Covenant Theology

The Covenant of Works #3

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to open with me to Genesis 1. We read the passage
last week, and we will look at it again. In Genesis 1 we will focus on verse 24 and following.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and
creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. And God made the
beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that
creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let
Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed
them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;
and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing
that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding
seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it
shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to
everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for
food”; and it was so. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the
earth were completed, and all their hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His
work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He
had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested
from all His work which God had created and made.

Thus ends this reading of God’s holy and inspired Word, may He add His blessing to
it. Let’s look to Him now in prayer.

Our Father we thank You for this Word, and as we begin to study it, concentrating on the
truth of the covenant contained therein, we pray that our eyes would be opened that we would
have a clear understanding of the truth of Your Word, that we would be captivated by the glory
of that truth and that we would be better enabled to communicate that truth to others. We ask
these things in Jesus’ name. Amen.

The Exegetical Basis of the Covenant of Works

I want to begin today looking with you at the exegetical basis of the Covenant of
Works. And that means of course, concentrating closely on Genesis 1 and 2. There is a sense in
which Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2: 3 serves as a preface for the covenantal formulation of
Genesis 2:4 – Genesis 2:17 or 24, however you want to divide it. Liberals used to make much
about these supposedly two alternative and contradictory creational accounts. I trust that all of
us understand that nobody could possibly be so bad an editor, to accidentally, unwittingly put
two creational accounts which were in fact alternative and contradictory side by side and leave
them in the book that he had edited. And certainly no one as talented as the person who edited
Genesis clearly is. So understand that there is a theological, as well as a literary agenda, for
placing these two accounts side by side.

And as you see the first so-called account of creation from Genesis 1:1 running to Genesis
2:3, it is clear that the focus is to put man in context in God’s original created order. And then
beginning in Genesis 2:4 there will be significantly more concentration on the nature of the
relationship between God and man. In fact, themes that are introduced in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 will
be taken up again in Genesis 2:4 and following and amplified. So there is every sign of literary
and theological connection between these two accounts. They are not placed here in a haphazard
way. They are not placed here in an irresponsible way theologically. They logically and
theologically build on one another.

Now having said that as we look at the creation account itself, it is very apparent that the
culmination of this account is in the sixth day. And that is not just because the sixth day is the
last of the creative days. It is because in that day, the announcement of the creation of man in the
image of God is made and we read enough of that sixth day account beginning in verse 24 to
give you the literary feel for the language that has already been used. Notice what God stresses
in verse 24, “let the earth bring forth creatures after their kind.” So it is stressed that creatures
after their kind, after their genus, after their species are from henceforth and forever going to be
brought forth. It is stressed that cattle and creeping things and beasts all will be produced.
How? After their kind. In the likeness of the genus in which they were originally created and
then it is stressed again in verse 25: God made the beasts of the earth after their kind. The cattle
after their kind. Everything that creeps on the ground after its kind and God saw that it was
good. And so His original creation is good but He is making things according to their kind.

And then there comes this monumental announcement in verse 26, and that announcement is
what? “Then God said, let us make man in Our image” and you see immediately the contrast
between the beasts being made after their kind and man being made after God’s image. And so
we can remember, some of us, who heard Nigel Cameron preach back in the spring at First
Presbyterian Church, tremblingly he said, “We may say reverently that whereas the beasts of the
earth are made after their kind, man is of the genus of God.” Now, that is a shocking way of
putting it and we don’t want to stress that in some sort of a Kenneth Hagan way—we are “little
gods” theologically—but recognize what is being said about man here. Man is of an altogether
different order and you see immediately a fundamental and irresolvable clash between a biblical
anthropology and a secular evolutionary anthropology which says we are of the same basic stuff
as the animal world. We are simply a more highly evolved animal. And in bold and in direct
refutation and confrontation with that kind of view, the Bible says “No, human beings are not of
the same kind, or species or genus as the animal creation. They are a unique creation of God,
uniquely created by Him to bear His image.” And so you can see even looking at verses 24 and
25 and 26, this chasm that is being put between man and the animal creation by the Lord in His
Word, and the exalted position. So everything has been building to this moment to explain to
man the place that he has in the universe. And so as we look at this passage together, especially
from verse 26 on down, I want to make clear what it means for man to be made in the image of
God. And then we will move on to explain a little bit in detail about the nature of the
relationship that man has with God. We will get into a little of that as we look at this passage,
but it will be expanded when we look at Genesis 2:4 and following.

First of all, notice as we have already mentioned that man is distinct from the animal
creation. Five times it is said that the animals are made after their kind, in verses 24 and 25. But
in verse 26 it is explicitly said that man is “in Our image according to Our likeness” and this is
the Lord speaking. This is the triune God speaking, saying, “I am creating humankind in My
image, in My likeness.” Man is unique. It is not that he is simply smarter than the animals. It is
not because he is simply more highly evolved than the animals. He is of an altogether different
genus.

Now I know of no better place in a postmodern world for you to begin an apologetic
encounter witnessing to the truth of the Gospel than that, because human beings feel less
significant today than ever before. Now they are puffed up with pride, but deep down inside
they feel an incredible lack of significance because of the worldview that they have by and large
adopted. It is a worldview that has reduced them to the status of some sort of an evolved being
in a universe that does not care about them, because that universe is non-personal. And I know
no better place to engage this culture than right at that point and to say, as far as Christianity is
concerned, we are not a human animal as some anthropologists like to put it. We are not a
human animal. We are uniquely endowed with certain divine attributes by the Lord
Himself. And you know, if the Lord Himself hadn’t said it, you would find it hard to
believe. You really would. You would wonder if it wasn’t just a little bit blasphemous if the
Lord Himself hadn’t said it.

But again, do you not see the incredible goodness of God in creation in that very thing? He
didn’t have to do that. Just this lavish goodness of God, saying, I am going to take this creation
that I have made out of the dust and I am going to exalt this creation. And I am going to make
this creation vice-ruler of the world, and I am going to endow this creation with My own
attributes so that he is like Me. Unbelievable.

Notice also, that we see in verses 26 and in 28 that man is endowed with a capacity for, and a
responsibility for, dominion or rule. Man is endowed with a capacity for, and a responsibility for,
dominion or rule. You again see that language in verse 26: “Let them rule.” And then again in
verse 28: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and rule.” So there is a stress or an
activity of government and ordering that implies that the man has both rationality and
righteousness because, in God’s world, the function of ordering isn’t just the job for a good
administrator; it is a job for someone who has rational capacities which bear and reflect the
image of God and is righteous. It is a moral function here. Ordering the earth is a moral
issue. You can’t order the earth from an immoral base.

