I appreciate your defense of the covenant between God and Adam. There are a lot of traditions that are denying it. What do you think of calling it a covenant of life or covenant of creation? It seems like calling it a covenant of works places a large emphasis on merit.
When considering the emphasis on merit implied by the term "works," the most important aspect is placing that emphasis on the right person: Christ. The term "works" certainly highlights Adam's failure to keep the commitments of his covenant with God but it also points directly to Christ's perfect work on your behalf which is how he crushes the head of the serpent (Gen. 2:15-17; 3:1-7, 15; Matt. 5:17; John 6:38; Rom. 5:17). This truth, in part, leads me to affirm that the term "works" is the most helpful when describing the covenant between God and Adam.
Referring to the covenant between God and Adam as a covenant of life or creation is helpful too, as long as those terms are synonymous with what the Bible teaches and what the Reformers traditionally referred to as the Covenant of Works.
I hope you will indulge me as I ask a very honest question…:
I was raised Baptist and am now a Lutheran. I visited a Presbyterian church at length before I finally decided to seek Lutheran confirmation, though, and I see much of great value in Reformed thought.
I must admit that the concept of “Covenant” has always seemed to me (an outsider) to be hammered so hard that it takes on a bit of a life of its own. Even here, with your (very polite and respectful) disagreement with Williamson, his refusal to use the precise term “covenant” - while fully acknowledging the sin of Adam - seems to be of great importance to the Reformed worldview.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree that God has related to us almost exclusively through covenants, and continues to do so even now. It’s hard not to see covenant language throughout both testaments. But I have become reluctant to even use the term “covenant” because the word itself has seemed almost to have become a Reformed word, with a bit of baggage I feel unprepared to parse through.
Is it not enough to simply say that we have sinned and continue to sin and in so doing have broken covenant and need a Savior? Is there some reason that this specific covenant concept and specific covenant language are so prominent in Reformed thought?
Please forgive my impudence. As I say, I’m a bit of an outsider.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that as a Baptist and also now as a Lutheran I have had no difficulty seeing my failures to live up to God’s Law, and as such, to see that I deserved nothing but eternal punishment, even without ever hearing (or, clearly, fully understanding) this specific covenant language.
So ultimately, I’m curious why it is so prominent, and deemed to be of such critical importance, in Reformed circles.
Thank you for your patience with me! I look forward to your response!
Thank you for your gracious spirit, Matthew. I present the following response to the question: Is there some reasons that this specific covenant concept and specific covenant language are so prominent in Reformed thought?
If you couple the following facts together, a reasonable answer surfaces: 1) The concept of covenant and the term itself are a prominent theme in Scripture (the term appears about 280 times in the Bible), and 2) The Reformers were staunchly devoted to Scripture as the sole authority for life and godliness. Therefore, it makes sense that the Reformers recognized the prominence of covenant in Scripture and that it became a prominent proponent of their theology. In short, we make much of covenant because God, in Scripture, makes much of covenant.
On a personal note, yes, it is enough to know Christ as Savior without perfectly knowing the details of the biblical covenants. Nonetheless, my experience is that the better we know about covenant theology, the better we know and have sweet communion with the God of covenant theology. So, if you press into deeper studies, relax and view it as one way to get to know your great God in an even deeper, fuller, and more experiential sense.
One thing that kind of puzzled me is why someone would desire to argue against the "Adamic" covenant. Maybe calling it the covenant of works is the stumbling point. I've always heard of it as the Adamic covenant, or even the creation covenant. Also, since Christ is the fulfillment of all the covenants, and since Christ is specifically the second Adam who does what Adam failed to do, and since all the other covenants set apart Israel as holy, which happens as well with Adam (the start of a covenant people), why anyone would deny a covenant at creation is just strange.
I appreciate your defense of the covenant between God and Adam. There are a lot of traditions that are denying it. What do you think of calling it a covenant of life or covenant of creation? It seems like calling it a covenant of works places a large emphasis on merit.
