The Covenantal Context Of The Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?

By Robert Gonzales, Jr.

Robert Gonzales Jr. is the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (www.rbseminary.org) in Easley, South Carolina, where he also serves as a pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. He has an M.A. in theology and is a Ph.D. candidate in Old Testament Interpretation at Bob Jones University.

Before Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, the world was unmarred by evil and was “very good” (Gen. 1:31; 2:25). In this important respect, the present world differs radically from the original state of affairs. However, in other ways, the pre- and post-fall worlds share much in common. One point of alleged continuity is the idea that God always interacts with humanity in terms of covenant. Indeed, as George Mendenhall notes, “The names given the two parts of the Bible in Christian tradition rest on the religious conception that the relationship between God and man is established by a covenant.”[1] This conception led biblical scholars, as early as Augustine, to speak of God’s relationship to Adam as a covenant.[2] However, the implications of this idea were not explored until the Protestant Reformation. From that point, theologians have commonly described God’s original relationship to mankind variously as a “covenant of works,”[3] “covenant of nature,”[4] “covenant of life,”[5] “covenant of friendship,”[6] “covenant with Adam,”[7] “covenant of creation,”[8] “covenant in Eden,”[9] and “everlasting covenant.”[10]

This understanding of un-fallen man’s relationship to God as covenantal has been challenged by some Bible scholars. John Murray, for example, notes that the pre-fall arrangement between God and Adam is never designated a covenant in Scripture. He concludes, “Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God’s administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to redemptive design.”[11] Anthony Hoekema concurs that “the word covenant in Scripture is always used in a context of redemption.”[12] More recently, John Stek has argued that Biblical covenants were “ad hoc emergency measures” that functioned

to guarantee in situations fraught with uncertainties that certain specified actions would be carried out. These uncertainties arose not from the unreliability of God but from the fallibility of humans: their faltering faith, their wayward hearts and lives, the divine judgments their sins evoked, and the hostility of persons and powers arrayed against God’s kingdom.[13]

Since there were no “situations fraught with uncertainties” before the fall, then God’s relationship with Adam should not be viewed in terms of covenant.[14] A similar objection is advanced by Paul Williamson who identifies oath-taking and promise-threat sanctions as essential elements of a biblical covenant.[15] Since the creation account(s) contains no explicit reference to solemn oath-taking, it is inappropriate to view the divine-human arrangement as a covenant.[16]

One might respond to these objections, first of all, by pointing out that a theological concept may be present though the technical terminology for that concept is absent. As Walther Eichrodt appropriately remarks, “The crucial point is not—as an all too naïve criticism seems to think—the occurrence or absence of the Hebrew word.”[17] One might also question the assumption that covenant-making is a solely redemptive institution, since the institution of marriage, which Scripture elsewhere describes as covenantal (Mal. 2:8), predates the fall.[18] Even if one grants that the swearing of oaths assumes a post-fall context of “uncertainties,”[19] one might argue that such formal oath-taking in-and-of itself is not the essence of a covenant relationship.[20] Or, if one grants that oath-taking is a sine qua non of covenant making, he may yet assume such formal oaths were taken though not explicitly mentioned in the text.[21] But in the end, such responses are insufficient without an appeal to positive Biblical warrant. Is there exegetical evidence for viewing man’s fall into sin within the context of a covenant?

Essence of a Covenant

The standard Hebrew term for “covenant” is בְּרִית (ḇerît). Its semantic range is multifaceted and somewhat flexible. Not surprisingly, it is challenging to find one definition that suits every context in which the term is found.[22] At its most basic level, a בְּרִית refers to a formal commitment or obligation that is self-imposed or imposed upon another party or parties.[23] When the commitment or obligation is imposed upon another party, it assumes the form of law or commandment (Exod. 19:5; 24:3-8; Deut. 4:13; 33:9; Isa. 24:5; Psa. 50:16; 103:18). When the commitment or obligation is self-imposed, it takes the form of promise or threat, which is often solemnized with an oath (Gen. 15:17-18; 21:22-27; 26:28-30; Psa. 89:3,28,34) and sometimes accompanied by symbolic gestures or signs.[24] The Bible contains examples of both parity and non-parity covenants. Some human covenants are made among parties that are more or less equals (Gen. 14:13; 31:44; 1 Sam. 20:14-17; 23:18; 1 Kgs. 5:12 [Heb. 26]; 15:19; Mal. 2:14). On the other hand, there are examples of human covenants involving a superior and inferior. In such cases, the superior usually imposes the terms of the covenant upon the inferior (Josh. 9:6; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:12-18; Jer. 34:8), though in a few cases the inferior may request the terms (1 Kgs. 15:19; 20:34; Hos. 12:1 [Heb. 2]). Obviously, the covenants between God and man are non-parity in nature.[25]

Some modern scholars have argued that the concept of a divine-human covenant was a late theological development in Israel.[26] However, recent archaeological discoveries have brought to light numerous similarities between the divine-human covenants of Scripture and ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties and royal grants, particularly those dating to the middle part of the second millennium (1400-1200 b.c.).[27] The suzerain-vassal treaty consisted of three basic or primary elements: (1) the suzerain’s preamble and historical prologue by which he introduces himself and reviews his benevolent deeds on behalf of the vassal; (2) the suzerain’s covenant obligations for the vassal to which the vassal must render fealty; (3) the suzerain’s covenant sanctions in which he pledges to reward loyalty with blessings and threatens to punish disloyalty with curses.[28] In the royal grant, the suzerain rewards the vassal usually with land and/or perpetual dynasty for loyalty rendered.[29]

Both of these ancient Near Eastern covenant types find striking analogies in the divine-human covenants of OT Scripture.[30]

Echoes of a Creation Covenant

A careful study of the explicit references to divine-human covenants in the OT reveals certain characteristic motifs that seem to echo an earlier covenantal arrangement.

1. The Covenant with Noah

The first explicit reference to a divine-human בְּרִית is found in Gen. 6:18. In the face of impending worldwide judgment, God assures Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you,”[31] which, as the subsequent narrative indicates, will result in the preservation of Noah, his family, and animal life by means of the ark (6:18-21; 7:6-19). Of special interest for this study is the narrator’s choice of verbs for covenant-making in this context (cf., 9:9,11,17). Rather than employing the standard terminology for inaugurating a covenant,[32] the author uses the Hiphil form of the verb קוּם, which commonly denotes the fulfillment of a prior obligation or commitment. Thus in Jer. 35:16, God commends “the sons of Jonadab,” because “[they] have kept [ֵהקִימוּ] the command that their father gave them.” Later, God declares to the idolatrous Israelites who had made vows to false gods, “Go ahead and confirm [תָּקִימְנָה הָקֵים]33 your vows, and certainly perform[34] your vows!” (44:25, NAU). In 2 Kgs 23:3, King Josiah “made [וַיִּכְרֹת] a covenant before the Lord … to carry out [ְְלהָקִים] the words of this covenant that were written in this book.”[35] On God’s part, he assures the Israelite nation, “If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them… [I] will confirm [ַַוהֲקִימֹתִי] my covenant with you” (Lev. 26:3,9; cf., Exod. 6:4; Deut. 8:18; Ezek. 16:60,62). And his commitment is firm: “Does [God] speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill [ְיקִימֶנָּה]?” (Num. 23:19). Passages like these have led William Dumbrell to conclude that “in contexts where hëqîm bürîT stands … the institution of a covenant is not being referred to but rather its perpetuation.”[36] In light of this, God’s words to Noah seem to assume a covenant previously instituted by God.[37]

What prior covenantal institution could be in view? A careful examination of the preceding and subsequent contexts suggests that God’s mandate to humanity in the Genesis creation account is in view. In chapter 1, God creates a well-ordered and stable world,[38] appoints humanity to serve in the capacity of his “image” (vv. 26, 27), and then “blesses them,” declaring, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (v. 28). This mandate is developed further in chapter 2 where Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden “to work it and keep it” (v. 15). God also generously provides man food (1:29; 2:9, 16) and companionship (2:18-24). However, as the narrative continues, humanity falls into sin (3:1-7), and the human condition worsens until the entire earth becomes “corrupt” and “filled with violence” (6:11,12). No longer can God look at his handiwork and assess it as “very good” (1:31), because “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (6:5). Yet, there remains one bright spot in the world: “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).[39] Consequently, God not only preserves Noah, his family, and the animals from the worldwide judgment (7:6-8:19), but he grants them a “new beginning,” which echoes the blessings of the creation account. First of all, God commands Noah, like Adam, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (9:1,7). Secondly, he grants to Noah, as he did to Adam, dominion over the earth (9:2). Thirdly, God provides Noah with food (9:3) but orders him not to eat what is forbidden (9:4). Finally, God reaffirms to Noah, to his offspring, and to the living creatures the creation-blessing of life and a stable well-ordered creation (8:21-22; 9:8-17). These observations lead to the nearly irresistible conclusion that the בְּרִית established with Noah is nothing less than the perpetuation of God’s original בְּרִית with Adam.[40]

