|
Text Comment
Genesis Chapter 2, a panel, giving more detail regarding the sixth day, that being the
most important information regarding the creation. Interestingly, as is well known, the
creation account has many similarities with other ANE creation stories -- with many
important differences of course. Which is just as we would expect: a history that has been
corrupted both by failing memory and religious ideologies, given here in its pure form
with the typically mythical features of the ANE creation stories eliminated and a history
much truer to life given us. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' remark: "If you are a
Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are wrong all through.
If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point of all the religions of
the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think
that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the
truth."
v. 4 A superscription; announces a new section; the next ones at 5:1 and 6:9
"Lord God" i.e. Yahweh Elohim; that is the Covenant Partner of Israel who is
also the Mighty God, the Maker and Ruler of heaven and earth.
v. 5 Two words for "earth" and apparently two different kinds of land in view:
wilderness fit only for grazing; and arable land that can be cultivated for crops.
v. 6 It was this "land" that, though watered, produced nothing because there
was no man to work the ground.
v. 7 The present participle of this verb formed is the Hebrew term for
"potter." The close relationship between man and the earth is emphasized: it is
his cradle, his home, his grave! Man is more than a God-shaped piece of earth. He has a
gift of life given by God himself, and a life like God's life in many ways, as we have
already been told in 1:26-27. The idea is simply that of life, living existence, for the
phrase "living creature" is used again of animals in 2:19 and sea creatures in
1:20.
v. 8 The ordinary syntax of the Hebrew verb would suggest that God planted the garden after
Adam was created, not before as the NIV has it. "In the east" i.e. east of
Israel. Moses is the author remember.
v. 9 We do not see the Tree of Life again, after Gen. 2-3 until Rev. 22 where we find
it now in heaven itself.
v.10 That is, the river rose in the garden (underground springs) and watered it and
then divided.
v.14 The author clearly thinks of the Garden of Eden as a particular place, however
impossible it is for us to locate that place today with any precision. Generally in
Mesopotamia.
v.15 The first word a command! Man was made to work.
v.17 Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: What? Much discussion as to what this
means? Perhaps simplest to conclude that the knowledge of good and evil refers to the
practical consequences of either obedience or disobedience: had man obeyed he would not
only have come to know more perfectly the true difference between good and evil but would
have come still more to appreciate good as the opposite of evil. Having fallen, man
learned instead the bitterness of evil in contrast with the good of the condition they had
formerly known.
We have before us this morning the setting for the entire history of salvation that is
to be unfolded in the rest of Holy Scripture. This is the presupposition of it all. For
what we have before us in Gen. 2 is a covenant, a covenant between God and man, and
everything that follows will unfold in terms of this covenant.
You have heard, perhaps, of the term "covenant theology." For many people,
covenant theology is simply a synonym for paedobaptism, or infant baptism, because in
their hearing the two are always together: one practices infant baptism because he or she
believes in covenant theology.
But, really, covenant theology is a way of looking at the entire Bible and the whole of
its revelation of God's grace and God's way of relating to human beings. At the time of
the reformation and after, men began to look at the Bible with new seriousness and
consideration. They noticed that from beginning to end God's relationship with his people
took the form of covenants that he made with them. We are familiar with them: the covenant
with Noah, with Abraham, with Israel, enacted at Sinai and often renewed, and so on.
But what they also noticed is that in those covenants was found a pattern that also
seemed clearly to be visible in still more relationships between God and man, which are
not explicitly called covenants, indeed still more fundamental relationships, such as
those God enacted with man in the Garden of Eden before the fall and that relationship
between with the whole church, the company of the elect which he made in Christ.
As this insight came to be further studied and applied to the interpretation of the
Bible, it became increasingly clear that what is presented in Gen. 2:4-17 is nothing other
than a covenant between God and man, man represented by Adam.
What is more, this covenant is fundamental to the entire structure of the history of
salvation. Paul makes this point explicitly in the NT when twice he refers to Jesus as
"the second Adam" or "the last Adam," and when he teaches that what
Jesus did for us in order to save us was to come to represent us before God, in the same
way that Adam had, but successfully not in failure as Adam had done. "As in Adam all
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."
These two great representative relationships between God and man, that with Adam and
that with Christ, are the "covenants" of covenant theology. The Latin word for
"covenant" is foedus, which explains why covenant theology is sometimes called
"federal theology."
The genius of covenant theology -- following the structure taught by the Apostle Paul
-- (for we believe that these two covenants are the Bible's own principle of organization
or, we might say, the Bible's own philosophy of history) is that it provides a way of
seeing the whole of the history of the outworking of salvation as a unity, unfolding in
God's plan in perfect order, to meet the requirements already present at the very
beginning and to provide the salvation already set before man at the very beginning. It
provides, in the Bible's own terms, a clear explanation of what it was that Jesus Christ
was sent into the world to do and how it was that he was able to raise guilty sinners to
eternal life before a Holy God.
