Confession:
We believe that, through the
disobedience of Adam, original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a
corruption of the whole nature, and an hereditary disease, wherewith infants
themselves are infected even in their mother’s womb, and which produceth in man
all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof; and therefore is so vile and
abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind.10
In the Canons of
Dordt we read:
Man was originally
formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and
saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will
were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy; but
revolting from God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of
his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary entailed
on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of
judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure
in [all] his affections.
Man after the fall
begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt
offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ, only excepted, have derived
corruption from their original parent, not be imitation, as the Pelagians of
old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature [in consequence of a
just judgment of God].11
These passages from the creeds deal
with the problem of original sin and show clearly that the confessions
emphasize the organic relation of
Adam to his posterity. He is the father of us all. God created the whole human
nature in him. In this sense Augustine was right when he taught that all men
were in Adam. To be sure, there was in him not a multitude of individual
persons, nor were there in him millions of individualizations of the human
nature. Nevertheless, the truth is that all human natures that ever would exist
were organically in Adam, and they all developed out of him. God “hath made of
one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts
17:26).
Adam
as Legal Head
Although this organic relation is emphasized in the
confessions, it is not the only relation Adam sustained to the human race. He
was not only the father of us all so that the whole human nature was created in
him, but also he stood in the unique position of being the legal head of the
race in the representative sense. This is very plainly expressed in Romans 5:12–19, where the apostle teaches that:
First, by one man sin entered into the world and that death
passed upon all men because all had sinned. How could death be inflicted upon
all because of the sin of one man, unless they had sinned legally in him and
therefore were represented by him?
Second, this death, which is the punishment of sin reigned
from Adam to Moses, that is, before the promulgation of the law and therefore
over those “that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”
(v. 14).
Third, “through the offence of one many be dead”; “the
judgment was by one to condemnation”; “by one man’s offence death reigned by
one” (vv. 15–17).
All these terms express legal concepts and clearly indicate that Adam’s relation
to the human race was a representative relation; he was the representative head
of the entire race.
Fourth, by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men
to condemnation and that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. It
is pain that “judgment” and “condemnation” are forensic terms. The fact that
the offense of one can bring judgment and condemnation upon others implies a
relation of legal solidarity between the one and the others, in this case
between Adam and his posterity. Adam, the father of us all, is placed by God in
the position of federal head of the human race.
Adam
as Root of the Race
Adam is also the root of the race. By this we mean to
express the idea that men, tribes, and nations are not all alike as to
characteristics, place, and time, but they differ from one another in many
individual ways and that all these differences develop organically from Adam,
as from a root. This will become plainer when we consider the relation between
original guilt and pollution on the one hand, and actual sins on the other.
Adam’s
Relation to the Earthly Creation
In relation to the earthly creation Adam was king. The Lord
gave him dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowls of the air, and over
every living thing that moved upon the earth (Gen. 1:28). This implies that
Adam was lord, not over the entire cosmos, which includes heaven and earth, but
over the earthly creation. He was originally made a little lower than the
angels, according to Psalm 8:5-6 and Hebrews 2:6-7. The heaven of glory was not
subject unto him. It was his final destiny to become lord over all the world
(vv. 8-9), but that final goal was not reached in the first Adam. Adam was made
after the image of God, but he was not the Lord from heaven. He did not bear the
image of the heavenly, but was of the earth, earthy (I Cor. 15:47-49). He was
an earthly king, and his dominion was particularly the earthly paradise. He
would especially serve his God as king under him in the bond of friendship.
This paradise was in the rich country of Eden (Gen. 2:8-14). The Lord placed
Adam in that garden “to dress it and to keep it” and to serve God there (v.
15).
Already implied in the term “to keep” is the idea that Adam
had to fight the battle of Jehovah. This antithetical idea was embodied still
more clearly in the two special trees in the garden: the tree of life and the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life, standing in the midst
of the garden and comparable to the holy of holies in the temple assured Adam
of life as long as he was able to meet his God in that sanctuary. For this
reason it is called the “tree of life,” whose fruit evidently had the power to
perpetuate Adam’s earthly existence (Gen. 3:22). The name “tree of the
knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17) signified that Adam through that tree
could know by experience, could taste good and evil—good in
the way of obedience, evil in the way of disobedience.
Bother trees together,
therefore, embodied the antithesis. Adam must serve his God and reject the
devil, from whence the term probationary
command. This command put Adam to the test, the main purpose of which was
the realization of the antithesis. For that reason this command stood outside
of Adam’s ethical life. There was in itself nothing sinful in eating of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil or of any other tree. Only God’s
forbidding word made it wrong for Adam to eat of the tree. Therefore, Adam
confronted the clear calling of serving God with the rejection of evil, of
unconditionally heeding the word of God with rejection of the lie of the devil.
So Adam, as the friend of God
and as the king-servant, was thoroughly furnished with many excellent gifts
that he might serve the one master, the Lord his God, and hate and forsake
every other.
-------------------
FOOTNOTES:
1.
Irish Articles of Religion, Art. 21 in The Creeds of Christendom with History and Critical Notes (edited
by Philip Schaff. Revised by David S. Schaff. 3 vols. 6th edition.
New York: Harper and Row, 1931. Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), vol. 3,
530.
2.
Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.2 in The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 616, 617.
3.
Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2,
6, 117.
4.
Ibid.,
6 §1,
117.
5.
Ibid.,
6 §2,
118.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Ibid.,
6 §3,
119, 120.
8.
Charles
Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 349.
9.
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 7 in The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 309, 310.
10.
Belgic Confession, Art. 15 in The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 400.
11.
Canons of Dordt 3&4, Art. 1-2, in The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 587,
588.
No comments:
Post a Comment