And so the very fact that man is being called to rule reminds one of the rational and the
righteous aspects in which he bears God’s image. This aspect of God’s image, this aspect of rule
or dominion is stressed in the divine command of Genesis 1:28, “subdue it and rule.” And it is
also stressed in the declaration of verses 29 and 30. If you look down at those passages, the
implication of this particular command is clearly set forth there with regard to the sphere of their
responsibility and dominion. By the way, we are going to stress this when we look at the life of
Noah, but if you flip over to Genesis 9:2-3, this same rule is reiterated in Genesis 9 to
Noah. “The fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every
bird of the sky with everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea into your
hand, they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you. I give all to you as
I gave the green plant.” Again the same order is obtained in redemption that had been
established in creation. When God sets forth His redemptive covenant in the life of Noah, He
restores the order and ordinances that He has originally given in the Garden before Adam
fell. Now by the way, this is precisely the thing that is celebrated in Psalm 8:4 and
following, “What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou
dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with
glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all
things under his feet, All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the
heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.”

It is telling, isn’t it, that the author of Psalm 8 begins with a reflection on the heavens and he
has got to have Genesis 1 either before him or very much in his mind as he does this. Because in
Genesis 1 what you are overwhelmed by is this God who is so massive as to speak the heavens
into being. And you go on for a couple of verses there in Genesis 1 about God making the sun
and the moon, and then in that little throw-off phrase in verse 16, you get “He made the stars
also.” He made the stars also. How many billions of stars are there? Yet He so awesome, so
powerful, so mighty, that in a little phrase, two or three words in Hebrew, He made the stars
also. And anybody in their right mind as a human is overwhelmed by that spectacle. You are
looking up there at the night sky. If you are out deep into the dark woods, maybe you can see
1500 or more stars with the naked eye on a clear night. And it is overwhelming, and you feel
small and that is exactly how the Psalmist felt in Psalm 8. What is man that you have crowned
him with power and glory and given him dominion and rule? That is exactly the response that
Genesis 1 is designed to evoke, but the fact of the matter is that Psalm 8 acknowledges exactly
what Genesis 1 says, that yes, you tiny little human being, you are made in the image of God and
you are made to rule that world. It is mind-boggling. That is what it means to be in the image
of God: to be distinct from the animal creation and to be endowed with the capacity for rule and
that involves ordering in a rational and a righteous way.

Thirdly, however, it also means being a bearer of certain of God’s attributes. To be made in
the image of God, not only means to be distinct from the animal creation, it not only means to be
endowed with the capacity for responsibility for rule, but it means to be a bearer of certain of
God’s attributes. And this is made clear by the analogy of Genesis 5 verses 1-3. If you would
turn to that passage, notice the rehearsal of this in the genealogy of Adam in the book of
Adam. Genesis 5. “This is the book of the generations of Adam in the day when God created
man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them, male and female and He blessed
them and named them man in the day they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he
became the father of the son in his own likeness according to his image and named him Seth,”
and so it is reiterated that man bears certain aspects of the very attributes of God. His
image. His likeness. Now these attributes are not spelled out in so many words. There is not a
nice listing of them, as much as we would like to have that in the first two chapters of Genesis,
but there is enough there for us to put together a decent list. And we ought to look at that real
briefly.
The Attributes of God in Man
First of all, it is clear that as God is rational, so also is man. As God is rational, so also is
man. Now this is implicit of God. What I am calling rationality is implicit of God in Genesis
1:1-25. There, God Himself is seen to be rational. And all I mean by rational at this point—and
I am not trying to over stretch this—all I mean is having intelligence and will, having the ability
to formulate plans and execute them. That is very clear from Genesis 1:1 and following, that
God is that kind of God. He is a God who plans and who carries out. He formulates the
thoughts of His mind and He carries them out by His divine will. He speaks those thoughts into
being. That is stressed in the very structure of the language that Moses uses for the first six
days. And man, too, is endowed with this kind of rationality and knowledge and understanding
and this is seen, for instance, in Adam’s naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19-20. Understand
that that action of naming the animals in not only an exercise of its rule. When an explorer
explores and “finds” or “discovers” a new country, what does that explorer usually get to
do? Name it. When Adam names the animals that is a function of his rule, his dominion over
them. In other words, it is a divine signifier that God has put him in charge. He is the one who
gets to name the animals, not the other way around. So it is a sign of his rational capacity.

But we must also recognize that there is every indication that Adam’s naming of the animals
is not arbitrary, but that the names that Adam assigns to the animals are correspondent to their
nature. Notice again that in redemption, for instance, in passages like Colossians 3:9-10, this
aspect of the restoration of man’s true capacities for knowledge and rationality are stressed. “Do
not lie to one another,” Paul says, “since you have laid aside the old self with its evil practices
and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image
of the One who created him.” So the true knowledge that we possess as redeemed is
what? According to the image of the One who created us. So that is true about Him and it is
true about us. So part of being in the image of God is that rational capacity, and man’s
rationality is reflected in his rule, his understanding is a gift of God.

That too, is a very important for our witness for our evangelism. If we forget that the true
knowledge of God is a gift, we may be tempted to think that we can produce that true knowledge
in someone. Only God can bestow that. There are certain things that we are called to do and be
very faithful in our responsibility to carry those out in bearing witness. But we must recognize
that, ultimately, only God can bestow that kind of true knowledge on a person. That is why we
are prayerfully dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit in His grace.

2. Secondly, as God is personal, so also is man. And you cannot miss, in the interaction
from Genesis 1:26 on, that God as a personal being is interacting with man as a personal
being and even the hints that you get in the language of 1:26, ‘’Let Us make man in our Own
image,” hinting perhaps not only at the majestic exalted position of God, speaking with a Royal
We, but perhaps even pressing forth to the doctrine of the Trinity itself, reminds us that God
Himself is in communion with Himself, because He is both three and one. The Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit are in communion and therefore God is personal. And it is interesting, isn’t it,
that it is stressed that man is personal as well, and therefore has relational capacities. “Let us
make man in Our image according to Our likeness and let them rule.” So the male and the
female aspect of man is stressed from the very beginning and is seen as part and parcel of His
ability to convey the personalness of God. Thus the very differentiation of the sexes, male and
female, is part of the image of God which we bear and reflect.

Now the implications of this are tremendous. I couldn’t possibly begin to apply all the
implications of that. One thing, however, does come to mind again, in our society which is so
vital, and that is the whole issue of the homosexual movement. You understand that
homosexuality depersonalizes a human. It depersonalizes a human. It dehumanizes a person
because it denies the essential male-female sides of the human marital relationship that are at the
very core and foundation of the society which God created in the original creation. It denies the
essentialness of that and it says, “No, male and male and female and female, same sex unions are
capable of functioning and reflecting the fullness of humanity just as well as male-female
relationships.” And we will talk more about that perhaps at some other time. But the practice
itself is a denial of the scriptural teaching on man in the image of God.

3. Thirdly, we can also say that man is moral. Man is moral. That is another of his attributes
as an image-bearer. We are told in Genesis 1:31 that God made all things good. That is because,
of course, He is good Himself. “God saw all that He made and behold it was very
good,” Genesis 1:31. Man, too, is endowed with righteousness and holiness. He knows what the
good is. And again in redemption this is stressed. In Ephesians 4:24, Paul will say, “Put on the
new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the
truth.” So Ephesians 4:24 says the new self has been created in the likeness of God in
righteousness and holiness of the truth, so this moral aspect, this personal aspect, the rational
aspect, all of these are part of man as image bearer. So that is all a subset of what we are saying
about man as a bearer of certain of God’s own attributes. God is personal. God is rational. God
is moral. And we reflect His image in those. And we could more than this, but we certainly
can’t say less than this.

