In Defense of the Covenant of Works

The following article is a revision from a previous version that includes clarifying anecdotes and removes some citations. Its new release coincides with the need for today. May the Lord bless you and solidify His work within your heart!

---

After God had created all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written on their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 1:26; Romans 2:14, 15; Genesis 3:6).

-Second London Baptist Confession 4.2, Of Creation

Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:26, 28).

- Second London Baptist Confession 4.3, Of Creation

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

- Second London Baptist Confession 7.1, Of God’s Covenant

Arguments Against the Covenant of Works

Before I begin to examine a position against the Covenant of Works, I’d like to recognize the person behind the argument: Paul R. Williamson. I do not know this man personally, nor do I seek to defame his character presently. Paul (P.R.) Williamson is an Old Testament, Hebrew, and Aramaic lecturer in Sydney. His academic credentials are of no question. I have read multiple helpful, edifying scholarly articles and essays by this man, and I am thankful for these works. However, I hope to utilize his argument rejecting a Covenant of Works to present a viable position in the area to avoid contending against a “straw man.”

In Williamson’s most pointed contention against the Covenant of Works, he states, “prior to [Genesis 6:18] there is not even a hint of any covenant being established—at least between God and humans.”[1] He reiterates his claim, stating that “the corroborate evidence for an antediluvian [or pre-Flood] covenant between God and creation is rather tenuous.”[2] Countering the Reformed perspective, Williamson writes, “Other scholars, however, are unpersuaded and identify only those explicitly described as such in Scripture as divine covenants. While not denying that the Triune God planned human salvation before the Creation of the world, or that God established a relationship with Adam involving mutual obligations, or that God’s relationships with humanity express a single creative and redemptive goal, they carefully distinguish such ideas from the concept of a covenant—one that involves additional elements such as a sworn and/or enacted oath.”[3]

Williamson’s argument against the Covenant of Works is not solely reliant on a supposed lack of evidence in Genesis 1-3. He also takes issue with Hosea 6:7, a text often quoted by Reformed theologians supporting God’s covenant at Creation.[4] Williamson writes, “even with no adjustments to the Masoretic Text (MT) the text may be translated several ways that clearly militate against using it as proof text for a hypothetical Adamic covenant.”[5] The thrust of Williamson’s argument is that Hosea 6:7 is a verse Hosea presents in a geographical sense. Williamson arrives at this conclusion by translating the phrase “like Adam” in Hosea 6:7 as “in/at Adam.” He also uses the context of Hosea 6:8-10 as contextual support for his geographical claim.

Presenting the Evidence

Williamson defines a covenant as “a solemn commitment guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both covenanting parties.”[6] Using this definition as a launching pad, we will now set out to counter his argument against the alleged “tenuous” evidence supporting a covenant in Genesis 1-3 by displaying that the covenant criteria within his definition are present between God and Adam at Creation. The key elements of a covenant are as follows: 1) the existence of one or more parties, 2) commitment/promise, and 3) sanctions, which guarantee blessings or curses depending on the nature of the commitment and the actions of those bound to the covenant. In Genesis 1-3, each of these elements is present between God and Adam. The commitment is that man will keep the garden and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in exchange for eternal life and perfect communion with God. The sanctions made by God toward Adam are death upon disobedience and the removal of perfect communion with himself. When Adam breaks the covenant, God reiterates the sanction of death (Gen. 3:17) and expels him from the garden (Gen. 3:23-24). In short, God requires perfect obedience from Adam and Eve, and upon their subsequent covenant-breaking disobedience, they are subject to death. In summary, here is the evidence for a covenant at Creation from Genesis that Williamson fails to recognize:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17).

In summary, the existing parties in the Covenant of Works are God and Adam (Genesis 2:15), the commitments consist of Adam working and keeping the garden and not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17), and the sanctions are death upon disobedience and expulsion from the garden, putting an end to perfect communion with Yahweh (Genesis 2:17; 3:23-24).

Addressing the Absence of the Word Covenant in Genesis 1-3

Luke 3:38 concludes a genealogy of Jesus, saying, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” I was once told by an impassioned Christian that we may not assert that Adam is a son of God because in the original Greek Luke 3:23-38 does not use the term “son.”If this person’s conclusion is correct, then nobody in the entire genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 may be considered a son of their father. We may not consider David a son of Jesse or Isaac a son of Abraham because the term “son” does not appear in verses 32 and 34 respectively. The point of a genealogy is to display familial lineage. In the case of Luke 3:23-38, its point is to show God’s sovereignty in the birth of Christ who was the son of God that Adam failed to be, which is a significant covenantal implication in itself. Demanding that the term “son” be present to display fatherhood in Luke 3 not only ignores the use of the genitive case in Greek to show possession but neglects the context of the passage and the purpose for the Holy Spirit’s inclusion of the genealogy in Luke 3.