2. The Covenants with Abraham and His Seed

Echoes of a creation covenant continue to reverberate in subsequent redemptive covenants. For example, God promises to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a royal offspring (Gen. 12:2,7; 13:15; 15:4, 18; 16:10; 17:4-7,16; 22:16-17; 26:3-4,24; 28:13-14; 35:11-12; 46:3), a territory over which they will exercise dominion (12:1,7; 13:14-15,17; 15:7,18; 17:8; 22:1; 26:3-4; 28:13,15; 35:12; 46:3-4), ultimate triumph over their enemies (12:3; 22:17; 24:60; 27:29; 48:8-10), and the privilege to serve as his royal-priestly mediators of divine-blessing to all the families of the earth (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 30:27,30; 39:5; 41:37-57). While the patriarchs see the fulfillment of these promises only “from a distance” (Heb. 11:13), their descendants, the people of Israel, taste the first-fruits. Moses, like a second Noah, leads Abraham’s multitudinous offspring (Gen. 46:27; Exo. 1:1-7,12,20; cf., Num. 23:10; Deut. 1:10; 26:5) safely through the waters of judgment (Exo. 14:1-15:21)[41] to Sinai, where they receive the “Treaty of the Great King,” which is later renewed on the plains of Moab.[42] In this covenant, Yahweh, the Supreme Suzerain, reviews his mighty and benevolent deeds on behalf of his redeemed vassal-son, Israel (Exod. 19:3-4; 20:2; Deut. 1:6-4:49).[43] Then he summons his people to serve him loyally as a royal priesthood and holy nation (Exod. 19:5-6; Deut. 4:5-7) and promises to secure their conquest of Canaan, which he had deeded to their fathers by royal grant (Exo. 6:8; 32:13; 33:1; Lev. 26:42; Num. 32:11; Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 19:8; 27:3; 30:20; 34:4). Israel, Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1), becomes the heir-apparent and stands on the verge of inheriting a dominion and dynasty that God had intended for his primordial son, Adam. The parallels are inviting.[44]

3. The Covenant with David

Through the leadership of Joshua, Israel successfully takes dominion of the land and subdues its inhabitants (Josh. 6:1-27; 8:3-19; 10:1-12:24; 18:1),[45] subsequently renewing her covenant with Yahweh at Shechem (Josh. 24:1-33).[46] Yet, because of unfaithfulness to the covenant, Israel’s grip on the promised land is repeatedly in jeopardy (Judges) until God raises up for them a king “after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). Once David reestablishes Israel’s control of the land and brings the Ark of the Covenant to its resting place in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6), God offers him, as royal grant, a great name, a secure dominion, and an enduring dynasty (2 Sam. 7:8-16). These covenant blessings not only advance the earlier promises given to Abraham and his seed, but they also resemble the primordial blessings God intended for Adam. This appears to be David’s own take on the matter, for in v. 19 he reflexively responds to Yahweh’s generous gift by exclaiming, וזֹאת תִּוֹרַת הָאָדָם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, the best translation of which reads, “And this is the Charter for all mankind, O Lord God!”[47]

In summary, a review of the major divine-human OT covenants has revealed the recapitulation of certain motifs that are prominent in God’s original mandate to humanity. In other words, God’s covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David all appear to have as their chief aim the advancement of divinely revealed objectives that reach back to man’s beginnings. The reverberation of such objectives suggests, at the very least, something analogous to a creation covenant. Firmer conclusions will require a closer look at the creation account(s) of Genesis 1 and 2.

Elements of Covenant in Creation

Critical scholars posit at least two distinct sources behind the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 because certain events are repeated and the two accounts employ a variation of the divine name.[48] However, ancient Hebrew literature frequently employs repetition in which the second narrative further elaborates upon a theme(s) or event(s) revealed in the first narrative.[49] Furthermore, the variation in divine names serves as a literary device to signal a shift in the narrative and perhaps also to highlight different ways in which God relates to his creation.[50] The “two accounts,” therefore, are complementary. The first narrative (1:1-2:3) describes God’s creation with panoramic sweep; the second (2:4-25) with a selective focus upon man and woman in the Garden of Eden. The question is whether these accounts contain elements of a covenant.

1. The Great King, Cosmic Kingdom, and Vice-Regent

The first words of the Bible are radically God-centered: “In the beginning, God.”[51] Unquestionably, God is the main character of the narrative (as well as the rest of Scripture),[52] and the narrator portrays him and his work in majestic royal metaphor. He is introduced as אֱלֹהִים (ʾelōhîm),[53] who simply commands creation into existence with Ten Creative Fiats,[54] which the original Israelite reader may have easily associated with the Ten Covenant Words of Sinai.[55] Later biblical writers appear to make this connection when they relate God’s creative and providential decree[56] with his covenantal law. For example, in Psalm 147 the Psalmist links God’s sovereign word of fiat (vv. 15-18) with his “word to Jacob, his statues and rules to Israel” (v. 19).[57] Even more notable is the passage in Jeremiah 33 where God’s fourth-day creation fiat is described as his “covenant with day and night [ְְברִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה]” (vv. 20,25).[58]

God’s sovereign authority is also highlighted when he divides and names[59] the domains of this kingdom and assigns to each its appropriate rulers and inhabitants.[60] The orderly and symmetrical structure of the narrative portrays the Creator’s artistic genius and architectural design,[61] and not surprisingly, later biblical writers depict God’s creative work with palatial metaphor.[62] The stately building project comes to its initial stage of completion at the end of six days with the Sabbath-rest (2:1-3), which Scripture later associates with secured dominion and kingly enthronement.[63]

Perhaps the most striking royal metaphor is that which God assigns to mankind. Although man does share much in common with the rest of creation and in particular the animal kingdom,[64] he is much more than mere animal. The narrative underscores man’s uniqueness in several ways,[65] the most notable being God’s creation of mankind as his “image” [צֶלֶם] and “likeness” [דְּמוּת].66 The reference is not to an external pattern to which humanity conforms but to what man actually is.[67] While these expressions as applied to humanity are semantically rich and theologically expansive,[68] their significance in this context primarily serves to highlight man’s royal and filial[69] role as vice-regent or royal steward over God’s created kingdom (cf., Psa. 8:4-8 [Heb. 5-9]). Accordingly, God creates man as His image “so that he might rule.”[70] In support of this interpretation, scholars note the practice of ancient Near Eastern kings who would sometimes erect a personal statue in the geographical spheres of their jurisdiction.[71] Even the king himself was viewed as the image and filial vice-regent of the territorial deity. For example, the Egyptian god Amon Re is represented as saying to Pharaoh Amenophis III: “You are my beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth; I have given to you to rule the earth in peace.”[72] In light of this ancient Near Eastern parallel, Hans Walter Wolff offers the following reading of Gen. 1:26-28:

[M]an is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.[73]

Thus, God creates and commissions man to mediate the divine rule over the cosmic realm analogically. As a result, man as royal son is to carry on the work of “kingdom-building,” following his Father’s work-rest cycle of subduing the earth (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11) until history is complete and he too enters his rest (Heb. 4:1-11).[74]

As this survey of the first creation account has revealed, the opening narrative of Genesis is all about the kingdom of God, even though the terms “king” and “kingdom” never appear.[75] How does this theme relate to covenant? The biblical בְּרִית is “the instrument constituting the rule (or kingdom) of God.”[76] This idea of covenant is implicit in God’s royal mandate to humanity (1:26, 28) and becomes more explicit as the writer transitions to the second creation narrative with the introduction of God’s special covenant name.

2. The Heir Apparent, Royal Garden, and Loyalty-Law

The writer employs chiasm to mark the transition from the previous creation narrative (1:1-2:3) to the subsequent Eden narrative (2:4-4:26), wherein man, his vocation, and the conditions under which he is to fulfill that calling become the focal point.[77] Significant is the fact that God’s special name יהוה (yhwh)[78] is now consistently joined to his more general title Elohim. Moses may simply intend his Israelite reader to identify the covenant God of Sinai as the Creator. It is also possible that Moses wanted the people of Israel to understand God’s relationship to man from the beginning as covenantal in nature. This latter interpretation receives further support as the narrator continues the royal motif of the previous narrative.