4. Fourthly, life is sacred. Now we move on to another aspect of what it means to be made in
the image of God. It not only means that we are distinct from the animal creation, it not only
means that we are endowed with the capacity for dominion and rule, it not only means that we
are the bearers of certain of God’s attributes, it means fourthly that man’s life is sacred because
of the image and it must be treated so. This is stressed in Genesis 9:5-6. In that passage, it is
stressed that precisely because man is in God’s image, capital punishment is required by capital
crimes. The argument is precise and this is so important to hear because you will hear some
advocates of anti-capital punishment legislation argue that they are arguing their position on
Christian grounds and they will argue something like this: “Man is created in the image of
God. Who are we to take that life away from anyone, no matter what they have done, because
they are indelibly made in the image of God. How can we take the life of someone?”

Now that is not God’s logic. God’s logic is recorded not only in Genesis 9, but
elsewhere. But in Genesis 9, His logic is this: Because man is so special, because man is an
image bearer, when a man violates the principles of My law so grossly so as to take the life of
another human being, they have just purchased by that action, the inalienable right to pay for that
action with their own life. And to put it in the very language of Genesis 9, we have a
responsibility to bring to bear capital punishment for capital crimes because of the image of God
in man.
 God’s argumentation is anything but a diminution of the sacredness of man. And so in
Genesis 9, we have this kind of argumentation: Anything less than capital punishment for capital
crimes dehumanizes man and devalues his life.

By the way, that passage in Genesis 9 also reminds us that the image of God was not lost at
the Fall. If you have read any stuff as high powered as Barthian anthropology, whether you are
reading Barth’s Doctrine of Man, or Bruner, or someone else, you will find the idea that man lost
the image of God at the Fall. That is not the historic Reformed doctrine of man, and it is made
clear in Genesis 9 that even after the Fall, though the image is effaced, it is not erased. So Noah
lives after the Fall, and still God speaks of the image to him.

This, by the way, is the only adequate basis for the establishment of basic human rights and
respect. And again, friends, this is such an excellent area for you to press in a postmodern
society. We are “rights crazy” in this society. We think that there is a right for everything. And
you can use that to your advantage because, the funny thing is, as these rights have multiplied,
the grounds, the foundations for these rights have eroded because we do not live in a society
which by and large believes in transcendent truth anymore. People just believe that you kind of
make it up as you go along. There is no transcendent basis for truth. It is either individually
produced or it is societally agreed upon. But it is not transcendentally and universally true.

But how can you have a right that is not transcendentally and universally true? How can you
have an inalienable right, if there is nothing that is transcendentally true and essential about that
particular right? Well, when you hear people arguing for human rights, whether it is in the
context of race, or sex, or religion, or whatever else, you as a Christian have a reason, and a good
reason, and a ground on which you can argue for certain basic elemental rights. And that ground
and reason is the doctrine of the image of God in man. We do not believe, as believers, as
Christians, that just because someone worships a false god, that they cease to be in the image of
God. And therefore, we have certain basic responsibilities to them, even if they are
idolaters. We are called, by the Lord, to love them. We are called to respect them in certain
ways. And we are even called to defend their own elemental rights by the Lord as a part of our
responsibilities to Him.

But a modern or a postmodern non-Christian is in big trouble trying to set forth a doctrine of
why it would be wrong, for instance, for Hitler to exterminate Jews. I mean, why not? I mean
they were declared non-persons weren’t they? What is wrong with that? And your doctrine of
man in the image of God gives you an incredible leverage because there are people who, at a gut
level, sense that there ought to be certain basic human rights. They have perhaps expanded those
rights too far and they have perhaps not thought through why there ought to be those certain
things, but they have a gut hunch or instinct that there are these things. But you are the only
person who can supply them the ground of that because this is God’s world and God’s world
only works the way He made it. It doesn’t work the way that other people make it up as they go
along. So again, here is a great launching point for a Gospel discussion with someone. Do you
believe in human rights? You do? Or, you don’t have a reason to. I do. How is that for a
starter? And I promise you that is a good discussion to have.
 One more thing. Let me mention this: We see here in Genesis 1, and perhaps especially set
forth in Genesis 2:7, that man is endowed with an immortal, spiritual aspect to his being. This is
seen not only in the giving of the Tree of Life in the Garden, but it is even seen in the phrase of
Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” Genesis 1 and 2 speak of man as a
personal, self-conscious being with the capacities of knowledge and thought and action, but he is
a personal, self-conscious being with those capacities that goes on forever. He was not made like
the animals and the plant world to be here today and gone tomorrow. He was made for
eternity. And this is another one of the aspects of his distinction from the animal world.

Now, we have glanced upon the obligations that the Lord gave in Genesis 1:26 and following,
but I want to go back and look at them in more detail. We have defined covenant already in a
couple of different ways. We have mentioned Robertson’s description of the covenant: it is a
bond in blood sovereignly administered. Let me throw out another definition of
covenant. Robertson, himself, as you will remember, opens the book by saying, “Defining a
covenant is sort of like defining your mother.” The dictionary definition sort of falls short. It is
hard to give one definition that includes everything that you need to say about a covenant.

But here is one that I think will help you see the covenantal nature of Genesis 1:26-31: A
covenant is a binding relationship with blessings and obligations. A covenant is a binding
relationship with blessings and obligations. Now that is not adequate in any way as a total, final
definition of “covenant,” but it certainly stresses at least a couple of things doesn’t it? It stresses
first of all that a covenant is a relationship. It is a special kind of relationship. It is a binding
relationship. And in a religious context, of course, it is a saving relationship. Furthermore, it is a
relationship that involves both blessing and obligation, both promises and responsibilities. And
low and behold, as we look at Genesis 1:26 and following, that is precisely the pattern we see
there of the relationship that is described between God and Adam.

Why am I mentioning this? Because you will have noticed that nowhere in Genesis 1 and 2
is the term “covenant” used. In fact, that term “covenant” will not occur until Genesis 6:18. But
let me hint ahead and steal my thunder a little bit ahead of time. It is very interesting that there
are two ways of speaking about the making of a covenant in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the
Old Testament. One can speak of making a covenant firm. Sometimes your translations
translate that as “establishing a covenant” and one way is to speak of “cutting a covenant.” The
one, the latter, the cutting of the covenant, often refers to the inauguration of the covenant. The
other phrase often refers to the confirming of an already established covenant relationship, to
make that covenant firm. Is it not interesting to you that in Genesis 6:18, the passage says that
the covenant was made firm? Now that is the first usage of “Covenant” in the Bible. But the
very language forces you to understand that there was a covenant before it was mentioned. And
the only question is, how far back did it go? Now we will look at that passage in detail because
that is important. But it is very important for us to understand that the whole structure of the
covenant of God with Noah implies with massive force that it is a continuation of a previously
established relationship.