Demanding the presence of the word “covenant” in Genesis 1-3 commits similar errors. In the words of Paul Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, “The absence of the word for ‘covenant’ . . . is no argument at all against the notion that divine-human covenant is established at Creation, if exegesis can demonstrate the idea is there.” We stand on the same footing everytime we speak or write the term “Trinity” to describe our Triune God. Although the word is absent from the Canon of Scripture, exegesis shows that the concept is present (Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Titus 3:4-6; Acts 3:3-4). When you cross the threshold of an area with four walls, a ceiling, and a floor, nobody has to say the term “room” for you to know that you’re in one. Nonetheless, one element of Williamson’s argumentation against a Covenant of Works is the lack of the term “covenant” in Genesis 1-3.

Simultaneously, however, he argues effectively in support of the covenantal elements within Genesis 22, the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, despite his admittance that this text contains no mention of the term covenant. He states,

The covenantal significance of this incident would also account for the necessity of a sacrifice (even after Isaac’s life had been spared), the timing of the second divine speech (Gen 22:15-18) and the emphasis on Abraham’s obedience (Gen 22:16b, 18b; cf. 26:5). Most important, it would explain why the international aspect of the divine promise—the aspect of the programmatic agenda that had not yet been ratified by the divine covenant—was reiterated at this point (Gen 22:18). Admittedly, the term covenant is not expressly used in the immediate context. Nevertheless, the sacrificing of the ram and God’s swearing of an oath (cf. Gen 21:22-31) indicate that this is indeed a covenant-making occasion.[7]

Clearly, Williamson understands the elements of covenant and observes their appearance in Genesis 22; therefore, he asserts the presence of covenant in this chapter. For Williamson, the occurrence of a sacrifice and an oath are enough to constitute the legitimacy of a covenantal occasion, and to his point, the covenants between God, Noah, and Abraham contain a sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22; 22:13-18); however, we must recognize that upon the initiation of the Covenant of Works, there was no sin, no death, and no need for the slaying of animals. It was only after the first sin when God gave the first sacrifice and established the Covenant of Grace (Gen. 3:21). Williamson’s implied sacrificial requirement is anachronistic for the pre-Fall era. Hebrews 10:17-18 states, “‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.’ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” If there is no sacrificial requirement where there is forgiveness for sin, then certainly there is no need for sacrifice prior to Adam and Eve’s sin. Therefore, one cannot deny the Covenant of Works due to the absence of a sacrifice.

Lastly, the condition of an oath has been demonstrated by God’s promise to Adam, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Addressing Hosea 6:7

Hosea 6:4-10

4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

What shall I do with you, O Judah?

Your love is like a morning cloud,

like the dew that goes early away.

5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets;

I have slain them by the words of my mouth,

and my judgment goes forth as the light.

6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,

the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;

there they dealt faithlessly with me.

8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,

tracked with blood.

9 As robbers lie in wait for a man,

so the priests band together;

they murder on the way to Shechem;

they commit villainy.

10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing;

Ephraim’s whoredom is there; Israel is defiled.

As you see, Hosea 6:7 states, “But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Williamson offers support for his geographical argument from vv. 7-10. However, theologian Douglas Stuart supports the use of Hosea 6:7 to confirm a covenant at Creation, saying, “v 7 is as closely connected to the thought expressed in vv 4-6 as it is to what follows, and especially relates to v 4b as a general statement of Israel’s infidelity.”[8] For Stuart, context determines meaning, and the context of verses 4-6 (more than Williamson’s claim on verses 7-10) determines the meaning of verse 7 within Hosea chapter 6.

Why Does it Matter?

Why does recognizing a covenant between God and Adam at Creation matter? According to the Apostle Paul, the relationship between God, Adam, and Adam’s posterity is the framework for understanding our relationship to Jesus (specifically the doctrine of imputation). Where Adam’s disobedience imputes a sin nature to his posterity, Christ’s perfect obedience imputes righteousness to those whom the Father has given him (Romans 5:15-17). Christ’s work in the New Covenant is necessary because of the transgression of Adam in the Covenant of Works. The denial of Adam’s representation of humanity in the form of a covenant misunderstands Paul’s correlation between Adam and those whom he represents and Christ and those whom he represents. Thus, it is said, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to the justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18).

Conclusion

Williamson, to his credit, understands the soteriological implications of the interactions between God and Adam in Eden.[9] Still, his denial of the Covenant of Works is not consistent with his definition of the term covenant and his application of that definition (see the discussion on Genesis 22 above). Therefore, we must reject Williamson’s position in favor of the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the relationship between Adam and Christ, the context of Hosea 6:4-6, and the exegetical proof of a covenant between God and Adam in Genesis 2:15-17.

---

Notes:

[1] P.R. Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2003), 141.

[2] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[3] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.

[4] Jonty Rhodes, Covenant Made Simple: Understanding God’s Unfolding Promises to His People (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 27.

[5] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[6] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 139.

[7] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 148.

[8] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah Volume 31, World Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 110.

[9] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.