We teach, not only on the strength of Gen. 2-3, but from the whole of Holy Scripture,
that Adam was in covenant with God already in Eden. That in that covenant he was promised
eternal life for faithfulness to God's commandments, but also threatened with death should
he disobey. The obligations laid upon him were perfect obedience to the law of God, to all
of God's commandments revealed to him. In that covenant he was not acting as a private
person, but was, in fact, the head or the representative of the entire race that would
descend from him. When he fell, we all fell with him. His sin and rebellion was taken as
our own and from him, then, we inherited a corrupted nature which was both the consequence
of and punishment for his sin. The covenant God made with Adam is called in theology
various things: the covenant of works, of nature, of innocence, even the covenant of life.
It matters not what we call it.
The covenant of grace, then, is based on that first covenant. As the great Dutch
theologian, Herman Bavinck put it: "The covenant of works and grace do not differ in
their goal, only in the way in which they reach it." Its requirements remain in
force. But, since we, fallen in Adam, are now inveterate sinners and incapable of meeting
the requirements of that covenant -- perfect obedience to God's law -- and are already
under the sentence of death pronounced in that covenant upon man for his sin, God, in his
grace and love, provided for his people another covenant representative or federal head,
the Lord Jesus, to act on their behalf. His keeping of the covenant is more complicated
than Adam's for he not only must still keep the commandments of God perfectly, he must as
well suffer the penalties which that covenant imposed on law-breakers, the penalty
described in 2:17 simply as "death."
Jesus both kept the law perfectly on our behalf and suffered the penalties of the law
which we deserved on account of our sin -- both Adam's sin and our own. In this way he
both, as it were, restores us to Eden and takes us from there to heaven, which Adam might
have done but did not.
Paul summarized this entire structure this way in Romans 5:19: "For just as
through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the
obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Two covenants, two covenant
representatives.
As the Puritan, Thomas Goodwin, quaintly put it: "There are two men and only two
standing before God and these two men have all other men hanging from their belts."
Or, we might just as well say, one covenant and only one, with two representatives, one
who failed and the other who succeeded in bringing the promise of that covenant to
fulfillment.
Now, look at Genesis 2. Is there such a covenant here as we encounter elsewhere in the
Bible? This interpretation is not without its problems as you will see and these problems
have been raised as objections by those who disagree with covenant theology: especially
those who object to penal satisfaction or substitutionary atonement -- that Christ saved
us by living and dying in our place as our representative; those who object to particular
grace, such as Arminians; those who accommodate themselves to evolutionary thinking --
obviously covenant theology must have a real Adam and a real Eden; and baptist thinkers,
especially those of the dispensational variety, who object to reducing the whole of God's
dealings in grace with man to one covenant with one mediator. (An argument with important
implications for infant baptism, because if infant circumcision was a part of that
covenant in ancient days and there is but one covenant, a powerful argument has been
furnished those who claim that infant baptism should be our practice in the church today.)
1. Well, first, you have the partners that you must have for a covenant: here Adam and
Christ. And Adam here, as Noah, Abraham, Moses after him, not acting simply for himself,
but for an entire race. Even more so than those other men, indeed as only Christ himself,
his actions were the actions
of an entire race, for he was their head, their representative.
Now that is not spelled out here, it is to be admitted. But it is spelled out unmistakably
in the history that follows and in the teaching of the Apostle Paul in particular. In
Adam, in Eden, the entire human race was in covenant with God, a covenant that mankind
broke in their representative's sin.
We might well wonder if Adam knew that he was acting on behalf of others, indeed
an entire race of human beings such as himself? There are other indications in Gen. 2 and
3 that all that God had said to Adam is not reported to us in these chapters. This is a
spartan account with much left unsaid. But, in no other covenant that we know anything
about, in no other such relationship established between God and man in Holy Scripture, is
a principle partner left in the dark about matters of fundamental importance.
Lloyd Jones had no doubt whether Adam knew he was acting on behalf of the entire race:
"He was told quite plainly."
2. Were there conditions as there are in all of other covenants of Scripture. Yes there
were.
Yes there were. You read explicitly of the one commandment in 2:17 and then again in
3:17. Paul refers to Adam's disobedience as bringing death upon all mankind. But
taking the entire Bible's teaching together, we ought not suppose that this was the entire
condition. Adam was created with God's law written upon his heart -- God's moral law of
purity and holiness. That is part of what it means to be made in God's image. What is
more, we have the clear implication of 2:15 that Adam was obliged to work, of 2:2-3 to
keep the Sabbath, and later in this chapter, that he was as well obliged to love his wife
and be faithful to her. He would have been obliged, had he not sinned, according to 1:28
both to bear children and raise them as a father should and to fulfill his
responsibilities as the Lord's vice-regent in the earth.