Moses introduces God’s formation of the man (v. 7) with an allusion to the incomplete condition of the earth and the need for the creation of mankind to bring completion (vv. 5-6).[79] Just as the unformed and unfilled earth of 1:2 called for the “Spirit of God” to bring order and completion, so the uncultivated state of the field calls for the formation of God’s image to bring completeness.[80] The description of God’s forming man from the dust not only parallels the reference to man as divine image,81 but the act of divine “inbreathing” highlights the suzerain-vassal relationship,[82] and the picture of being “raised from the dust” is a metaphor for the conferral of royal status (1 Sam. 2:8; 1 Kgs. 16:2; Psa. 113:7-8).[83] God’s kingdom administrator is ready for assignment.[84]

Yahweh-Elohim plants a garden below the holy mountain of Eden,[85] into which he places the man in order to serve and keep it (2:8,15). The garden is not merely a food plot or an idyllic park.[86] Rather, it is a royal sanctuary where man is to pay homage continually to his divine King,[87] and from which man is to advance God’s kingdom centrifugally over the entire earth.[88] The implication is that man will eventually complete the task and, like his Sovereign, enter an eschatological Sabbath enthronement (Gen. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:1-11).[89]

However, in order to enjoy the blessing of the royal eschatological grant, the heir apparent must carry out his imperial commission in a way that accurately reflects his holy Suzerain’s character[90] and that visibly manifests absolute submission to and dependence upon Yahweh-Elohim’s revealed will.[91] Such service will demand undivided loyalty. He must “love the Lord [his] God with all [his] heart and with all [his] soul and with all [his] might” (Deut. 6:5).[92] It will also require a wisdom that is founded upon “the fear of the Lord” (Gen. 22:14; Prov. 1:7; 9:10). In order to prove man’s fealty and promote his ethical maturation, Yahweh-Elohim devises a probationary test. He places two sacramental trees[93] in the middle of the Garden, namely, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:9) and forbids the man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge upon the pain of death (2:16-17).[94] While most scholars agree that the Tree of Life represents and/or confers immortality (3:22), their interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge varies widely.[95] Henri Blocher certainly catches the gist of the author’s intent when he notes, “The text suggests both the benefit granted to and the fidelity required from the vassal. It defines, as an agreement should, both the generosity of the Lord and the duties he imposes.”[96] More specifically, the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” refers to the ability to exercise mature ethical judgment (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), a necessary quality and prerogative of kings (2 Sam. 14:17,20; 1 Kgs. 3:9).[97] This understanding of the phrase constrains an interesting twist upon God’s command against eating from the tree (2:17). On the one hand, it appears God does not want man to have this knowledge. On the other hand, such knowledge would seem necessary and within the province of man’s role as royal steward.[98] The solution is to view the Tree of Knowledge as a divinely appointed instrument to bring man to ethical maturity, namely, wisdom,[99] enabling him to realize his full kingly potential as God’s image and offering to him a higher condition of life.[100] Man will have to attain these blessings on God’s own terms. While theologians debate the precise nature of these terms,[101] the obvious demand for unswerving covenant loyalty and devotion is patent. Blocher provides an excellent summary:

The Lord reserves for himself the royal prerogative to decide, the Creator God alone knows good and evil, he alone is autonomous. Relative to God, mankind must, in order to be happy, constantly approve his dependence as a vassal and renounce all conspiracy against his suzerain; relative to God, mankind must rejoice in his filial dependence and reject the mirage of a truant autonomy like that of the prodigal son.[102]

Understood in this way, the narrative presents the stipulations and sanctions of a covenant: faith and obedience result in life; unbelief and disobedience result in death. The original Israelite reader could hardly miss the connection with the alternatives Yahweh had presented to him:

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. (Deut. 30:19-20)

Conclusion

The echoes of an original creational covenant that are heard throughout the subsequent redemptive covenants do not appear to be imaginary. An examination of the Genesis creation narratives has revealed the elements of a divine-human covenantal relationship.[103] This seems also to have been the understanding of two eighth-century b.c. prophets. Hosea brings his fellow Israelites before the bar of God because “like Adam [דָםßכְּאָ] they transgressed the covenant [בְרִית]” (Hos. 6:7),[104] and Isaiah universalizes that verdict, applying it to all the nations: “The earth is polluted because of its inhabitants, who have transgressed laws, violated statutes, broken the ancient covenant [רִית עוֹ¤לָםïבְּ]” (Isa. 24:5, NAB).[105] Likewise, one should note the parallel Paul draws between Adam’s transgression and Israel’s transgressions (Rom. 5:12-14,20) as well as the contrast between Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience (Rom. 5:15-21). Since both Israel’s disobedience as well as Christ’s obedience are to be understood in covenantal categories (that is, either in terms of covenant-breaking or covenant-keeping), then one might argue inferentially for a covenantal understanding of Adam’s relationship to God and the divine law. In sum, an appreciation of the covenantal context of the fall not only has important ramifications for a theology of the covenants,[106] but it also helps to preserve a biblical theology of sin. There is a sense in which all human sin is tied to that primeval covenant and finds its archetype in Adam’s first transgression. Sin is not merely a lack of conformity to or transgression of an abstract impersonal law-code; it is a betrayal of trust, a breach of friendship, and an affront to a benevolent and loving Sovereign who from the beginning had man’s highest joy in view.