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. And you remember the story. David sets out
to build a temple for the Lord and the Lord says, “David, don’t build Me a temple.” And you
remember there is a play on words there. David says, “I am going to build a house for the Lord,”
and the Lord comes back to David and says, “David, will you build a house for Me? No, I will
build a house for you.” So there is a wonderful play on words in that passage that we will look at
very closely in a few weeks, but in the passage, the covenant is established with King David.

Now how do we know a covenant is established there since the word “covenant” 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.

Now there are indications in the Scripture in various places, and we will look at this at some
point, that the relationship of Adam and God in the Garden in covenantal. In other words, that
actual terminology is used. Hosea 6:7 is one of the classic passages that we will have to look at
in some greater detail, but there are other passages as well that give indication of this covenant
relationship.

What we are going to concentrate on today, however, is showing you that the elements of the
covenant are already here without any further comment from Scripture. The elements of the
covenant are here. First of all, notice in verse 26 that God creates man in His own image and
designs him as the vice-ruler over His creation. And this verse reminds us that man was created
in God’s image and likeness and he was destined for dominion over the remainder of
creation. By the way, the uniqueness of man is seen in the phraseology of 1:26. If you were to
look at the other creative days, for instance, Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:14, those
creative days begin with what phrase? “Let there be…” But Genesis 1:26 begins with what?
“Let Us make….” So again, the uniqueness of man in the creative order is expressed by Moses
even linguistically; even linguistically he is distinguishing man from the rest of God’s creation.

Now let me say in regard to Genesis 1:26 and man as ruler and man as image, there is both a
dynamic and a static element to the image of God. How can I put that in more understandable
language? There is both an aspect of the image that is inherent in us as we are made as persons
and there is an aspect of the image that is expressed in us as we act. In other words, we both are
the image of God and we express the image of God in our actions. Both of those aspects of the
image are present there in Genesis 1:26. We are in His image and we must reflect that image in
our actions.

Secondly, in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28, we see that God established certain blessings and
obligations for man at the very outset of his relationship with man. So we see a unique
relationship established between God and man in Genesis 1:26. God endows man with
something that He has not endowed any other part of His creation with. He endows him with a
responsibility that He has not given to any other part of His creation. And then, in verses 27 and
28, we see both blessings and obligations attached to that particular relationship from the very
outset. So here we have a relationship with attendant blessings and obligations.
 There are four great obligations in that relationship. Perhaps I should put it this way: There
are at least four great obligations in that original relationship, and, ironically, corresponding to
those four great obligations are four great blessings. So the blessings and the obligations of this
relationship in Genesis 1:26 and following are coordinated. The blessings come in the obligation,
the obligation comes in the blessing. It is interesting how God tied that together. It reminds us,
doesn’t it, that the way of blessedness, or the way of happiness, is in the way of duty, because in
the very created order, God made duty and the doing of duty to be blessed. Now that is such an
alien concept to our culture. We tend to think that if you have to do something that kind of ruins
it. If you have to do it, how can you really desire to do that? Isn’t that against grace or
something like that? But the idea that duty is opposed to grace is utterly alien to biblical
thought. It is alien to Moses. It is alien to Paul. It is alien to Jesus. Some of you may know of
Robert E. Lee’s famous quote, “Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.” It is up on
a plaque in The Citadel. If you have ever been to The Citadel, the military university of South
Carolina, you will see it on the walls as you walk in. “Duty is the sublimest word in the English
language.” And that idea is totally alien to our culture, because duty is confused with “I have to
do it.” But here we see in the very duties of the created order, the blessings are intertwined, so
that as man does what God created him to do, interestingly enough, he finds his fulfillment and
his satisfaction and his happiness and his blessedness.

The Creation Ordinances

What is meant by a creation ordinance? By a creation ordinance, we mean a pattern of
responsibility woven into the very fabric of the creation by God as He originally made it. A
pattern of responsibility woven into the very fabric of creation as He originally created it. If you
have read John Murray’s Principles of Conduct, Murray comes up with seven creation
ordinances. Perhaps most frequently we hear of three creation ordinances. I am not so
concerned about the numbering as I am of us grasping the concepts of these creation ordinances.

1. The first creation ordinance that we see there is the ordinance of procreation. Genesis
1:28. The ordinance of procreation. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” This is the
first of the creation ordinances given in Genesis 1 and, of course, it is related directly to marriage
as we will see when we finally get over to Genesis 2:23-24. And it is obviously essential for the
fulfillment of the later mandates of labor and dominion. Adam and Eve as two isolated
individuals, no matter how powerful in their capacities as unfallen human beings, can’t subdue
the whole of this globe. There has got to be procreation in order to harness and order the world
as God has established it. And this ordinance, it is made clear in Genesis 1 and 2, was to be
expressed only within the bonds of mutual commitment, that is, marriage. So this is an
obligation and a blessing. It is an obligation and a blessing. Can you imagine God coming to
Adam, and Adam responding, “Do I have to?” “Yes. It is an obligation and a blessing. Be
fruitful and multiply.” And there again you see it is a blessing to Adam as a family. Adam needs
sons and daughters to help him in the work that he has to do. And so it serves as a familial
blessing for his family as a whole, as well as something essential to the fulfillment of the
mandates for labor and dominion.

2. The second ordinance that we see, we also see in verse 1:28, and that is the ordinance of
labor. The ordinance of labor. “Fill the earth and subdue it and rule.” Now notice the two parts
of this ordinance. The mandate is to work. The blessing is that God has given man rule. He is
mandated to work, but God has set up the creation so that the lower creation fears man, respects
his position of authority, and this dominion mandate expresses itself necessarily in work or labor
and thus, work is good. Work is part of the original created order. When we go to heaven, we
are not going to heaven either on flowery beds of ease or for flowery beds of ease. There will be
work in heaven. That is what we were originally created for. There will be no toil. There will
be no frustration. There will be no tiredness. But there will be fulfilling work. The dominion of
man was to be expressed in two spheres. You see it in this passage, first in the subduing of the
earth and second in the ruling over the animals.

And let me go on to say that this labor ordinance was implicit even in the Sabbath ordinance
of Genesis 2:1-3, because what does the Sabbath ordinance do? It puts a limit on labor. It says
to man, you can’t work all the time. But it implies the obligation of work on the other six
days. So, what are man’s obligations? Procreation. Labor. He is to express dominion. How is
blessing entailed in his labor? Not only in the satisfaction of that labor, but also in the dominion
that God has given him, the rule that God has given him over his creation.

3. Then, the ordinance of the Sabbath. We see this in Genesis 2:3: “God blessed the
Sabbath and sanctified it.” This seventh day is marked by the completion of God’s special
created work; His labor was finished in the first six days. The work of creation as such is
done. That doesn’t mean that He is inactive. He continues to work in providence in preserving
and governing His creation, but the same word, finished, is used here as it is used of Moses
finishing the tabernacle in Exodus 40:23, and of Solomon finishing the temple in II Chronicles
7:11, and of Jesus finishing the redemption in John 19:33. The same concept used here—same
term.

