The phrase "covenant of works" isn't in the Bible

[blhowes]

Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems:

- It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture...

This is a quote from a web site that speaks against covenant theology (and this would apply to reformed baptist theology as well) in favor of dispensationalism. I just quote this one sentence because I think its a typical mindset that I'd like to get feedback on, specifically regarding the covenant of works (since that's what I'm studying now).

If somebody were to make this statement to anybody on this board, I'd imagine the first comment might be something like, "Yes, but neither does the Bible mention the word trinity, yet you believe it." After that, if you were talking to a person about the covenant of works and looking at the Genesis account, what questions or observations would you make about the passage to help them (and me) see (or at least entertain the possibility) that God did indeed make a covenant of works with Adam, even though it doesn't specifically mention those exact words? How do you get them to see past the fact that the words aren't mentioned so that they can search deeper into the scriptures for the doctrine? And, if somebody doesn't believe in the covenant of works, what ramifications does that have regarding other beliefs?

 

[Wannabee]

Actually, I would agree with them. The CoW is not in the Bible. Furthermore, I don't agree that it's biblical.

Hey, where's the little smiley face that's ducking flying objects?



Anyway, I'll be interested to see what kind of responses you get.

 

[fredtgreco]

Bob,

I would ask them how what Adam was to do, related to what Christ was to do. Romans 5 makes it clear that the Second Adam did what the first could not. So if there was no aspect of works to be done by Adam, then how are we saved by Christ?

 

[daveb]

Hos. 6:7 "But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

Adam was in covenant with God complete with blessings and cursings based on his obedience to God's commands.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by daveb]

 

[Reformed1]

Bob, John Calvin in the Institutes does a great job explaining in detail what you're asking. I believe that it is a possibility that denying the Covenant of Works could have huge negative implications in one's soteriology (just look at Dispensationalism :bigsmile: ) However, it's still possible to deny it and not be "walking the fence" so to speak. For example, John Murray denied the Covenant of Works yet I believe he was one of the greatest teachers I've ever read (He's in my personal top 5 right up there with Calvin and Bahnsen). I think examining the passage in question in Genesis and really taking the time to look at all of it's components (Calvin does in the Institutes) will reveal that although the word "Covenant" is not present, it has all the components of a covenant. As daveb pointed out as well, Hoseah 6:7 says that Adam transgressed the covenant. Some who deny the COW will say that "Adam" is referring to mankind (because "Adam" simply means "Man"). However, I don't think that's a good argument. I think it makes the verse redundant. Check out Ligon Duncan's discussion of it in the post below.

[Edited on 6/20/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Reformed1]

hmmm...for some reason my links aren't working. Go to Monergism.com's section on Covenant Theology and click on Ligon Duncan's series on it here (it's the third one entitled "Series on Covenant Theology by J. Ligon Duncan): http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/Covenant-theology.html

Lectures 3 & 4 are the ones you'll want to focus on.



[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]

 

[Wannabee]

My immediate reaction to the Hosea passage is to step back and say, "Yea, this says that Adam transgressed the covenant." I found it rather shocking, so did some research. The word here is adam with a ki preposition (meaning like, as, etc).

(b) of common men, as opposed to those of better condition. So ×›Ö¼Ö°×Ö¸×“Ö¸× nach der (gemeinen) Menfchen Weife, Job 31:33; Hos. 6:7; Ps. 82:7.

From:Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.

The NKJV, arguably the best OT English translation, translates it as men (I know, they messed up using the TR for the NT, but the OT translation is great).