Thank you for your question, Tim.
When considering the emphasis on merit implied by the term "works," the most important aspect is placing that emphasis on the right person: Christ. The term "works" certainly highlights Adam's failure to keep the commitments of his covenant with God but it also points directly to Christ's perfect work on your behalf which is how he crushes the head of the serpent (Gen. 2:15-17; 3:1-7, 15; Matt. 5:17; John 6:38; Rom. 5:17). This truth, in part, leads me to affirm that the term "works" is the most helpful when describing the covenant between God and Adam.
Referring to the covenant between God and Adam as a covenant of life or creation is helpful too, as long as those terms are synonymous with what the Bible teaches and what the Reformers traditionally referred to as the Covenant of Works.
May the Lord bless you and keep you!
- John
Great article! Thank you!
I hope you will indulge me as I ask a very honest question…:
I was raised Baptist and am now a Lutheran. I visited a Presbyterian church at length before I finally decided to seek Lutheran confirmation, though, and I see much of great value in Reformed thought.
I must admit that the concept of “Covenant” has always seemed to me (an outsider) to be hammered so hard that it takes on a bit of a life of its own. Even here, with your (very polite and respectful) disagreement with Williamson, his refusal to use the precise term “covenant” - while fully acknowledging the sin of Adam - seems to be of great importance to the Reformed worldview.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree that God has related to us almost exclusively through covenants, and continues to do so even now. It’s hard not to see covenant language throughout both testaments. But I have become reluctant to even use the term “covenant” because the word itself has seemed almost to have become a Reformed word, with a bit of baggage I feel unprepared to parse through.
Is it not enough to simply say that we have sinned and continue to sin and in so doing have broken covenant and need a Savior? Is there some reason that this specific covenant concept and specific covenant language are so prominent in Reformed thought?
Please forgive my impudence. As I say, I’m a bit of an outsider.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that as a Baptist and also now as a Lutheran I have had no difficulty seeing my failures to live up to God’s Law, and as such, to see that I deserved nothing but eternal punishment, even without ever hearing (or, clearly, fully understanding) this specific covenant language.
So ultimately, I’m curious why it is so prominent, and deemed to be of such critical importance, in Reformed circles.
Thank you for your patience with me! I look forward to your response!
Thank you for your gracious spirit, Matthew. I present the following response to the question: Is there some reasons that this specific covenant concept and specific covenant language are so prominent in Reformed thought?
If you couple the following facts together, a reasonable answer surfaces: 1) The concept of covenant and the term itself are a prominent theme in Scripture (the term appears about 280 times in the Bible), and 2) The Reformers were staunchly devoted to Scripture as the sole authority for life and godliness. Therefore, it makes sense that the Reformers recognized the prominence of covenant in Scripture and that it became a prominent proponent of their theology. In short, we make much of covenant because God, in Scripture, makes much of covenant.
On a personal note, yes, it is enough to know Christ as Savior without perfectly knowing the details of the biblical covenants. Nonetheless, my experience is that the better we know about covenant theology, the better we know and have sweet communion with the God of covenant theology. So, if you press into deeper studies, relax and view it as one way to get to know your great God in an even deeper, fuller, and more experiential sense.
May the Lord bless you and keep you!
- John
Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful response! That’s very helpful, and gives me a lot to think about. God’s blessings on you as well!
One thing that kind of puzzled me is why someone would desire to argue against the "Adamic" covenant. Maybe calling it the covenant of works is the stumbling point. I've always heard of it as the Adamic covenant, or even the creation covenant. Also, since Christ is the fulfillment of all the covenants, and since Christ is specifically the second Adam who does what Adam failed to do, and since all the other covenants set apart Israel as holy, which happens as well with Adam (the start of a covenant people), why anyone would deny a covenant at creation is just strange.
Thank you for this intriguing article!