Notice also that these labors which are rested from are the creational labors. God’s finished
work of creation is sealed with these words, “He rested.” And what is being implied is cessation
from that special creational activity. As we said, that doesn’t mean that God is inactive; He
continues to nurture, and that is seen from the following.

First, we see it from our Lord’s constructive use of the Sabbath. The Pharisees’ Sabbath was
by and large merely a negative Sabbath entailing cessation from certain activities, whereas the
Lord’s Sabbath was actively a Sabbath of deeds of mercy and necessity in addition to
worship. For an example, see John 5:15-17: “The man went away, and told the Jews that it was
Jesus who had made him well. And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He
was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now,
and I Myself am working.’” So he indicates that God’s cessation from the creational activity
doesn’t mean that God is utterly inactive on the Sabbath. It just means that the focus of that
activity has changed.

Second, Jesus’ preservation of the creational pattern of the Sabbath. And what is that
creational pattern, that the Sabbath is both blessed and holy. It is both a blessing and something
to be set apart. Both of those aspects. And once again, here we are seeing how the creation
ordinance of the Sabbath is both an obligation and a blessing. The original Sabbath was both a
blessing and an obligation. Notice Jesus’ words of it, about it in Mark 2:27-28. “And He was
saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
 Notice what is being stressed there: that man was given the Sabbath as a blessing. Man
wasn’t created for the sake of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was created for the sake of man. It was
for his good. It was a blessing of God to him. And what is the other side of it? So the Son of
Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. It is the Lord’s day. We have an obligation to the Lord that
day to follow in His way with worship, deeds of mercy and necessity, just as He observed that
day. So we see that pattern of blessing and hallowing, of blessing and obligation, of blessing in
responsibility upheld in Jesus’ explanation of the Sabbath in Mark 2.

Then, finally, as we saw from Genesis and as we see again in Hebrews 3, God’s Sabbath was
a gift to man. God’s Sabbath was a gift to man. God didn’t need that rest. That is Jesus’ whole
point in Mark 2. God didn’t need the rest. He rested because you needed the rest. So His very
resting was not a necessity for Him. It was something that you needed that He did out of His
love for you. So He rested for your sakes, and we learn in Hebrews 3:7-4:11 that, for believers,
the Sabbath is not only a blessing, but it is a promise of a rest to come. So the Sabbath is a day
for nurturing, for spiritual life, for worship and service.

In the third verse of Genesis 2, we learn that the Sabbath is set apart and specially favored by
God because of His rest from creation. “Then God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it
because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Because of His
resting, which He did for our benefit, God both favored and hallowed the Sabbath. He blessed it
and He made it holy. He blessed it in the sense that He made it an effectual means of blessing to
those who sanctify it by rest, worship and service. And He sanctified it, in the sense of making it
holy or hallowed, whatever term you want to use, by consecrating it and setting it apart for a holy
use.

Now remember, friends, those who are hearing Genesis 1 read to them for the first time, have
already heard the Ten Commandments from God’s own mouth. Remember that now. Those
who are hearing Genesis 1 read to them for the first time, have already heard the Ten
Commandments spoken to them from God’s own mouth. So Moses is not telling them about
something new when he speaks about the Sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3, he is not telling them about
something that they have never heard of before. He is telling them about something that they
have already heard of, but now he is telling them where it came from. The whole structure of
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a gigantic argument for the Sabbath. It is simply a gigantic argument for the
Sabbath by explaining to the people of God where the Sabbath came from. And I think it is not
surprising that the Exodus emphasis on the Sabbath is specifically mirroring creation. It is not
until Deuteronomy that you get the redemptive significance of the Sabbath stressed in the Ten
Commandments as they are recorded there. And so the Sabbath serves not only as a memorial of
redemption, as we see in Deuteronomy, but it serves as a memorial of creation. It is woven into
the very fabric of creation. So that is the third of the ordinances that we see in Genesis 1:26-2:3.

4. The fourth ordinance that we will look at is the ordinance of marriage. We not only have
the ordinance of procreation, the ordinance of labor, the ordinance of Sabbath, but there is also
the ordinance of marriage. And the ordinance of marriage is seen in Genesis 2:24-25. And let’s
think about that for a few minutes. It is made clear in Genesis 2:18 that man had social needs
even in paradise. Man had social needs even in paradise. He has relational needs, human
relational needs, even in paradise. Genesis 2:18 says, “Then the LORD God said, "It is not good
for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

So even with everything pronounced good, God announces that “it is not good for man to be
alone.” This is the first thing that has been described in God’s creation as not good. It is the
only thing that has been described in God’s creation that is not good. It is not good for man to be
alone. So, solitary fellowship with God even in paradise is not God’s plan for us. By the way,
you see in that verse the seed for the doctrine of the church as well. Solitary fellowship with
God is not God’s plan. We need one another and such a plan that invites believers into
individual experiences with the Lord apart from mutual relations and obligations with the body
of believers ignores this basic creational human need for companionship.

Secondly, as God calls Adam to name the animals in Genesis 2:19-20, God makes Adam
more aware for his need for this companionship. As we have said before, the naming of those
animals demonstrates that man is the monarch of all he surveys under God, but it also reminds
Adam that there is no one out there for him, like him. He needs a helper suitable to him, a
perfect fit, a support, and an honored mutual companion. Genesis 2:21-23 record God’s
provision for this need, and man’s grateful acknowledgment of that provision to God. God
creates a companion for Adam because there was none for him before. Woman is made for
him. Eve is made to be Adam’s crown and glory and man stands in need of her. It is perhaps
significant that Adam was asleep when she was created and so he can take no credit for her
creation, for her provision, for nature. He contributed nothing to her, except the stuff which God
had already given to him.

And then in Genesis 2:23-24, God in his special creative providence establishes the very
foundations of marriage. And here we see the creation ordinance of marriage. “For this reason a
man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one
flesh.” Now both Moses and Christ then, see this provision of Eve for Adam as the very
foundation of marriage. Jesus makes that clear in Mark 10:6-9 where He goes right back to this
passage when the issue of divorce is brought up by the Pharisees and He basically says to them,
“You can’t even begin to talk about divorce until you understand marriage first.” And where
does he take them? Right back to Genesis 2. And I think that is important for us to remember
because before we are able to reassert marriage in our culture, we need to understand what it
is. It is grounded in this creational ordinance.