It also can denote a place

134 III. ×Ö¸×“Ö¸× (Ë’adam): n.pr.; ≡ Str 121; TWOT 25a"”LN 93-pers. (male) Adam: first human (Ge 4:25; 5:1a, 3, 5; 1Ch 1:1), see also 132; note: Hos 6:7 some place as a n.pr.loc., see 136
135 IV. ×Ö¸×“Ö¸× (Ë’adam): n.[masc.] ; ≡ Str 120; TWOT 25a"”LN 1.60-1.68 earth, i.e., the surface of the ground (Ge 16:12; Job 11:12; 36:28; Pr 30:14; Jer 32:20; Zec 9:1; 13:5), note: most place these verses as 132; see also 141
136 V. ×Ö¸×“Ö¸× (Ë’adam): n.pr.; ≡ Str 121; TWOT 25a"”LN 93-place (loc.) Adam: town near the mouth of the Jabbok River, (Jos 3:16+), note: Hos 6:7 some place as 134
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed., HGK134. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

So, possible translations would be "like a man," "like men," "like ADAM (a place)" and "like Adam (the man)." "Like a man" is unlikely because a singular here doesn't seem to work. The others are viable though.

Here's some commentary
K&D agree with you

This is apparent also from the antithesis in Hos_6:7, viz., the reproof of their transgression of the covenant. המּה (they) are Israel and Judah, not the priests, whose sins are first referred to in Hos_6:9. ×›Ö¼×ד×, not "œafter the manner of men," or "œlike ordinary men," - for this explanation would only be admissible if המּה referred to the priests or prophets, or if a contrast were drawn between the rulers and others, as in Psa_82:7 - but "œlike Adam," who transgressed the commandment of God, that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge. This command was actually a covenant, which God made with him, since the object of its was the preservation of Adam in vital fellowship with the Lord, as was the case with the covenant that God made with Israel (see Job_31:33, and Delitzsch's Commentary). The local expression "œthere," points to the place where the faithless apostasy had occurred, as in Psa_14:5. This is not more precisely defined, but refers no doubt to Bethel as the scene of the idolatrous worship. There is no foundation for the temporal rendering "œthen."

You know I hated to include that. Barnes agrees as well. However, Calvin says "men" works better. Gill and Henry don't seem to land. You'll kinda like JFB.

like men "” the common sort of men (Psa_82:7). Not as Margin, "œlike Adam," Job_31:33. For the expression "œcovenant" is not found elsewhere applied to Adam´s relation to God; though the thing seems implied (Rom_5:12-19). Israel "œtransgressed the covenant" of God as lightly as men break everyday compacts with their fellow men.

However, although the above a great commentaries, these seem better as exegetical resources.

To what does "œAdam" refer? Candidates include the following. (1) Adam is the first man, the original sinner, and thus the model for Israel´s unfaithfulness. But "œthere" implies that "œAdam" is a place, as do the parallels "œGilead" and Shechem," and this seems to rule out this interpretation. (2) Adam is the city of that name on the Jordan river.13 The problem with this interpretation is that the city is mentioned only in Josh 3:16 as the place where the waters of the Jordan heaped up prior to Israel´s invasion of Canaan. Otherwise, it seems to have no significance. (3) Adam should be emended to Admah, the city of the plain that perished along with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:29). Hosea does mention Admah in 11:8. Otherwise, this emendation has little to commend it since Admah did not break any covenant of which we know.14 (4) The text should be translated something like, "œThey have walked on my covenant like dirt." This involves several unusual interpretations of the Hebrew, so that it cannot be considered probable.15
We thus appear to be at an impasse. A solution is possible, however, if one takes note of the unusual language the text employs. When it says, "œlike Adam,"16 the reader naturally assumes that it refers to the most famous transgressor in the Bible, the man Adam. But when it says "œthere," the reader´s reference point shifts, and he must assume that "œAdam" is a place name. Inasmuch as there were shrines throughout Israel at the time of Hosea, we need not be surprised that the town of Adam would have had a shrine, nor need we suppose that the shrine there was in any respects unusual.17 It appears that Hosea singled out the shrine at Adam not because of some peculiarity about the town, but because of its namesake. The prophet has made a pun on the name of the town and the name of the original transgressor. His meaning is, "œLike Adam (the man) they break covenants; they are faithless to me there (in the town of Adam)."
Garret, Duane A. Vol. 19A, Hosea, Joel. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, Page 162. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1997.