Notes

1. George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955), 24. F.F. Bruce traces the earliest known references to the two parts of the Bible as “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant” to the end of the 2nd century a.d. The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 21-22. The nomenclature with which English-speaking people are more familiar, namely, the Old and New “Testaments,” is derived from the Latin testamentum, which was sometimes used to translate the Hebrew and Greek words for covenant.
2. Book XVI, section 27, in The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: The Modern Library, 1950).
3. See The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647-1648), 7.2; Johannus Cocceius (1603-1669), Summa Theologica, XXII, 1, cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1950), 281; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 2:117-129; Robert Lewis Dabney, Systematic Theology (1871; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 292-305; James Henley Thornwell, “The Covenant of Works,” in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell (1875; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986), 264-299; William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888), 2:148-167; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941), 211-218; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948), 23; J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 91-93; 128, 215, 219; Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology (Greenville, S.C.: Greenville Seminary Press, 1994), 1:275-290; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 516-518; Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 430-440; Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 107-117; Marguerite Shuster, The Fall and Sin: What We Have Become As Sinners (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 6-29.
4. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) seems to have preferred this designation, though he also refers to it as a “legal,” or a covenant “of works.” Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), 1:575; see also Cocceius, Summa doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei, II, 22, cited by Heppe, 284.
5. The Westminster Larger Catechism (1647), Q 20; Morton Smith, 1:277.
6. John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (London: Thomas Tegg, 1839), 446.
7. Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing, 1966), 214-226.
8. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 67-87; Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 14-137; Michael D. Williams, Far As the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005), 41-62.
9. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 111-134.
10. Gordon Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 259-265. For other suggestions and a survey of the various nomenclatures used to describe this original covenant, see Rowland S. Ward, God & Adam: Reformed Theology & the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003), 25, 95-103.
11. “The Adamic Administration,” in The Collected Works of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 2:49.
12. Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 121.
13. “Covenant Overload In Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994), 39. For a rebuttal to Stek, see Craig G. Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995), 11-33.
14. Roger Beckwith regards the attempt to carry the idea of covenant back to creation as “too speculative.” “The Unity and Diversity of God’s Covenants,” Tyndale Bulletin 38 (1987), 99, n. 23.
15. Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. Donald A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 39.
16. For Williamson’s full argument, see pp. 52-58. John Murray argues similarly and prefers the term “administration” to covenant. “Adamic Administration,” 2:47-59.
17. Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:17-18.
18. Gordon P. Hugenberger marshals evidence that the first human marriage described in Genesis 2:23-24 should be understood as covenantal. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi (Leiden: Brill; republished Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 216-279.
19. This might be a reasonable assumption drawn from Heb. 6:17-18, but it may not be a necessary conclusion. Would not marriage prior to the fall have assumed some sort of formalization analogous to the exchanging of vows?
20. True, the OT sometimes uses the term for “oath” [אָלָה] synonymously for “covenant” (Gen. 26:28; Deut. 29:13 [Heb. 14]; Ezek. 16:59; 17:18). But the term for “law” [תּוֹרָה] is also used in parallel with covenant (Psa. 78:10; Isa. 24:5; Hos. 8:1). These may be cases of synecdoche, the part for the whole.
21. Meredith Kline attempts to identify the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2) as a symbolic oath-taking on the part of God with respect to his creation. Kingdom Prologue, 30-33. Whether this is so, there is no explicit reference to Adam making a solemn oath in response to God’s mandate. But Moses’ creation narrative is highly selective and concise. It is conceivable that he did not feel the need to highlight this particular element but expected his Israelite reader to assume its presence. Even Williamson concedes that “where this latter element [oath-taking] is not expressly mentioned, a close reading of the material leads one to the conclusion that such an oath was always implicit in so far as a bĕrît is concerned.” Sealed by an Oath, 43.
22. Delbert Hillers alludes to the challenge of defining the term and the difference of opinion when he observes, “It is not the case of six blind men and the elephant, but of a group of learned paleontologists creating different monsters from the fossils of six separate species.” Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), 7. Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 3, compares it to the challenge of defining “mother.”
23. See E. Kutsch, “ בְּרִיתbürîT obligation,” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:56-66; Moshe Weinfeld, “ בְּרִיתbürîT” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 253-79. Roger T. Beckwith, “God’s Covenants,” Tyndale Bulletin 38 (1987), defines a בְּרִית as “a league of friendship, either between man and man or between God and man, solemnly inaugurated, either by words alone or by words and symbolical ceremonies, in which obligations are undertaken on one or both sides. The obligations are often accompanied by an oath, and have the character of solemn promises” (96). “Friendship” is often assumed in covenants but not always. And even when friendship is assumed, it does not constitute the covenant per se. Therefore, David Engelsma’s attempt to define covenant as “fellowship” is misguided. Trinity and Covenant: God as Holy Family (Jenison, MI.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2006), 117-20. John Murray’s definition of בְּרִית as promissory commitment highlights a major element in the concept but is too narrow to capture the entire semantic range since it only focuses upon the self-imposition of obligation. The Covenant of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988), 5-12.
24. The signs, tokens, and ceremonial gestures include a rainbow (Gen. 9:17), circumcision (Gen. 17:11), an erected monument (Gen. 31:45ff.; Josh. 24:26ff.), the Sabbath (Exod. 31:16ff.), exchanged garments (1 Sam. 18:3ff.), ceremonial meal (Gen. 26:30; 31:54; Exod. 24:11; 2 Sam. 3:20), cutting animals into pieces (Gen. 15:17; Jer. 34:18-20), and placing one’s hand under the thigh (Gen. 24:2,9; 47:29).
25. The terms “unilateral” or “monopleuric” are sometimes employed. It would be a mistake, though, to read into these terms the absence of reciprocity. God defines the terms and initiates the covenant relationship, but he always calls for response. See Spykman, 263-64.
26. Beckwith, “God’s Covenants,” lists L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) and E. W. Nicholson, God and his People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) as examples.
27. See especially George E. Mendenhall’s ground-breaking Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955), which was followed by other studies, including Meredith G. Kline, The Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963); J.A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1964); Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1966), 90-102; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 184-203; K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963); idem., Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1972); F. Charles Fensham, “The Treaty Concept and the Covenant: Recent Findings,” Creator, Redeemer, and Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 2000), 43-50. A few of these scholars (Weinfeld, McCarthy) try to link the Sinai covenant with later seventh-century b.c. neo-Assyrian treaties rather than the earlier Hittite treaties. But, as Kenneth Kitchen demonstrates, the parallels with second-millennium Hittite treaties are more convincing. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 283-307. Regarding the importance of these links, Kline observes, “It will emerge, we believe, that for purposes of reappraising the Old Testament canon, the most significant development in the last quarter-century has not been the Dead Sea scroll finds but discoveries made concerning the covenant of the Old Testament in the light of ancient Near Eastern treaty diplomacy.” The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 25.
28. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 1-18; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 28-48. Other elements included instructions for the preservation and re-reading of the treaty document (Deut. 31:9-13), as well as the invocation of the gods as witnesses. Obviously, the biblical covenants do not contain an invocation to gods; nevertheless, Moses does invoke “heaven and earth” to serve as witness (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28).
29. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 184-203. As an example, Weinfeld cites the royal dynasty grant that the Hittite king Hattušiliš III bestowed upon his vassal Ulmi-Tešup of Dataša and compares it to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants: “After you, your son and grandson will possess [the land and dynasty], nobody will take it away from them. If one of your descendants sins … the king will prosecute him at his court…. [I]f he deserves to die he will die. But nobody will take away from the descendant of Ulmi-Tešup either his house or his land in order to give it to a descendant of somebody else” (189).