And then of course in verse 25, Moses reminds us that there was no sin in this original order
or relationship, and therefore, there was no shame. They were naked, and they were not
ashamed. No sin, no shame, no barriers to relationships with one another. No barriers with
relationship to God. That need for covering was a result of the Fall. And so this is the fourth of
the ordinances. And again, the blessing of this relationship is obvious. It is an ordinance, it is a
mandate, but it is a blessing. And so we see woven into Genesis 1, though the word is not
mentioned, we see a binding relationship with attendant blessings and obligations. And the
blessings are set forth even as the obligations are being set out in Genesis 1:26-31.
The Covenant Established
Now with that as the background, with that
as the preface, we see the establishment of this
covenant relationship in Genesis 2:4-25. First
in verses 4-14, I would like you to see the
blessing of the Covenant of Works set forth, the
blessings of the Covenant of Works. God’s
original covenant with man was filled with
privileges. And Moses gives you a sampling of
those privileges. First in verses 4-6, he gives
you a brief reminder of what the world was like
before the creation was completed in the sixth
days. He gives you a synopsis of what the
primordial world was like, what the form, what
the shape, what the visage of the world was like
before God’s completion of it. Why does he do
that? Because he wants man to appreciate that
the form of the world which he experienced in
the paradise of Eden is not how the world was
before God completed His six days. It is this
enormous, undeserved gift that God has given to
man. Even this paradisiacal surrounding that he
has provided with Adam is a gift of God to
him. And God wants Adam to know what the
world was like before He finished working on
it. It would be like taking him into a garden and
saying, “Now Adam, I want you to understand
this garden was not always like this. Two years
ago, it was a bed full of weeds, but this is what I
have done. And of course it is even more
radical than that. There was nothing here, and
then there was a something here that was
disorganized, and now, I, the Divine Creator,
have organized it and filled it and blessed it and
made it fruitful and I have given it to you.” So
the first thing that we see in these verses is that
the paradise of Eden was God’s gift to Adam. It
was one of the blessings that God gave to Adam
at the very outset of the relationship.
In verses 7-9, Moses continues to meditate on the original environment of Adam as he thinks
about his origin. Notice those words, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. The Lord God
planted a garden toward the east in Eden and there He placed the man whom He formed. Out of
the ground, the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for
food. The tree of life in the midst of the garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” So
man is formed out of the ground. God breathes into him his own breath and makes him a living
soul and immortal being. He plants a garden. He provides man for food. He places two trees in
that garden which are distinct from all the other trees. One of these trees is a sacrament. We’ll
talk about it in a moment. The other tree is a test. So again, God, having created us from the dirt,
blesses us with goodness.
 Then in verses 10-14, we are reminded again of the blessing of this original
relationship. Man’s original environment is said to be perfect. We have the description of the
rivers that flowed out of Eden to water it. We have a description of the natural resources of that
land and what we have is a picture of man’s original environment as extraordinarily rich in
resources, water, gold, precious stones. So in the first verses of Genesis 2, especially from verse
4 down to verse 14, what we see are the blessings of this original relationship set forth.

Then, as we continue on from verse 15 down to verse 17, we see the responsibilities of this
covenant relationship. “Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden,
to cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man saying, ‘From any tree of the
Garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat,
for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’” So I want you to see here that in
paradise, God has entered into a special relationship with Adam. We see this in at least three
ways. We see it in the blessing of God’s image in Genesis 1:26-31, we see it in the provision of
the creation Sabbath, in Genesis 2:1-3, and we see it in the blessings of the original creation
given to Adam in Genesis 2:4-14. So in each of those ways, God is showing us the kind of
condescension, the kind of good and blessed condescension that He is engaged in as He enters
into this relationship with Adam.

Now this relationship, of course, is undeserved in the strict sense. And there is nothing about
Adam that requires God to do this. But notice also there is no demerit in Adam either. There is
no demerit that needs to be overcome in him. He is created. He is good. He is righteous. Just
because he is created, doesn’t mean that he deserves these blessings. God gives them to him
anyway.

As we said last week, we distinguished that kind of activity of God from grace, simply
because sin is not present here. Later when he shows this kind of goodness in condescension, it
will be grace-based. Why? Because sin is present and grace is for the purpose of overcoming
sin. There is no demerit, there is no sin here to overcome. What God is doing is not
merited. Adam has not merited this. 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.

Now that is not the only thing that Adam has to do in this relationship. We have already seen
four things that he is responsible to do. He is responsible for procreation. He is responsible for
labor. He is responsible to hallow the Lord’s day and he is responsible to procreate in the
context of marriage. So those things are already established as obligations. But the negative test
and obligation of this original relationship we see here in Genesis 2:17-18. Look at the nature of
this relationship.

Let’s break it down for a few moments. We have already said first of all that there are
ordinances in this relationship. There are positive ordinances. Procreation, labor, Sabbath, and
marriage. So there are obligations in the relationship. There are also prohibitions in the
relationship. We might put it this way: there are positive obligations—there are things that he is
supposed to do, and there are negative obligations—there are things that he is not supposed to
do. Specifically, he is prohibited from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The
Lord says, “From the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat.” So you have
ordinances. Positive ordinances. Negative ordinances. And you have a consequence spelled
out. There is a penalty given: In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. So what do we
have here? Well, we have a relationship divinely established between God and Adam. So we
have a bond. We have life and death consequences in the penalty. So we have a bond in
blood. And let me also say that we have blessings implied in this relationship, not only in the
ordinances, but also in the presence of the tree of life, because that tree of life reappears
where? Not only in Ezekiel, but in Revelation. And where is it? It is in the presence of God and
the company of the redeemed. And so it is a hint of what is in store for Adam, if he is faithful in
the keeping of the obligations.

And finally, we have these stipulations, these ordinances and prohibitions sovereignly
administered by God. And so we have all the elements of a covenant, whether you want to
define it as a bond in blood sovereignly administered, or whether you want to define it as a
binding relationship with attendant blessings and responsibilities. All the elements of a covenant
are there. But the word isn’t found. Now this made John Murray very nervous, and so he didn’t
want to talk about a Covenant of Works. He didn’t want to talk about Covenant of Creation. He
wanted to talk about this as the Adamic Administration. I am going to come back and talk about
those kinds of reservations at a later point. But let me just share with you a little bit of
speculation and see if you can follow this. Why would the term covenant not be found here, if it
is so important structurally to this argument, especially as seen in Paul in Romans 5? Well, think
about it for a moment. If a covenant was a Near Eastern cultural convention, something that
grew up in a Near Eastern society as a way of expressing binding obligations and promises,
could it be that Moses was being careful not to read back the specific terminology of a cultural
convention prior to its appearance in human culture? Could it be that by the time of Noahic
covenants, the language, the concept of that were well known in human culture in the Near East,
but that prior to that, the concept had not fully or adequately developed and that Moses, precisely
because he wants to be so faithful to the historical accounts that he is giving, refrains from using
the language of covenant although it is entirely appropriate as a concept theologically to the
situation? Could it be that the fact that we don’t have the word there in Genesis 1-5 is simply a
testimony to Moses’ strict and particular and careful attention to historical detail in his
recounting of the original chapters of the life of man? We will have to ask him when we get to
heaven, because ultimately we can’t give an answer to that question. But I think it may be
interesting if we view the covenant as a human convention that was common in the ancient Near
East. We know it was common in the third and in the second millennium BC in the Near
East. If we view that as a human convention which God divinely chose to illustrate the nature of
His relationship to His people, it makes sense that Moses would have refrained from using the
terminology in the original order before that convention had been developed in human
culture. Because the minute that God takes up the convention, things about it change, because it
is not like any other human agreement or relationship. But the concept is clearly there. The
elements are all there.
Why is this Covenant Important?
What is the significance of all this? Well, let
me see if I can summarize this for you for a few
minutes. As we look at Genesis 1 and 2 in this
original covenant relationship, what is
significant for us theologically about that
original relationship in the Covenant of
Works? Well, let me throw out about six things
to you here. First, Genesis 1 and 2 give us in no
uncertain terms a clear picture of the
Creator/creature distinction. We know from
Babylonian mythology that creation was often
pictured as god birthing the world into being, so
that the world was considered to be somehow
part of god. This was sort of a Pantheistic
notion. God is in the world. The world is in
god. They are all connected. And you can’t
read Genesis 1 and come away thinking that
Moses has a hint of that kind of thinking in the
back of his mind, because first there is God, and
then later there is this world. And then as
Moses explains how the world comes into being,
what does he say? God speaks it into being. It
is created literally by divine fiat. He decrees it
into being. So there can be no idea of this world
somehow being part of Him and of Him being
somehow part of this world. This is a direct
assault on all Pantheistic views of God: all
views that say that the world is god and god is
the world, god is in those trees, or god is in the
grass.
Now the beautiful thing about that is it demythologizes the creation. There is a reason why
the rise of modern science occurred under the reign of the Protestant understanding of the
Creator/creature distinction. You can’t go down the street and experiment on a tree that might be
God, or a demon for that matter. But a creation which God has brought into being, and over
which not only He is sovereign, but man is sovereign, can be studied and harnessed and so the
creation is demythologized so that it can be studied. We can learn better how it works, so that
we can enhance certain aspects of productivity in creation.