Three places are mentioned, in each of which recent crimes had taken place; we know nothing of the events in question beyond the bare summary presented here, but the prophet´s audience would have known precisely the events to which he referred. (a) The Covenant had been broken by a faithless act at Adam (verse 7), a town beside the River Jordan where the River Jabbok joins the larger stream some twenty miles north of Jericho. (b) In the town of Gilead, also in Transjordan, blood had flowed (verse 8); whether the allusion is to an act of murder, or perhaps to the awful practice of child sacrifice, remains uncertain. (c) The priests had banded together to murder some of those who travelled to Shechem (verse 9). Shechem, one of the most ancient shrines of the Hebrew tradition, was also one of the places set aside as a "œï»¿city of refuge" (Josh. 20:7); the prophet implies that those who sought the security it offered were set upon by violent priests on their journey towards safety.
Thus, in the prophet´s summary words, Israel´s sin had defiled the nation; Judah was no better, and a "œï»¿harvest" of judgment was appointed for that nation too. The massive proportions of the nation´s sin and its coming calamity might detract us, if we are not careful, from recognizing that great disasters may find their beginnings in what seemed to be small failings.
Craigie, Peter C. Twelve Prophets : Volume 1. The Daily study Bible series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, c1984.

So I think it's unlikely we're talking about Adam (the man) here. There may be an exegical work that takes the position that it is, but I didn't find one. Either way, the fact that it's so contested leaves it too tenuous to rely on in a debate. It's akin to attempting to prove the Trinity from 1 John 5:7.

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Exegetically, the passage makes no covenantal sense whatsoever unless it is, in fact, Adam. Allowing for the translation to go either way is then given up to the theological consequence of the idea (thus we employ hermeneutics well unless we want to detract from its meaning in context).

If it means "men " generally, you will have to come up with ANOTHER covenant that they broke LIKE the Israelites.
Or
If it means a city, or a place, literally, well, that just makes no sense at all - places do not transgress. If it means "people" in that place, we are back to square 1, and need some other covenant, or like covenant that God made with "men" (who??) that in like circumstance Israel also broke.

Theologically, I can't see how it could not be Adam, especially in the greater context of Hosea's rebuke to a covenant breaking people.

All that aside, whatever covenant concepts you want to detract from Adam, you will have to detract from Christ, being the second or final Adam. Whatever Christ did, Adam should have done. (Paul's Romans 5 argument). That's the first two books in Witsius, and a huge portion of the Institutes by Calvin.

Do a search for other threads on this - we've discussed it before.

 

[doulosChristou]

I suspect Calvin understood this passage, its covenantal sense, and Hebrew better than we.

"Some thus render the word , adam, "” "œAs the covenant of man have they transgressed it," transferring it to the genitive case, "œAnd they have transgressed the covenants as if it was that of man;" that is, as if they had to do with a mortal man, so have they despised and violated my holy covenant; and this exposition is not very unsuitable, except that it somewhat changes the construction; for in this case the Prophet ought to have said, "œThey have transgressed the covenant as that of a man;" but he says, "˜They as a man,´ etc. But this rendering is far from being that of the words as they are, "˜They as men have transgressed the covenant.´ I therefore interpret the words more simply, as meaning, that they showed themselves to be men in violating the covenant.

And there is here an implied contrast or comparison between God and the Israelites; as though he said, "œI have in good faith made a covenant with them, when I instituted a fixed worship; but they have been men towards me; there has been in them nothing but levity and inconstancy." God then shows that there had not been a mutual concord between him and the Israelites, as men never respond to God; for he sincerely calls them to himself, but they act unfaithfully, or when they have given some proof of obedience, they soon turn back again, or despise and openly reject the offered instruction. We then see in what sense the Prophet says that they had transgressed the covenant of God as men.

Others explain the words thus, "œThey have transgressed as Adam the covenant." But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, "œThey have transgressed as Adam the covenant;" that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed God´s commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid. Let us now proceed--" John Calvin, commentary on Hosea.

 

[Larry Hughes]

All that aside, <<<whatever covenant concepts you want to detract from Adam, you will have to detract from Christ>>>, being the second or final Adam. Whatever Christ did, Adam should have done. (Paul's Romans 5 argument). That's the first two books in Witsius, and a huge portion of the Institutes by Calvin.