30. Care must be taken with drawing these analogies. According to Weinfeld, the suzerain-vassal treaty corresponds to the Sinai covenant, while the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants correspond to the royal grant. This analysis is generally sound. In the royal grant, the emphasis is upon the suzerain’s pledge or promise of reward. In the suzerain-vassal treaty, the emphasis is upon the vassal’s obligation of loyalty. Thus, the Sinai covenant largely emphasizes “law,” while the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants mainly emphasize “promise.” Weinfeld, however, errs when he attempts to portray the latter covenants as purely unconditional. His thesis forces him to construe the apparently conditional elements of the Davidic covenant (1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:4ff.) as a Deuteronomist “reinterpretation” (197), and he later concedes on the basis of Psa. 132:12, “It is indeed possible that alongside the conception of unconditional promise of the dynasty there was also in existence the concept of a conditional promise” (196). A better analysis is to view the royal grant as assuming a suzerain-vassal relationship, which always requires loyalty. In this case, the suzerain-vassal treaty is more foundational. Indeed, it is the existing suzerain-vassal relationship that makes the royal grant a possibility. In some ways, the suzerain-vassal treaty/royal grant structure resembles the relationship between what Reformed theologians have traditionally termed the “covenant of works” and the “covenant of grace”—a resemblance that merits further exploration but which is beyond the scope of this study. Of course, one must note dissimilarities between the extra-biblical and biblical models as well. For instance, though the ancient Near Eastern suzerains often utilized the language of benevolence and friendship in their treaties, they did not always exemplify those qualities. In contrast, Yahweh, the biblical suzerain, abounds in genuine loyalty and kindness (Exod. 34:6-7; 2 Chron. 30:9; Psa. 31:19; Mic. 7:18).
31. All quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL; Crossway Bibles, 2000, 2001) unless otherwise designated.
32. The standard Hebrew verb for initiating a covenant is כרת, literally, “to cut.”
33. The placement of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb adds emphasis.
34. The verb is עָשָׂה and is also preceded by the infinitive absolute, yielding the emphatic “certainly perform” and denoting the fulfillment of a prior commitment.
35. The first verb [כרת] denotes the inauguration of a self-imposed obligation of King Josiah. But the second verb [קוּם] refers to the confirming of a prior covenantal obligation, namely, the Sinai covenant.
36. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1984), 26. Emphasis mine. Paul Williamson objects to this reading of the verb and points to Exod. 6:4, “I also established [הֲקִמֹתִי] my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners,” where the meaning of קוּם is presumably inaugurate rather than confirm. Sealed by an Oath, 73. But God’s pledge to give the patriarchs and their seed the land of Canaan was, at a typical level, the restoration of Eden and renewal of the creation mandate to humanity. In that sense, his “inauguration” of a covenant with the patriarchs was but the confirmation of his original covenantal intention for humanity.
37. So too concludes Dumbrell, “We may surmise then that the phrase ‘establish my covenant’ in Genesis 6:18 (and in Gen. 9:9, 11, 17) refers to the maintenance of a preexisting covenant relationship” (31). Meredith Kline also draws this inference: “The verb hpym, of which berith is the object in Genesis 6:18, is not used for the initiating or ratifying of a covenant but for the performing of previously assumed covenantal obligations or promises.” Kingdom Prologue, 232.
38. The narrator underscores the order and stability of the creation in at least three important ways: (1) God’s decree not only brings creation into existence (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29) but ensures his ongoing providential care (cf., Psa. 33:6-11; 147:15-18), (2) God’s repeated appraisal of his work (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) implies aesthetic harmony and order (cf., 1 Cor. 14:33,40), and (3) the carefully crafted literary art of the chapter, which includes the use of numeric symbols of perfection, structural patterns of symmetry, and an intensifying movement from lesser to greater, reflects cosmos (order) and telos (purpose). For more detail on this last point, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis I: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961), 12-15; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 115-116, 120-121; Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 56-57; Gordan J. Wenham, Genesis 1-11, The Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 5-7.
39. Some, perhaps because of the KJV translation (“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”) cite this as a reference to God’s unconditional grace. However, in this context (note especially v. 9), the Hebrew phrase translated “found favor” [מָצָא חֵן] signifies “was pleasing” (cf., Gen. 39:3, 4; Deut. 24:1; 1 Sam. 16:22; 20:3; Prov. 3:4; 28:23; 5:8; 7:3; 8:5; note also the similar expression in Esth. 2:17: ַַותִּשָּׂא־חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו, literally, “she carried favor and devotion before him”). Of course, the pleasing qualities found in Noah presuppose God’s prevenient work of grace. But the narrator’s point is to underscore the fact that there still remained one part of God’s creation that did not “grieve him to his heart” but evoked that primordial aesthetic and moral pleasure God experienced at creation when he appraised the work of his hands (including that pertaining to the moral realm) as “very good” (1:31). The reader should not miss the semantic connection between טוּב (‘good’) and הֵן (‘favor’).
40. Dumbrell seems to point in this direction when he writes, “God’s covenant with Noah can be called eschatological in the sense that it reestablishes the divine plan for creation. The later eschatological doctrines of the new covenant and the new creation, which are associated, draw together the concepts of creation, redemption, and thus the restitution of all things (Col. 1:20). Just as creation and covenant are associated at the beginning of human history, so will they be at the end.” Creation and Covenant, 31-32. Warren Gage also notes many parallels between Adam and Noah and concludes that the covenant with Noah was the formalization of the original divine mandate to Adam. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (1984; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 9-12,29. Twenty years earlier Robert Reymond suggested this in a doctoral dissertation, arguing that “God, by the very verb employed, demonstrates that the original בְּרִית program had not been set aside and a new one “cut,” but that the Divine plan begun in Eden would continue through this representative of the Adamic race.” “An Investigation of the Covenants of the Old Testament and their Significance in the Theocratic Program of God” (Ph.D. Diss., Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, 1962), 186. See also Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis II: From Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), 67-68; John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis (Webster, N.Y.: Evangelical Press, 2003), 1:190; Williams, Far As the Curse is Found, 48; Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 239-241.
41. For parallels between Noah and Moses, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), 18-19; Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 15-16; Warren Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 64; John Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” (Ph.D. diss.; Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 213-219.
42. “Treaty of the Great King” borrows from the title of Meredith Kline’s book The Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy in which he demonstrates that the Book of Deuteronomy follows the same basic format as the second-millennium Hittite suzerain-vassal. Thus Deuteronomy served to renew the original Sinai treaty with the second-generation of Israelites who were preparing to enter the Promised Land.
43. “Important among the family metaphors which the book of Exodus takes up is that of sonship by adoption (Exod. 4:22). This is a notion which is expanded in the later Old Testament both in terms of Israel and in terms of Israel’s king as representative. Following logically upon this is the description of Yahweh’s redemptive act of the Exodus as that of Israel's next of kin who steps into the breach and redeems an enslaved relative…. Thus, as next of kin God intervenes as father to demand the return of his son from a tyrant who has enslaved him…. Israel had once been bond-slaves in the land of Egypt. Now by redemption she had passed into the service of one whose service (slavery) was perfect freedom. Here again by an easy transition family metaphors pass readily over into the sphere of master/servant, king/subject relationships.” Dumbrell, 99-100. Weinfeld has demonstrated that the language of adoption was used in treaty formulae as a judicial basis for dynastic succession. “The Covenant of Grant,” 190-192.
44. Space does not permit a fuller exploration of these parallels. The reader is directed especially to Dumbrell’s work, Covenant and Creation, 80-126; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 77-123; Gregory Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 93-121; see also David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (JSOTSS 10; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1997); and T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002); idem., “Royal Expectations in Genesis to Kings: Their Importance for Biblical Theology,” Tyndale Bulletin 49 (1998), 191-212. Alexander’s work is especially helpful in noting the royalty motif associated with God’s promised blessing. Thurmon Wisdom, A Royal Destiny: The Reign of Man in God’s Kingdom (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 2006), 165-82, also touches upon the royalty theme as it is reflected in the life of Abraham.
45. The reference in 18:1 is especially noteworthy: “the land lay subdued before them.” The verb translated “subdued” [נִכְבְּשָׁה] is the same verb used in Adam’s creation mandate “to subdue [וְכִבְשֻׁהָ] the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Also of note is the description of Joshua summoning the commanders of Israel’s army to place their feet upon the necks of the vanquished Canaanite kings (10:22-25), which harks back to God’s curse upon the Serpent and his seed (Gen. 3:14-15), as well as to Noah’s curse upon Canaan (9:25-27).
46. The narrative of Josh. 24, like Exod. 19-24 and the book of Deuteronomy, follows the basic format of the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty. Mendenhall, 35.
47. Most versions old and new make little sense of the Hebrew, rendering it an exclamation, “and this too after the manner of men, O Lord Jehovah!” (ASV); a simple statement, “And this is the custom of man, O Lord God” (NAU); a question, “Is this your usual way of dealing with man?” (NIV; cf., KJV; NET, NLT); or an optative, “May that be the law for the people, O Lord God” (TNK). The CSB comes close with “this is a revelation for mankind, Lord God.” In general, the Hebrew term [תּוֹרָה] refers to “instruction” or “law,” but it can often refer theologically to special revelation, i.e., God’s revealed will for humanity, which finds expression not only in the redemptive promise but also in God’s original “mandate” to Adam. The word “charter” is broad enough to include both ideas of obligation and privilege, which makes it a suitable description of the elements found in the creation account(s), as this study will demonstrate below. For a cogent argument for this translation, see Walter Kaiser Jr., “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 298-318. Unfortunately, Kaiser traces this “charter” only as far back as the promise to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 (298-99). Dumbrell is more correct when he writes, “The promises to David have built upon the broad history of the covenant concepts as, from creation onwards, they have covered divine intent for human development, and David has seen the connections which Nathan’s oracle has offered.” Covenant and Creation, 152.