Man’s exercise of dominion over the earth is another implication of this Creator-creature
distinction. Again, if I am scared that there might be a demon spirit that is locally controlling an
oak tree outside, I am probably going to cut a wide path around the oak tree. But when I
understand properly that God is in dominion over His creation, and then I recognize that there is
nothing, there is absolutely nothing that is out from under His providential control. You have to
love that beautiful story about the Celtic missionary who winds up in the land of the Franks, and
the Franks tell him, “See that oak over there?” “Yep.” “That is the oak of Thor.” “That
oak?” “That is the oak of the god Thor. That one right over there. That is Thor’s
oak.” “Anybody got an ax?” And he heads right over to it and he chops it down. What is he
doing? He is saying, “I don’t care what god you say is in charge of that oak. My God owns that
oak. And I will cut it down if I want to.” But the point was to show the sovereignty of God over
His creation. Creation is not invested with spirits that are out of control of the living God. God
is sovereign. He is distinct from that creation. By the way, that doesn’t mean that man is
reckless with his treatment of creation. So often you have heard the charges, “Oh, Christianity, it
encourages horrible ecological practices. It encourages people to exploit the environment.” Oh
no. You see, we are not the owners, we are just the stewards, and we are just working in the
vineyard. One day, the Master’s coming back and we are going to have give account for how we
used His creation. And so in the very essence of the Christian view of creation there is a
rationale for appropriate environmental and ecological concern, because this isn’t our house. It
is His. He has given it to us as stewards, and so we had better use it wisely and well. So there is
not exploitation implied in dominion. Because why? We are not our own master. We are
accountable to Him. By the way, if you have not read Schaeffer on this, Schaeffer will give you
lots of ammunition in precisely this area. This is again a nice point of contact with our
postmodern culture where you can engage some people to think, because there a many people
who say, “Oh it is a traditional western, white Anglo-Saxon male patriarchal system that is
responsible for all the ecological and environmental problems in the world today.” And you can
say, “Well let’s talk about that a little bit. Let me explain to you the Christian philosophy of
creation.”

2. There is a second thing that this original covenant in the structure of Genesis 1 and 2 gives
us. It emphasizes the cosmic or universalistic concerns of God. It emphasizes the cosmic or
universalistic concerns of God. Now as we have already mentioned before, that is reemphasized
in the covenant with Noah and we will look at that later. It is important that we understand that
God is concerned with the whole created order, and not just man, as expressed in Genesis 1 and 2,
and this protects us from misusing our particularistic doctrine of grace. Let me try and exegete
that. As evangelical believers, we may believe that God’s saving grace is visited only upon those
who embrace Him by faith. Now we may say additionally, as Reformed evangelical believers,
that it is visited only upon those whom God has chosen, who are called. But whatever way, if
you’re an evangelical, you have a particularistic view of grace. You don’t believe that everyone
is being saved. You believe that only those who trust on the Lord Jesus Christ are being
redeemed. What protects you from going to the extreme and denying God’s concern for non-
redeemed creation, and for non-redeemable creation? Well, there are a lot of things in the Bible
that protect you from that. One of the things that protect you from that is the fact that in Genesis
1 and 2 we see clearly that God is concerned for the totality of His creation. And the
universalistic implications of Genesis 1 and 2 counterbalance our particularistic doctrine of grace
by affirming God’s broader concerns for humanity. How is that seen? These creation
ordinances are just as important for unbelievers as they are for believers. And we ought to work
to see unbelievers putting these creation ordinances into practice. It will be a blessing to them
and to society and it will in many cases be a gateway to the Gospel. So the creation ordinances
are not just for Christians. Creation ordinances, they are for everybody.

3. Third, this original covenant expresses a relationship between God and unfallen, pre-fallen
man, which is not by grace. We mentioned this earlier. What do I mean by that? I don’t mean
that we deserved all the things that God gave us in the original creation. That is not the point. I
don’t mean that we earned all the things that God gave us in the original creation. I do mean,
however, that because we were not estranged from God as He originally created us, that this
original relationship was natural and without a mediator. I mean, you only need a mediator if
there is a fight. You only need a mediator if there is estrangement. You only need a mediator if
two sides are at odds.

Now why is that significant? It is going to be very important for you to understand that this
is the point at which Karl Barth’s critique of Covenant Theology fails most dramatically. And
unfortunately many evangelicals have picked up on some of Barth’s ideas at this point and have
imported them unwittingly into their own Covenant Theology, so I am quite keen for you to
understand how Barth errs here. Barth wants to argue that all, all of God’s dealings with man are
by grace, and that all of God’s dealings with man are through Christ, and that Christ’s mediation
is therefore not a post-fall office or function. It is an eternal function that occurs prior to the fall
in human experience. You hear what Barth is saying there? He is saying that from the very
beginning God had to relate to man by grace and through Christ. And he basically says that the
reason was because of the finiteness of man. And unfortunately you see here category confusion
between finiteness and sin. Now we are going to talk about this in the next point. But I want to
introduce it here.

Basically (and Professor Barth would be bouncing off the ceiling if I said this in his presence,
and he would deny it up and down, but I think I could prove it to you if you gave me enough
time), Barth says that man’s fundamental problem in relating to God is not sin, it is that he is
man. And in my opinion, and in the historic opinion of the church for two thousand years, that is
not the Bible’s view of man’s basic problem in relationship to God. Notice that God has no
problem interacting and interrelating to Adam in an unmediated way in the Garden. Adam
understands Him. God talks to him. They walk together in the Garden in the cool of the
day. There are stipulations, obligations, relationships, blessings, and no hint of a problem of God
entering into a relationship with Adam. But Barth wants to say that it is our very creatureliness
that separates us from God.