Well stated for this is the crux of the issue & where, when denied as in disp. & ironically in Roman catholicism, a denial of Christ's positive righteousness being imputated to us begins to germinate - ultimately denying the Gospel altogether.

Ldh

 

[blhowes]

Thanks for your responses.

Fred's comment about Romans 5 and the second Adam are excellent. It definitely deserves careful consideration.

The Hosea 6:7 passage certainly is a good one to show that there might have been a covenant between God and Adam. I say might because it seems inconclusive due to the difference of opinion regarding the translation of the Hebrew word for Adam/man, as is shown in a little survey of some different versions I had done a while ago:

Hos 6:7 (Wycliffe Bible 1395) But thei as Adam braken the couenaunt;
Hos 6:7 (Miles Coverdale 1535) But euen like as Adam dyd, so haue they broken my couenaunt
Hos 6:7 (Bishop's 1568) But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt,
Hos 6:7 (Geneva 1560) But they like men haue transgressed the couenant:
Hos 6:7 (Douay-Rheims Bible 1609-1610)But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant,
Hos 6:7 (KJV 1611) But they like men have transgressed the covenant:...
Hos 6:7 (Webster's) But they like men have transgressed the covenant:
Hos 6:7 (ASV) But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant:
Hos 6:7(RSV) But at Adam they transgressed the covenant;
Hos 6:7 (NKJV) But like men they transgressed the covenant;
Hos 6:7 (Darby -modern) But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant
Hos 6:7 (NASB) But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant;
Hos 6:7 (NIV) Like Adam, they have broken the covenant
Hos 6:7 (ESV) But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;

I had often wondered why the Geneva and KJV translated the word differently than the way it had been translated in previous versions. Perhaps for the reasons you gave.

Anyway, Hosea 6:7 seems like a good (though perhaps inconclusive) argument to use in favor of the covenant of works if it is part of other supporting arguments.

I read lecture 3 of Duncan's series so far. He raises some other good points. Some of these points, as Matthew has pointed out, are also brought out in some previous threads.

Now, I could show you other places in the Bible where the concept of covenant is present and the term is not. For instance, in II Samuel 7, God establishes His covenant relationship with King David, this glorious culmination with David...

...Now how do we know a covenant is established there since the word "œcovenant" is not mentioned? We know it two ways. First of all, know it because of the contents of what is transacted between God and David in II Samuel 7, even if we had no other reference explaining to us what was going on there. The very contents of the chapter contain the elements of a covenant. Secondly we know because Psalm 89 tells us it was a covenant. So the Bible will look back and see II Samuel 7 as a covenant-making event and Psalm 89 confirms that.

Just because the word covenant isn't there, doesn't mean it wasn't a covenant. The Genesis account may be declared to be a covenant by the Hosea 6:7 verse in the same way that Psalm 89 declares the interaction with David in II Samuel 7 to be a covenant.

We use the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation of God's blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. And here in Genesis 2:15-17, the specific aspect of his obligation, that is, of not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is brought into sharp focus.

This makes me think its not necessarily that important that the phrase "covenant of works" isn't actually used in the Genesis passage. God could have said, "This is the covenant that I make with you Adam. Obey me and you will continue in my blessing. Disobey me and eat of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and you will die". No, God didn't say it in so many words, but I think its clear that God and Adam had that understanding regardless.

 

[blhowes]

Gen 2:16,17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam was allowed to eat of any tree in the garden, except the one. Is there any reason to think that Adam may not have eaten of the tree of life before eating of the forbidden fruit? After thinking about Duncan's description of the garden and all the blessings God gave Adam, I couldn't help but wonder, if the tree of life stood out as being different from the other blessings, better in some way from the other blessings, and allowed by God for him to eat, if he might have eaten of that tree during the 'probationary period'. Pure speculation.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If he had eaten this fruit first, I assume his disobedience would have taken precidence, correct?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by blhowes
Gen 2:16,17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam was allowed to eat of any tree in the garden, except the one. Is there any reason to think that Adam may not have eaten of the tree of life before eating of the forbidden fruit? After thinking about Duncan's description of the garden and all the blessings God gave Adam, I couldn't help but wonder, if the tree of life stood out as being different from the other blessings, better in some way from the other blessings, and allowed by God for him to eat, if he might have eaten of that tree during the 'probationary period'. Pure speculation.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If he had eaten this fruit first, I assume his disobedience would have taken precidence, correct?