48. “Source Criticism” is usually traced to a French physician named Jean Astruc (1684-1766), who published a book (Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paraît que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse) in 1753 that conjectured distinct sources behind Moses’ composition of Genesis on the basis of doublets, divine-name variation, and dischronologization. OT scholars who have followed Astruc’s approach usually assign the first account to the Elohist (E) or Priestly Writer (P) and the second to the Yahwist [or Jehovist] (J). For an overview and critique of this approach, see Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land, 3-94; O.T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1949); Duane Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); 11-30.
49. For a detailed treatment of this subject, see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (Basic Books, 1981), 88-113; idem., The Art of Biblical Poetry (Basic Books, 1985), 3-26.
50. Many conservative scholars have argued that Elohim emphasizes divine transcendence and is used of God as he stands in relation to creation in general, whereas Yahweh emphasizes divine immanence and is used of God as he stands in covenant relationship with his people. See, for instance, Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1941), 15-41; Gustav Oehler, The Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George Day (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883), 98-99; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 64-64, 114-119.
51. The Scriptures do not begin by positing God as a hypothesis and then set out to prove his existence. Rather they begin by assuming God’s existence as the foundation upon which all existence, knowledge, and ethics must be predicated.
52. Elohim occurs 35x and the related pronouns 16x. In the entire book of Genesis, Elohim occurs 219x and Yahweh 144x (this is not to mention the other titles and myriad of pronouns used for God). The English designations “God” and “Lord” occur over 12,000x in the Old and New Testaments.
53. This is the plural form of אֶלוֹהַּ, which grammarians appropriately designate as the plural of majesty (GKC § 224c) or the honorific plural (IBHS § 7.4.3). Waltke and O’Connor explain, “In this usage (sometimes called the pluralis majestatis) the referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used.” Thus, in the case of God the idea expressed is something like “the very essence or epitome of Deity.” See also this plural used of God when he is referred to as “the Holy One” (Prov. 9:10) or as “the Lord” (Exod. 15:17; Deut. 10:17; Psa. 8:2). (cf., Joüon, GBH, § 136d-e).
54. “And God said” [יֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִיםðוַ] occurs ten times (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29) and denotes not merely raw power but royal power. Not surprisingly, when later biblical writers reflect upon God’s creative and providential fiat, they extol him in royal language (Psa. 93:1-5; 95:3-6; 96:4-10).
55. This study proceeds on the assumption that Moses authored the book of Genesis sometime between Israel’s exodus from Egypt (Exod. 12) and Moses’ death in the land of Moab, where Israel stood poised to enter Canaan (Deut. 34). Thus Genesis was written in the shadow of the Sinai covenant, which makes an intentional parallel between the Ten Fiats and Ten Commands plausible.
56. While there is an appropriate theological distinction between God’s creation and his providence, the Scripture does not sharply distinguish the terminology for each. Thus God’s providential acts are sometimes described as creative acts (Psa. 104:30; Eccl. 12:1; Isa. 43:1; 44:2; 54:16; Mal. 2:10). For further discussion, see John H. Stek, “What Says the Scripture?” Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation, ed. Howard J. Van Till (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 242-250.
57. Noting the link, J. Richard Middleton aptly remarks, “The characterization of God’s speech that effects creation as God's authoritative command or decree is significant for suggesting an underlying analogy in these texts between creatio per verbum and God’s covenantal law given to Israel, which is pervasively referred to as commandments, statutes, ordinances, decrees, and so on.” The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 67. Middleton goes on to note, “While this shift from creation to covenant might seem like a giant leap to our modern, Western consciousness (with our ingrained split between nature and history), the transition is an effortless one within the psalm. It works only because of an assumed analogy between God's relationship to the human and the nonhuman worlds. This analogy provides the theological basis for the application of covenantal terms like Hoq/HuqqôT (decree, statute), or its related verb Huq, and mišPä†îm (judgments, ordinances) to God's providential relationship to creational phenomena, such as the deep or the sea (Proverbs 8:27, 29), the heavens (Job 38:33), the rain (Job 28:26), or all creatures (Psalm 119:91)” (67-68).
58. Some commentators view this as an allusion to God’s covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:22). Even if this is correct, the analogy between God’s word of power and his word of precept remains since God describes his control of reality in terms of covenant.
59. The act of “naming” in the OT is an act of authority or rule (see, for example, 2 Kgs. 23:34; 24:17). Thus, as Nahum Sarna points out, “This is another way of expressing [God’s] absolute sovereignty over time and space, the latter in both its celestial and terrestrial dimensions.” Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 8; cf., von Rad, Genesis, 51. This divine royal prerogative is later delegated to the man (2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
60. The structure of the passage suggests two corresponding literary panels: the first panel, consisting of Days 1, 2, and 3, focuses upon the “domains” of space, sky, waters, and earth (vv. 3-13), and the second, consisting of Days 4, 5, and 6, focuses upon the “rulers and inhabitants” of those realms (vv. 14-31). See the helpful discussion in Middleton, 74-77. The two panels have also been interpreted as God’s answer to earth’s initial state described in v. 2 as “unformed and unfilled” (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ). Kidner, Genesis, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 46; Mathews, Genesis 1:-11:26, 115-16; Waltke, Genesis, 57.
61. “When [God] established the heavens, I [Wisdom] was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman [אמוֹן = architect]”(Prov. 8:27-30a).
62. For example, “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psa. 103:19a); “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Psa. 11:4a); “Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isa. 66:1a). Kline develops this connection in Kingdom Prologue, 34-38.
63. Exod. 20:8-11, which grounds Israel’s weekly Sabbath in God’s creation Sabbath (Gen. 2:1-3), use the verb נוּחַ instead of the standard verb for Sabbath (שֵַָׂבת). In turn, the verb נוּחַ and cognate noun מְנוּחָה are used to speak of Israel’s subjugation of the Promised Land (Deut. 3:20; 12:9; 25:19; Josh. 1:13,15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1; 2 Sam. 7:1,11; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 1 Chron. 22:9,18; 23:25; 2 Chron. 14:7; 15:15; 20:30) and Yahweh’s enthronement in Zion (1 Chron. 28:2; Psa. 132:7-8,13-14; Isa. 11:10; 66:1b).
64. Man was created within the six-day creation week like the rest of creation (1:26-28). Man was formed from the dust of the ground to be a “living being” like the rest of the animals (2:7). Man was given the “green herb” as food as the rest of the animals (1:29). And mankind reproduces after his kind (1:28) like the rest of the animals. These facts underscore man’s continuity with the rest of creation (cf., Gen. 1:22,30; 2:19).
65. These include the following: first of all, the creation narrative crescendos with man’s creation (1:26-28). Secondly, God manifests a special interest in man’s creation by using the cohortative, “Let us make” (v. 26) rather than the jussive, “Let there be” (vv. 3,6,14,20,24). As Gesenius notes, “[T]he cohortative lays stress on the determination underlying the action, and the personal interest in it” (GKC § 108a). Thirdly, Genesis devotes an entire supplementary account of man’s creation in chapter 2. Fourthly, God personally animates man’s body by a special act of in-breathing (2:7), which he does not do for the animals. Finally, and most importantly, only man is created as “the image of God” (1:26-27).
66. In the OT, צֶלֶם is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1Sa 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan. 3:1-3,10,12,14-15,18), and two-dimensional painted or carved images upon a wall (Ezek 23:14). The word דְּמוּת is used for the physical and psychological resemblance of a father and his son (Gen 5:3), building plans (2 Kgs 16:10), or just the abstract idea of resemblance (Psa 58:4; Ezek 1:5, 10, 28). In light of the biblical usage of these terms, we can define an “image” or “likeness” as a visible replica which represents and bears a resemblance to some original (archetype).
67. Many commentators contest this point, arguing that the prepositions בְּ and כְּ, which interchangeably precede the nouns “image” and “likeness” (1:26; 5:3), should be understood in terms of correspondence (see Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT, ed. R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 137; Mathews, 167; Wenham, 28-29). However, the two prepositions also share in common the meaning of identity (בְּ = beth essentiae [e.g., Exod. 6:3; Num. 18:26; 26:53; 36:2; Deut. 1:13; 26:14; Josh. 13:6-7; 23:4; Psa. 78:55; Ezek. 20:11] and כְּ = kaph veritas [e.g., Num. 11:1; 2 Sam. 9:8; Neh. 7:2; Job 10:9; Psa. 122:3; Eccl. 10:5; Cant. 8:10; Hos. 5:10; Nah. 3:6], cf., GKC, §119i; §118x; Joüon, GBH, §133c,g). See also David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 75-80. The following considerations also warrant this conclusion: first, the Apostle Paul explicitly states that “man is [u`parcw, which in this case is synonymous with eimi] the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). In this case, he does not use a preposition but simply identifies man as God’s image. Secondly, the NT writers refer to Jesus Christ as the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:14) or exact representation of God (Heb 1:3). Since Christ is the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:45-46), we would expect a parallel between Christ as God’s image and mankind as God’s image. Thirdly, if the “image of God” is something external to man and if man is created to correspond to that image, then it might be asked whether that image is male or female in form. If male in form, then how can it be said that woman is created after the image of God? Finally, since the concept of “image” almost always has a three-dimensional, physical-material connotation (see below), then to posit some external image as the pattern for man’s creation would be to suggest the preexistence of some material object external to the immaterial deity.