Now let me say one other thing to be very careful of. Calvin dabbles with this idea. He
dabbles with the idea that we always need a mediator, not just because we are sinful, but because
we are so vastly inferior to God in our finiteness. And he would appeal to passages like Isaiah 6
and the angels, the beings that surround the throne are doing what? Veiling themselves as they
cry, “Holy, holy, holy.” Now, were they sinful? No. But they still had to veil themselves in the
presence of God. And he will sort of take that and run with that. But Calvin doesn’t use this
concept like Barth will use it. Now Barth will go back and he will read all of his theology into
Calvin, but he is miles away from what Calvin was trying to do with this point. But I want you
to understand that this is a key part of Barth’s critique of Covenant Theology. He does not like
the idea of a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Nature and a
Covenant of Grace, because he wants grace to be the only way that God relates to man.

Barth’s major error with this is that it underemphasizes sin. You see, Genesis 3 is where
Moses is going when he writes Genesis 1 and 2. He wants you to understand that things then
were not like they are now. And things are like they are now because of what happens in
Genesis 3, and therefore the very nature of the way that God relates to us has to be
different. And I do not think that there is any way that you can do justice to the significance of
Genesis 3 and man’s original sin if you say that there has always simply been one Covenant of
Grace from the very beginning, and there is not a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace.

What we are beginning here is an argument for what is called a bicovenantal structure as
opposed to a monocovenantal structure of creation and redemption. The bicovenantal structure
of creation and redemption says there is a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a
Covenant of Nature, and a Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Nature is prior to sin and
therefore it does not have to be mediated and God does not have to provide a mediator or
propitiation in order to enter into relationship with man. Whereas, after the fall of man, a
mediator is provided out of the graciousness of God, sin is satisfied, and the covenant is fulfilled
by Christ in order that we may experience the blessings of the covenant. So you have the
Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, but what Barth ends up with is an eternal
Covenant of Grace.

And by the way, this is the same thing that Herman Hoeksema comes up with, and it is the
same thing that many other types of hyper-Calvinists have come up with. So there is continuity
between Barth and certain hyper-Calvinists. In fact, there is a sense in which Barth is the
ultimate hyper-Calvinist. In fact, I would call Bart a hypersuperlapsarian. And if you want to
get into that with me someday, I can explain what I am talking about there. But this
monocovenantal view that says that there has been this eternal Covenant of Grace and that it was
in place even before the fall, cannot help but downplay sin and see finiteness as our problem, not
sin.

4. So, that moves us on to the fourth significance of this original relationship that we have
been describing. By a close study of Genesis 1, 2 and 3, we are enabled to recognize the
difference between finiteness and sin. For instance, one aspect of Adam’s finiteness was his
need for human companionship expressed in Genesis 2:18, when God says it is not good for man
to be alone. But notice that Adam is not held culpable for that. And God doesn’t say, it is not
good for you to be alone, therefore I can have nothing to do with you without a
mediator. No. That is not what happens in Genesis 2:18. Man is recognized to need rest
because of his finiteness in Genesis 2:1-3 and so a Sabbath is made for him. He is not made for
the Sabbath, but a Sabbath is made for him. Why? Because he is finite. But is that held against
him? No. No. It is a blessing. He is divinely created, unfallen, he is sinless. But his
constitution needs a Sabbath rest. And it needs a woman. And so sin and finiteness are not the
same thing.

Let me put this in another way. Sometimes you hear this phrase said: “To err is human, to
forgive, divine.” I know what they are getting at when they say that. But the point I want to
bring across is that to err is not human, to err is fallen. To err is fallen. We are not being
quintessentially human when we make mistakes. Mistakes are an overused word. We are not
being quintessentially human when we sin, we are being quintessentially fallen. If sin is of
the essence of humanness, not only does that raise real problems for God’s original creation, but
it makes me wonder what heaven is going to be like. Sin does not make me more human. It
makes me less human. It is not how God originally created me. And to say, “Man’s basic
problem resides in the fact that he is finite and God is infinite and this chasm cannot be crossed,
we cannot even conceive Him because he is so majestic, so infinite and we are so finite,” is to
miss the whole point of Genesis 3. And Barthian theology over and over confuses finiteness and
sin. Again, I think I could argue the case. Barth’s problem was not with sin; it was with
man. He basically says, “You know what your problem is? Your problem is that you’re not
God. Your problem is that you are not infinite.” And that is not the problem the Bible says that
we have. Adam was finite. God did not mock him for that. The problem was that Adam
rebelled. Sin is the problem. Rebellion is the problem. Not finiteness. We are going to be finite
in glory.

5. Fifthly, this original covenant makes it clear that matter is not evil. This original covenant
makes it clear that matter is not evil. God created the world and God called it good. Matter and
things are not evil. People’s use of them is. So, if you have proper understanding of the original
creation, salvation is not viewed as an escape from matter, or an escape from the body into a pure
spirit, as you get in all the manifestations of Gnostic teachings from the first century until
today. No, salvation in the biblical sense will involve the whole man, body, and soul, because
that body was created good. Now it is very significant that right now on the throne of the
universe, human flesh sits, in the ascended Lord Jesus Christ who is forever fully God and
fully man. The dust of the earth sits on the throne of glory.

6. Sixthly, and finally, as we study this original covenant, we see that man is created in the
image of God and, even after the fall, continues to bear that image, no matter how effaced it is by
sin. And thus respect for human beings, as those who are created in the image of God, is
established; the equal status and responsibility of all men before God as His stewards of creation
is established. Racism and sexism is therefore banished under a Christian worldview, but only
under a Christian worldview, since a materialist evolutionist can only argue for human rights by
a sheer act of irrationality. There is a reason why Darwinism became a dominant philosophy in
nineteenth century England. Because survival of the fittest, far from being a quintessentially
anticlassicist argument, is a quintessential class argument which says, “I can give you a reason
why I am superior to you; I out evolved you. And therefore I have the right to do with you what
I will.” So a materialist evolutionist Darwinist can only argue for basic human rights and human
dignity by a sheer irrational act of the will. Only a Christian can provide an adequate foundation
for appropriate view of human rights. You notice that human rights or rights at all, are really
contained under the category of the covenant in that realm of blessings and obligations. And
rights fall under the blessing of the covenant relationship. They are not infinite, by the way, and
they cannot be forever multiplied. They are specific and limited, but they are there. And we are
the only ones who can give an adequate argument for that today.

Now we will stop right there and we will come back and look at a few more implications of
the Creation, the Covenant, the Covenant of Works, with regard to this whole issue of science
and theology, because there is no question that for the last 150 years the major assault on
Christianity has come from secular scientism which puts itself forward as a replacement
worldview to historic Christianity and says that historic Christianity is irrational and is untenable
in a scientific world, and therefore it must be rejected. And I want to make one or two more
comments about that and then we will continue on. Let’s pray.

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/Ligons
_covtheology/03.htm