It is mostly accepted that the tree of life wasn't a magical fruit tree that let you live forever if you eat of it only once. It is usually looked upon as a sacramental tree. Just as we baptise/eat the Lord's supper to point to the realities of regeneration/gospel etc., so with the tree of life, it pointed to the eternal life given by the creator upon condition of obedience.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I have a Scripture Index to the Westminster Standards. I found it interesting that Hosea 6.7 is not referenced anywhere in the Westminster Standards.

However, the covenant of works that God made with Adam is articulated well by the Divines by reference to other Scriptures (see sec. 2).

 

[Wannabee]

Guys, your stacking up plausibilities here. Sure, what you proposing is possible. However, your basing your doctrine on a stack of possibiliites. They might even be probabilities, however, the further you get from clear Scriptural teaching the more shaky and unstable your stack gets. Probability supporting plausability leads to a possibility, which, when more probability is added soon becomes an impossibility. It's just too many layers removed from clear Scriptural teaching.

As for "adam" in Hosea. any discussion necessitates beginning with proper exegesis. To make claims like some that have been proposed is to read CT into the Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. This is not a responsible hermeneutic, no matter what a person's theological system is. Let the Word speak, if it doesn't fit your system then change your system.

As for the CoW, there was no salvation because there was no sin. The covenants all are spelled out and have some relation to man's fallen condition. Eden was simply man's abode. A perfect environment in a perfect creation under perfect circumstances. God and Adam anjoyed perfect fellowship, unencumbered by sin. What would be the purpose of a covenant under such circumstances? It just doesn't add up. There is no mention of a covenant before the fall. To claim that man had to work in Eden is to add to what is revealed. Man was simply told he can eat anything, except from one tree. Man naming the animals and such was him being allowed to be a part of creation, not a chore or work to earn or keep anything. It was a privilege of station within the new creation. Okay, I'm rambling. I just can't get a covenant out of this.

To claim a CoW is to depart from the clear simple meaning of Scripture. Some may claim that they have a special revelation from the anointing of the Holy Spirit that enables them to see the deeper things of God. This is elitist hogwash, and denies both the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.

"I hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it... To say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture." Ryle

As one preacher said when attempting to expound on the CoW said, "... let me just share with you a little bit of speculation." http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ogy & Justification/Ligons_covtheology/03.htm
I think that pretty much sums it up.


Gentlemen, I've read a few sermons on the CoW. Mostly what I've seen is an effort to justify themselves (not salvifically, but their theology). I have yet to read or hear a clear exegetical study that proves the CoW. It can't be done simply because it is an extrabiblical covenant. The only way to accept it as a covenant is to adjust our meaning of the word "covenant."

Furthermore, to exegete the Westminster Confession... well, you can see where I'm headed. If the Word hasn't said it clearly, then it matters not what the devines say.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Guys, your stacking up plausibilities here. Sure, what you proposing is possible. However, your basing your doctrine on a stack of possibiliites. They might even be probabilities, however, the further you get from clear Scriptural teaching the more shaky and unstable your stack gets. Probability supporting plausability leads to a possibility, which, when more probability is added soon becomes an impossibility. It's just too many layers removed from clear Scriptural teaching.

As for "adam" in Hosea. any discussion necessitates beginning with proper exegesis. To make claims like some that have been proposed is to read CT into the Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. This is not a responsible hermeneutic, no matter what a person's theological system is. Let the Word speak, if it doesn't fit your system then change your system.

As for the CoW, there was no salvation because there was no sin. The covenants all are spelled out and have some relation to man's fallen condition. Eden was simply man's abode. A perfect environment in a perfect creation under perfect circumstances. God and Adam anjoyed perfect fellowship, unencumbered by sin. What would be the purpose of a covenant under such circumstances? It just doesn't add up. There is no mention of a covenant before the fall. To claim that man had to work in Eden is to add to what is revealed. Man was simply told he can eat anything, except from one tree. Man naming the animals and such was him being allowed to be a part of creation, not a chore or work to earn or keep anything. It was a privilege of station within the new creation. Okay, I'm rambling. I just can't get a covenant out of this.