68. When applied to humanity, the following observations should be borne in mind: firstly, the terms “image” and “likeness” when applied to man refer to one single reality and not to two distinct realities. When the two terms are used together, they reflect Hebrew parallelism and are therefore basically synonymous (cf. Gen 1:27; 5:3). When one of the terms is used alone to define man, it serves to convey the entire concept of man’s unique identity as God’s replica and resemblance (Gen 5:1; 9:6; Js. 3:9). Secondly, the Bible portrays mankind as a living image of God in contrast with lifeless images (compare Gen. 2:7 with Psa. 115:3-7). Thirdly, the terms “image” and “likeness” are intrinsic to man’s nature as human, and therefore they still apply to fallen man (Gen. 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Js. 3:9). Fourthly, as imago Dei, man in his totality—constitutively, relationally, and functionally—is the visible replica and representative of God in the world. For a fuller theological development of this concept, see Ronald B. Allen, The Majesty of Man: The Dignity of Being Human, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 73-84; Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 159-195; Gerald Bray, “The Significance of God’s Image in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 42:2 (1991), 195-225; Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 53-103; Charles Lee Feinberg, “Image of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (1972), 235-246; Hoekema, Created As God’s Image, 11-111; Philip Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989); H.D. MacDonald, The Christian View of Man (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 31-46; Middleton, The Liberating Image, 15-90.
69. Man’s “filial” relationship to God as image is highlighted in the language of Gen. 5:3, where Adam fathers a son “in his own likeness, after his image.” It is important, however, not to view this filial dimension of “image” only in terms of constitution or relationship; it should also be viewed in terms of role or function. In ancient Near Eastern treaty language, “sonship” designates a legal basis for dynastic succession (cf., Psa. 2:7-8; 89:26-27 [Heb. 7:27-28]). See also Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 190-192.
70. The waw + jussive in v. 26 should probably be translated as a purpose clause (GKC § 165).
71. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 83; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:146-47. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar’s image in Dan. 3:1ff. should be viewed in this light.
72. Cited by Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 85. For a thorough analysis of the ancient Near Eastern parallels and their bearing upon the Genesis account, see Edward Mason Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1984), 80-358; Middleton, The Liberating Image, 93-231.
73. Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 160-161.
74. For a stimulating discussion of some of the soteriological and cultural implications here, see Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005).
75. John Stek’s assessment of the narrative makes this point: “In Genesis 1:1-2:3 the several evocations of the basic political metaphor of kingship are subtle and allusive. The total effect, however, is to depict the absolute kingship of the God of Israel over all realms visible and invisible and over all cosmic regions… and their denizens. In fact, this implicit claim constitutes one of the most powerful affirmations of the first chapter of Scripture.” “What Says the Scripture?” 234-235. Some scholars have justifiably argued that the kingdom of God is the central motif of Genesis, the Old Testament, and the entire canon of Scripture. See Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 55-234; Merrill, Everlasting Dominion, 277-281; Waltke, Genesis, 43-54; Wisdom, A Royal Destiny, 9-16.
76. George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:1179. Or to use the words of Gordon Spykman, “Covenant suggests the idea of an abiding charter, while kingdom suggests the idea of an ongoing program. Covenant is more foundation oriented; kingdom is more goal oriented. Covenant may thus be conceived of as kingdom looking back to its origins, but with abiding significance. Kingdom may then be conceived of as covenant looking forward with gathering momentum toward its final fulfillment. Thus nuanced, covenant and kingdom are interchangeable realities.” Reformational Theology, 258.
77. Even some modern critics acknowledge the unity and complementary functions of the narratives. For example, Brueggemann writes, “Whatever may be concluded about literary history, theologically this text (2:4ff.) is best understood in its canonical context. We should not speak of a second, parallel story of creation. Rather, this is a more intense reflection upon the implications of creation for the destiny of humanity.” Genesis, 40.
78. Because the Jews refused to pronounce the name Yahweh based on a faulty exegesis of Lev. 24:16 (which actually prohibits blasphemy of God’s name) the four consonants (tetragrammaton) were pointed with the vowels from אֲדֹנָי (“Lord”), which left the consonantal text intact while cuing the reader to speak “Adonay” rather than to risk mispronouncing the sacred name.
79. The “shrub of the field” [שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה] probably refers to a kind of inedible vegetation (cf., Gen. 21:15; Job 30:4); whereas the “plant of the field” [דֶהßîעֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂ] would include edible or cultivated vegetation (cf., Gen.1:11,29, 30; 3:18; Psa. 72:16; 105:35; cf., Wenham, 58). These are said to have “not yet” [טֶרֶם¤] sprouted for two reasons: (1) God had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth, and (2) there was no man to cultivate the ground. Umberto Cassuto links the “shrub of the field” with the “thorns and thistles” of Gen. 3:18. According to Cassuto, then, Moses in v. 4 is simply highlighting the fact that though vegetation in general did already exist prior to man’s creation, yet there were two types that were not yet introduced: (1) vegetation bearing the marks of the curse, and (2) vegetation that was carefully cultivated to serve as man’s food. Both of these classes of vegetation would be dependant, as it were, upon the introduction of man into the world. Genesis I, 101-103.
80. In Gen. 1:2ff., the focus is upon the initial and immediate agents of God’s creative activity. God initially and ultimately brings his creative work to completion by the agency of his Spirit and Word. However, in Gen. 2:4ff., the focus is upon the subsequent and mediate agent of God’s creative activity. God will mediately and finally bring his creative activity to completion through man. As Gen. 1:27 indicates, God created man in order to “fill the earth and subdue it,” which refers to a process brought to completion. This is a tremendous thought. Gen. 1:31 certainly describes the earth as paradise: “then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” There were no flaws or defects to be found. But that does not necessarily mean the world was as good as it could get. God created man to make Paradise even better!
81. The verb “to form” [יָצָר] is used to describe man’s formation of idols (Isa. 44:2, 9, 10, 12), which is contrasted with God’s formation of Israel as his servant (44:21, 24; 45:9, 11).
82. In Israel and the ancient Near East, the people viewed the king as “the breath of [their] nostrils” (cf., Lam. 4:20).
83. See Walter Brueggemann, “From Dust to Kingship,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972), 1-18. God’s subsequent conferral of “naming-rights” to Adam also underscores his royal status (2:18-20,23; 3:20).
84. Space does not permit a separate consideration of Eve’s creation and her complementary role as Adam’s “helper” (2:18-25). Suffice it to say that woman shares in man’s kingly status (Gen. 1:27) and she too, under his headship (1 Tim. 2:11-15), is called to subdue the earth. For a helpful exposition of Adam and Eve’s creation and the respective male-female roles, see Raymond Ortlund Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 95-112.
85. That “Eden” is a geographical location distinct from the garden is seen in the fact that the garden is planted “in Eden” [עֵדֶןßגַּן־בְּ]. The later reference to a river flowing down from Eden into the garden, where it divides into four distinct rivers, implies that Eden is a mountain. Later revelation clearly identifies Eden as “the holy mountain of God” (Ezek. 28:13-14), and makes connections with “mount Zion” (Psa. 48:1-2[2-3]; 74:2; 78:68; Psa. 125:1; Isa. 8:18; 24:23; Mic. 4:7; Rev. 14:1). For a fascinating study of these connections, see Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 31-57. Regarding the specific location of Eden, many scholars have attempted to locate it somewhere in Mesopotamia, partly because of the reference “in the east” [מִקֶּדֶם] (v. 7). However, מִקֶּדֶם can also mean “from the beginning,” or “from primordial times” (Neh. 12:46; Psa. 74:12; 77:5,11; 78:2; 143:5; Prov. 8:28; Isa. 45:21; 46:10; Mic. 5:1; Hab. 1:12). This temporal meaning is preferred since the locative connotations of “east” or “eastward” in Genesis have a mainly negative connotation (3:24; 4:16; 10:8-12; 11:1-9; 13:11). Abraham’s westward migration to the Promised Land (11:31-12:9) signals a “return to Eden” and may suggest that Eden was originally located in the proximity of Canaan.
86. Of course, the narrative makes clear that the garden did provide an abundance of food (vv. 9, 16), which reflects a suzerain’s royal benevolence (Gen. 43:34; 47:22; 2 Sam. 9:7,13; 19:28; 1 Kgs. 2:7; 2 Kgs. 25:29-30; Psa. 23:5; Jer. 52:33-34). Furthermore, the proper noun “Eden” [עְֵדֶן] is probably related to a family of words that have the sense of “pleasure and happiness” (cf., 2 Sam. 1:24; Psa. 36:9; Jer. 51:34). The term translated “garden” [גַּן] is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to an enclosed area fenced-off by a wall or hedge (cf., 2 Kgs 25:4; Neh. 3:15; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Prov. 24:30-31; Isa. 5:5). This sense is supported by the LXX, which uses a Persian loan word that means “what is walled, what is hedged about, a pleasure garden surrounded by a stone or earthen wall.” Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:80-81.
87. The royal dimension of the garden is highlighted by the fact that ancient Near Eastern kings were known for their palatial gardens where they would entertain honored guests. Several OT passages refer to the “King’s Garden” [גַּן הַמְֶּלֶךְ] in Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 25:4; Jer. 39:4; Neh. 3:15), and the book of Esther refers to the palatial gardens of Ahasuerus (1:5; 7:7-8). Some Mesopotamian kings even used the title “Gardener” as a royal epithet. In Tablet IX of the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero travels to the holy mountain Mashu, which appears to be a point of contact between the gods and mortals, and there he encounters beautifully jeweled “garden of the gods.” See T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 94-104,153-155. On the other hand, the many horticultural symbols used to adorn the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple may suggest a cultic dimension for the garden. See Gordon Wenham’s study “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (1986), 19-25.
88. This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale’s book The Temple and the Church’s Mission: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth.... [I]t is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Gen. 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
89. Other considerations that indicate a pre-redemptive eschatology include (1) the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth, which is further elaborated in connection with the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:15), (2) the sacramental Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (2:9; 3:22), and (3) the innate God-like drive for eschatological fullness (Eccl. 3:11). As Rowland S. Ward appropriately cautions, “We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say there was an eschatology before there was sin.” God & Adam, 23. Emphasis his. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 387-396.