In other words, the condition of covenant was all that God had revealed to Adam to be
his will, including, of course, the specific commandment not to partake of the fruit of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
3. As with the other covenants of the Bible, was there here a curse threatened for
unfaithful-
ness to the covenant?
Yes there clearly was. We read in v. 17 of death being the punishment should Adam
disobey.
4. But, was there a promise as well?
For the purpose of argument, what if Adam had obeyed? What then? It is sometimes
held that this cannot be regarded as a covenant because there is no promise made to Adam,
no blessing held before him should he prove faithful to the stipulations of the covenant.
I say again, this is a spartan narrative. And, as a matter of fact, Adam did not
remain faithful and the narrative is written with that end in view. We are not told anything
about what might have been.
To put the question in other terms: was there a real probation for Adam. Had he obeyed
for some length of time, would something have been given him that he did not already have.
And it seems to me that the Bible requires us to believe that there was a much higher
state of life that Adam did not yet possess and would have possessed, not only for
himself, but for us, had he obeyed. For the fact is while he was sinless there in Eden
before the fall, he was capable of sinning. Adam was not perfect in the biblical
understanding of perfection because he was still changeable, he could lose what he had.
But when God has finally given his salvation to us in all its completeness, we will not be
sinless but still capable of falling, we will be, on the contrary, made perfect in
holiness and incapable of falling from that holiness.
This was the immense blessing set before Adam to obtain for himself and all his race by
his faithfulness to God. This is the blessing the second Adam obtained for all his people,
a life of perfect and eternal life with no possibility of revocation. Heaven would not be
heaven if we could lose it at any moment!
Now, I accept that this is not said in so many words in Gen. 2. But, the case is not
weak for that reason.
1. As I said, it seems not only reasonable, but necessary to suppose that what the
second
Adam achieved for his people, the first Adam was supposed to have achieved. So we would
only expect that Adam had before him the promise that should be prove faithful he would
win for himself and his race an indefectible righteousness and eternal fellowship with
God.
2. Further Paul seem explicitly to say in 1 Cor. 15:45-49 that Adam in Eden was still
natural
and not yet spiritual, that is, that he had something yet to gain.
3. The statement in 3:22, which we will consider when we get to it, likewise suggests
that there was an eternal life that Adam did not yet have.
4. Christ himself had a limited probation; why should we not suppose that Adam would
have had as well. It is not God's way, according to the Bible, to leave his people forever
in uncertainty. If Adam had obeyed for a certain amount of time, just as Christ obeyed for
33 years, the issue would have been settled forever, as it was in Christ's case.
5. God's character, as we are taught it in the Bible suggests that he never makes
threats without also making promises; he is always good and merciful in making his demands
of us.
Listen to John Murray: "Probation in the nature of the case must be limited in
duration. A destiny contingent upon an event can never become settled until the event has
occurred. We see this exemplified in Adam, the elect angels, and Christ himself. How
significant is Christ's word from the cross, 'It is finished.'" At some point, had
Adam proved faithful, he could have said as well "It is finished."
5. Finally, we see the covenant here in that, as with the other biblical covenants, or,
shall I say, the various manifestations of the one covenant, there are sacraments to
signify and seal it.
Here we have the two trees. They represent in an embodied form the promise and the
reality of the covenant: both life (life in the fullest sense) and the double prospect of
good or evil. Just as the rainbow, circumcision, passover, baptism, and the Lord's Supper,
so the trees -- so appropriate to that innocent life in the garden -- providing fruit to
eat, as passover and the Lord's Supper will likewise involve eating, represent the nature
of this relationship between God and man and what is offered to man in this covenant. And
they do not only represent. They are physical means of a spiritual transaction which
explains in part the startling statement in 3:22, which begins a tradition of the Bible
speaking of sacraments as if they were the very thing they embody or represent. The Bible
speaks of the sacraments this way because they are real means to the ends they represent.
That is why Peter can say in Acts 2: repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your
sins. It is why their perversion is such a serious crime in the Bible. God had compressed
his whole covenant in them. (We know of course that they have no power in themselves or
apart from true faith. There is no magic here as if they were some blind force. No, they
serve as God has appointed them, as means for faith to embrace or unbelief to transgress
the covenant of God right here in this world of sight and sense.)
There is a covenant here, though albeit revealed in but a summary form appropriate to
the fact that it was not fulfilled. God entered into a covenant with Adam and in him with
all mankind, promising to reward him with life as an eternal and changeless possession in
the fullness of joy, if he would prove faithful to God, but threatening death should he
disobey.
And now we know where all this world's troubles and our own have come from and how
alone and who alone can put us right!
|