To claim a CoW is to depart from the clear simple meaning of Scripture. Some may claim that they have a special revelation from the anointing of the Holy Spirit that enables them to see the deeper things of God. This is elitist hogwash, and denies both the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.

"I hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it... To say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture." Ryle

As one preacher said when attempting to expound on the CoW said, "... let me just share with you a little bit of speculation."
I think that pretty much sums it up.


Gentlemen, I've read a few sermons on the CoW. Mostly what I've seen is an effort to justify themselves (not salvifically, but their theology). I have yet to read or hear a clear exegetical study that proves the CoW. It can't be done simply because it is an extrabiblical covenant. The only way to accept it as a covenant is to adjust our meaning of the word "covenant."

Furthermore, to exegete the Westminster Confession... well, you can see where I'm headed. If the Word hasn't said it clearly, then it matters not what the devines say.

Joseph,
Are you saying that you never use necessary inference in your exegesis?

[Edited on 6/20/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Peter]

ditto to joe's words of caution, however, the CoW seems plain from scripture. God promised life to Adam and his posterity if he obeyed His Law and threatened death to them if he transgressed it.

Gen 2:17, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Romans 5, 1 Cor 15

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I have a Scripture Index to the Westminster Standards. I found it interesting that Hosea 6.7 is not referenced anywhere in the Westminster Standards.

Just guessing, but would that be because those who wrote the Westminster Standards used the Geneva Bible, which translates it:

Hos 6:7 (Geneva 1560) But they like men haue transgressed the couenant:

Just a thought.

 

[Wannabee]

Scott,

Keyword, "NECESSARY."

You can substitue "inferences" in the above post for "plausibilities" or even for "probabilities." You can even say on occassion, where the analogy of faith makes it obvious, that they are necessities. However, once one has departed from the clear irrufutable meaning of the Text one can't be too cautious. To make any "inferences" that stack upon themselves is extremely dangerous, and eventually irresponsible.


I've had a recent conversation with a close friend in regard to this. Here's the challenge: Without extensively quoting the works of men, can you give clear Scriptural exegesis for the CoW? Furthermore, if you make "inferences," please explain the hermeneutical principles used in your exegesis that allow you to make those "inferences." Furthermore, please share what restraints you adhere to in using any hermeneutical principles that allow you to expound on your use of these "inferences."

Make it clear. Keep it Scriptural. Prove that the CoW is indeed clearly taught in Scripture. Convince me.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I have a Scripture Index to the Westminster Standards. I found it interesting that Hosea 6.7 is not referenced anywhere in the Westminster Standards.

Just guessing, but would that be because those who wrote the Westminster Standards used the Geneva Bible, which translates it:

Hos 6:7 (Geneva 1560) But they like men haue transgressed the couenant:

Just a thought.

The Westminster Assembly made reference to all Protestant translations of the Bible prior to 1646, including and especially the King James Version. But the Assembly was loaded with Bible scholars, some of whom put together the Westminster Annotations on the Bible, so while I am not equipped to address the proper rendering of Hosea 6.7, I thought it was noteworthy that the Divines spoke clearly of the covenant of works made with Adam -- a basic point of Reformed doctrine, btw -- and yet did not incorporate that passage in their proof texts.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Gentlemen, I've read a few sermons on the CoW. Mostly what I've seen is an effort to justify themselves (not salvifically, but their theology). I have yet to read or hear a clear exegetical study that proves the CoW. It can't be done simply because it is an extrabiblical covenant. The only way to accept it as a covenant is to adjust our meaning of the word "covenant."

That sounds like a good place to start, defining the word. It seems that those who believe in CT have no problem seeing a covenant in the Genesis account - there's no contradiction with their definition. Your definition must be different from theirs. How do you define the word covenant?