90. As the “image of God,” man has God’s ethical character imprinted upon his heart wherein arise the sense of deity (sensus deitatis) and the voice of conscience, which Kline appropriately terms, “the sense of deity in imperative mode.” Kingdom Prologue, 62. These continue to operate even after the fall (Rom. 1:18-21, 32; 2:14-15).
91. It is a mistake to suppose, as some writers seem to do, that God revealed his will to Adam before the fall through general revelation alone (i.e., creation, providence, and conscience). The text indicates that God communicated to Adam via verbal speech (1:28-29; 2:16-17), sacramental symbol (2:9, 17; 3:21), and theophanic presence (2:15-17, 22), all of which are facets of special revelation.
92. W.L. Moran has noted that the “love commandment” of Deut. 6:5 closely resembles the language of ancient Near Eastern treaties in which the suzerain calls for the vassal’s unswerving loyalty. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963), 77-87.
93. Some have argued that the trees contained physical properties that actually promoted life or death. John Walton argues that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained physical properties that can apparently be associated with hormones, while the tree of life contained physical properties than can be associated with anti-oxidants! Walton sees this as a “straightforward” reading of the text. Genesis in the NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 212-217. But this reading seems a bit crass and literalistic. The text does not, as Walton alleges, give “every indication that there is a property in the fruit itself (just as there was in the tree of life) that would lead to the knowledge of good and evil,” any more than Jesus’ reference, “This is my body” proves transubstantiation. The fruit was not inherently poisonous, nor was it an aphrodisiac. Rather, it was a God-appointed symbol or sacrament, like circumcision or baptism. In this connection, Geerhardus Vos is on target when he writes, “Everything connected with this disclosure is exceedingly primitive. It is largely symbolical, that is, not expressed in words so much as in tokens; and these tokens partake of the general character of Biblical symbolism in that, besides being means of instruction, they are also typical, that is, sacramental, prefigurations conveying assurance concerning the future realization of the things symbolized. The symbolism, however, does not lie in the account as a literary form, which would involve denial of the historical reality of the transaction. It is a real symbolism embodied in the actual things.” Vos, Biblical Theology, 27.
94. The phrase “you shall surely die” appears elsewhere in Scripture as a royal death-sentence formula (Exod. 10:28; 1 Sam. 14:44; 22:16; 1 Kgs. 2:37,42).
95. It has been interpreted as moral awareness, sexual experience, the consequences of good and evil (i.e., prosperity or harm), and a kind of God-like omniscience (taking “good and evil” as a merism). For a discussion and critique of these views, see Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 162-166; Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 203-207; and Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 62-64.
96. In the Beginning, 112.
97. For a thorough argument for this view, see W. Malcolm Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwist’s Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 266-278; and Blocher, In the Beginning, 126-133.
98. Hence, the serpent’s temptation seems reasonable and has a powerful appeal (3:4-5). This was also the case when Satan offered to Christ “the kingdoms of this world” (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5)—the very inheritance that had been promised to Messiah as divine royal grant for perfect fealty rendered (Psa. 2:8)!
99. As Samuel E. Waldron observes, “The tree was the instrument intended to bring man out of spiritual babyhood to spiritual manhood. Genesis 3:22 makes clear that it would do this whether the prohibition was obeyed or disobeyed, for better or for worse, the tree would be the instrument of ethical maturation.” A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995), 99. Sadly, as the subsequent narrative relates, man chose the way of counterfeit wisdom, also called, “the wisdom of this world” (1Cor. 1:20, 21; 3:19; Js. 3:15), which is based upon creaturely autonomy—man acting as his own lord and master.
100. Interestingly, the NT speaks of another “tree” that would be the instrument of ethical maturation: the “tree” of Calvary. In the NT, we are told that Jesus Christ “learned obedience through the things He suffered [upon that tree]” (Heb. 5:8) and as a result He was “perfected” [i.e., brought to ethical maturity in righteousness] (Heb. 5:9), attained full kingship (Acts 2:33; 5:31), and inherited eternal life (Rev. 1:18).
101. Theologians debate the precise nature of these terms, specifically, the question of the length and the permanence of the prohibition. Some argue that the prohibition would have continued for a significant length of time until man finally reached ethical maturity and gained wisdom, at which point he would be allowed to partake of the Tree of Knowledge. This view is argued by James Jordan, “Merit vs. Maturity,” The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, LA.: Athanasius Press, 2004), 160-165. Jordan even speculates that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would eventuate death for man and open the way for the resurrection. On the other hand, Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 104, argues that the biblical doctrine of federal representation would have necessitated a relatively short and temporary restriction. Unfortunately, the text does not provide the details needed to be certain about these particulars, and any reconstructions of what “would have been” will depend to some degree upon inferences from other biblical texts or doctrines.
102. In the Beginning, 132-133. Similarly, O. Palmer Robertson writes, “Now the point of testing reduces itself to man’s willingness to choose obedience for the sake of obedience alone. The raw word of God must become the basis of man’s action.” Christ of the Covenants, 84.
103. Jeffrey Niehaus attempts to demonstrate that the Gen. 1:1-2:3 creation account follows a second millennium suzerain-vassal treaty format in God At Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 142-150. However, his analysis appears forced, and Meredith Kline presents a more credible case to view the entire book of Genesis and the first part of Exodus as an extended preamble and historical prologue to the Sinai covenant: “If the Pentateuch is viewed as a unified corpus with God’s covenant with the exodus generation of Israel as its nucleus, the narratives of Genesis and the first part of Exodus assume the character of an historical prologue tracing that covenantal relationship to its historical roots in Yahweh’s past dealings with the chosen people and their patriarchal ancestors.” The Structure of Biblical Authority, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 53.
104. Some translations render the Hebrew “like men” (LXX, GNV, KJV, NKJ) and others translate the text “at Adam” (NET, NJB, NRS) a town in northern Israel (Josh. 3:16). But, as Robert Reymond notes, the former rendering introduces “an inanity into the text, for how else could Hosea’s contemporaries transgress than ‘like men’?” A New Systematic Theology, 460. The latter requires an emendation to the text, changing the prefixed preposition from a כּ to a ְְבּ. The word שָׁם, which begins the second half of the verse, usually means “there” and might seem to lend credibility to a locative interpretation. But in some places, it may have the force of an interjection, “Look there!” (Psa. 36:13; Zeph. 1:14; Psa. 48:7; Psa. 132:17), which would make perfect sense here (see NET). Consequently, there appears to be no substantial reason for an emendation of the text, and the translation “as Adam” (VUL, DRA, NIV, NAU, NLT, ESV, CSB) is preferred. For a helpful discussion of this text, see Thomas McComiskey, Hosea, in vol. 1 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expositional Commentary, ed. Thomas McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 95, and B. B. Warfield, “Hosea vi.7: Adam or Man?” Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1970).
105. The phrase רִית עוֹ¤לָםïבּ (“eternal covenant”) is applied to the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16), Abrahamic covenant (Psa. 105:9-10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 24:8), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), and the New Covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8). However, the fact that Isaiah’s indictment is directed to all the nations preludes a direct reference to any of the specifically Jewish covenants. As a result, some commentators opt for the Noahic covenant, referring to the stipulations in 9:1-7 as the “laws” [תוֹרֹת] and the “statute” [חְֹק] that had been violated. But, as this study suggests, the Noahic covenant is in some ways a republication of an original covenant with Adam. Therefore, John Oswalt appears to be correct when he concludes that “while the eternal covenant may have specific reference to the Noahic covenant in Gen. 9:1-17 with its prohibition of bloodshed, its broader reference is to the implicit covenant between Creator and creature, in which the Creator promises life in return for the creature’s living according to the norms laid down at Creation.” The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 446. See also E.J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969), 2:156-158.
106. For further study on the doctrine of divine covenants, the reader may consult the following works which approach the topic from different perspectives and sometimes reach different conclusions: Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, ed. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Francisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA.: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005); William Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1984); David J. Engelsma, Trinity and Covenant: God as Holy Family (Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2006); Peter Golding, Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition (Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 2004); R. B. Howell, The Covenants (1855; reprint, Conrad, MT: Triangle Press, n.d.); Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006); Jakob Jocz, The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968); Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968); Jeon Koo Jeong, Covenant Theology: Murray, Kline, and Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (University Press of America, 2004); Thomas McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985); John Murray, The Covenant of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988); O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980); Ralph A. Smith, Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003); John H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994); Rowland S. Ward, God & Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003); Michael Williams, Far As the Curse is Found (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005); Paul R. Williamson, Sealed by an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007); Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols. (1677; reprint, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990).