Originally posted by Wannabee
Guys, your stacking up plausibilities here. Sure, what you proposing is possible. However, your basing your doctrine on a stack of possibiliites. They might even be probabilities, however, the further you get from clear Scriptural teaching the more shaky and unstable your stack gets. Probability supporting plausability leads to a possibility, which, when more probability is added soon becomes an impossibility. It's just too many layers removed from clear Scriptural teaching.

What is it about the covenant of works that makes it so removed from the clear Scriptural teaching? Is it just because the phrase 'covenant of works' isn't found in the text, or is it something about the covenant itself?

Originally posted by Wannabee
As for "adam" in Hosea. any discussion necessitates beginning with proper exegesis. To make claims like some that have been proposed is to read CT into the Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. This is not a responsible hermeneutic, no matter what a person's theological system is. Let the Word speak, if it doesn't fit your system then change your system.

If there is a covenant of works, wouldn't you agree that the Hosea passage, if it weren't for the difference of opinion about its translation, would be the best support of the doctrine (perhaps not necessarily called 'covenant of works', but a covenant of some sort). A good number of Bible versions translate the word Adam instead of man. If a person were using one of those versions, allowing scripture to interpret scripture they'd conclude that Adam had broken a covenant with God. In that case, it seems they'd have to read their theology into the scripture to override that clear teaching.

BTW, I appreciate your set of eyes looking at and commenting on the teaching. Clearly, the phrase covenant of works isn't in the scriptures, so instead we need to look at 'the evidence'. I don't know if you agree with me, but it makes sense to me not to dismiss it as extrabiblical just because the phrase isn't there. Needless to say, its good to look carefully/cautiously at the biblical evidence in support of the doctrine.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Witsius on the Covenant of Works

 

[LawrenceU]

Witsius. I wondered when the thirteenth apostle would be tossed into the fray

Guys, no one has touched on what Joe posted regarding the stacked plausibilities. It is a valid point. And it deals directly with his comments on the necessity of the inference being made. It appears to me that the inference of a CoW is not necessary unless you want to end up in a particular place. It is very circular, in my opinion.

 

[Scott Bushey]

What is it about the covenant of works that makes it so removed from the clear Scriptural teaching? Is it just because the phrase 'covenant of works' isn't found in the text, or is it something about the covenant itself?

Bob,
Not that I have a whole lot more to add to this discussion, and I believe it is a good discussion, what I find interesting is that we have quite a number of inferences in scripture that no one questions. For some strange reason, the credo believes that our theology hinges upon this one inference.

Augustine of Hippo wrote:
"But even the infants, not personally in their own life, but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God´s covenant in that one in whom all have sinned. Now there are many things called God´s covenants besides those two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the first man, is just this: "In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die." Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus, "All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shall die the death."

 

[Wannabee]

Here's some thoughts on berith (covenant). The biblical covenants of YHWH are obviously suzerainity covenants. Covenants CAN be conditional, but are not of necessity. A covenant is an agreement made between two, but the greater can impose his side without any consent whatsoever on the lesser. The Noahic Covenant is unconditional. The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. The Davidic Covenant is unconditional. The New Covenant is uncoditional. The only conditional covenant that I'm aware of is the Mosaic Covenant, and God said that it was for condemnation anyway. Yet even within the MC ther are unconditional promises, and God made it clear that Israel could not and would not keep it.

Where does God, in His dealings with Adam, ever say "do this and live?" He doesn't. He says you may do this. Be he makes no positive commands. He simply says, "don't this or you will die." There is nothing that Adam is required to do. Anything he does is a privilege, not a duty, obligation nor work.

If you want to call that a covenant, well, I can live with that. However, it's not a covenant of works. There is nothing required of Adam to keep his position. We are given no clue that he would have fallen if he did not name the animals, or perform any task God laid before him. We simply can't go there. If we're going to call this a covenant, it's the covenant of death or disobedience or something along those lines. In affect, it's a negative covenant, with a negative promise. In all of the covenants God is giving or offering men something they do not already possess. In Eden man already possessed everlasting life. God offered him nothing more for obedience.

Bob, if there were a CoW I would still say that the Hosea passage does not refer to it. The exegetical data is simply against this translation. I would think that, in light of the fact that the divines didn't use it, it would be clear that it is not a good text to use as proof. It's very tenuous to build a doctrine on such a contested passage, especially in light of so much lexical evidence against it. Again, many commentaries seem to agree with the use of Adam (the person), but they do not deal with the text. You are right in saying that, if it were the correct translation, we would have to conclude that there was indeed a covenant. But that's already been addressed.

I don't know if you agree with me, but it makes sense to me not to dismiss it as extrabiblical just because the phrase isn't there. Needless to say, its good to look carefully/cautiously at the biblical evidence in support of the doctrine.

I agree and disagree, in a sense. It's not a matter of dismissing it. It's a matter of coming to the conclusion based on Scripture alone. Start with the text, continue with the text and don't depart from the text and see if you come up with a CoW. So, to put it bluntly, I don't dismiss it because I don't really consider it a valid doctrine. I don't find it. I really don't think it can be shown to be biblical. This is a threat to CT because CT needs the CoW. I don't subscribe to any theological system, so I really don't care if CT/DT/NCT/etc. is not supported by my findings. The Analogy of Faith must be adhered to, but no creed, confession or theological system was ever meant to bind Scripture.


Witsius was brilliant, no doubt. However, the link is to a commentary, not an exegetical work. His opening statements assumes a CoW. This is precisely why I said

Without extensively quoting the works of men, can you give clear Scriptural exegesis for the CoW?

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

The Westminster Assembly made reference to all Protestant translations of the Bible prior to 1646, including and especially the King James Version. But the Assembly was loaded with Bible scholars, some of whom put together the Westminster Annotations on the Bible, so while I am not equipped to address the proper rendering of Hosea 6.7, I thought it was noteworthy that the Divines spoke clearly of the covenant of works made with Adam -- a basic point of Reformed doctrine, btw -- and yet did not incorporate that passage in their proof texts.

This is interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[daveb]

Also, the CoW does not depend in any way on the Hosea passage. I do think that it must be rendered "Adam" simply because I do not see another referent.

I think the covenantal language in Genesis is enough to warrant speaking of a CoW.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by daveb
Also, the CoW does not depend in any way on the Hosea passage. I do think that it must be rendered "Adam" simply because I do not see another referent.

I think the covenantal language in Genesis is enough to warrant speaking of a CoW.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q30: Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A30: God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,[1] into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works;[2] but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace.[3]

1. I Thess. 5:9
2. Gal. 3:10, 12
3. Titus 3:4-7; Gal. 3:21; Rom. 3:20-22

Q92: What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A92: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.[1]

1. Gen. 1:26-27; 2:17; Rom. 2:14-15; 10:5

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The elements which constituted the "covenant of works" are not formally stated in Scripture. They are nevertheless clearly implied. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden. So was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from which Adam was forbidden to eat upon pain of death. There was clearly held before him the alternative of obedience and life or disobedience and death. It is to be legitimately inferred from Genesis 2:7 that the Lord required "perfect and personal obedience" since the least infraction of his will is threatened with death. Because the elements of a covenant are thus present, the apostle Paul raises the hypothetical situation in which, if a man were to keep all God's commandments, he would receive the reward of life (Gal. 3:12). Some object to speaking of "a covenant of works" on the grounds (a) that such a covenant is not formally stated in Scripture, and (b) that such a designation falsely suggests that the works of man could have merited God's blessings. These objections do not convince us. The doctrine of the Trinity is not formally stated in Scripture, either, but it is implied everywhere. The same may be said for the term "covenant of works." The second objection is more formidable. And yet, no such charge can be laid against our Confession, for even in calling it "a covenant of works," the Confession guards against the very danger that is urged. Moreover, the designation "covenant of works" has the merit of focusing upon the precise element which distinguishes the one covenant from the other, namely, the fact that the obedient works of man were the condition laid down by the Lord pinpoints the precise matter in which defection from the covenant of grace is to be seen. For, as Paul says, if we are saved by grace "then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Rom. 11:6).

G.I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession Study Guide