Written by Paul J Bucknell on February, 16, 2024
CCW02 Evidence Against the Covenant of Works
Section 1 introduced the Covenant of Works, while Section 2 here presents evidence against the Covenant of Works. The last section will explore alternative biblical themes that provide deeper insights into Genesis 1-3.
A Critique of the Covenant of Works (Part 2/5)
A theological and biblical analysis of the Covenant of Works and Genesis 2:16-17
The following arguments demonstrate that the Covenant of Works’ theological framework lacks the needed scriptural support and should not be taught as an established biblical teaching. This page provides the first nine of ten points.
1) Not mankind’s first command
The Covenant of Works focuses on Genesis 2:16-17, making it easy to miss God’s first commands for man in Genesis 1:28- 29. The Lord first commanded man to multiply and rule, which is as crucial as Genesis 1 and 2’s instructions and commands.
“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” (Gen 1:28).
Why aren’t Genesis 1’s numerous commands called a covenant or considered part of the Covenant of Works? Is it only because Genesis 2 possesses a warning? But Noah’s Covenant did not appear to have a warning either (Gen 6:18; 9:1-6). Narrowing the first covenant’s instruction to verses 2:16-17 ignores God’s first commands, wrongly diminishing their importance in God’s expectations of mankind. Those words broaden the scope of His expected works from mankind.
Some remark that Genesis 2 is the second of three covenants, but it’s still contrasted with the Covenant of Grace as if Genesis 2:16-17 was the first and dominating one.
2) Ignores Genesis 2:15
The selective treatment of verses 16-17 against 15 is hard to understand. This may be because verse 16 identifies God’s spoken words. Adam’s instructions, though, start in verse 15. What God instructs in verse 15 is as essential as verses 16-17. Doesn’t God here make known His instruction to Adam, “to cultivate it and keep it”? Verse 15 dramatically impacts how people understand their responsibilities and work before God. And yet, it is oddly ignored in the effort to elaborate the meaning of the Covenant of Works in verses 16-17. This treatment suggests an insensitive theological approach to the verse’s context.
3) The absence of the word covenant
The word covenant is commonly used in Genesis (28 times) and hundreds of times throughout the Bible, but the first use is seen with Noah in Genesis 6, not Genesis 2. If the Lord is happy to use this term 28 times in Genesis, why are we insistent on using this covenant construct where God did not? Have we thoroughly considered the word’s absence? While its absence does not imply the absence of its thought, we must remain cautious about using it as a fundamental passage for a theological system.
4) The Hebrew word for covenant
The Hebrew word for covenant is not used until after the fall. The Hebrew berith for covenant refers to the “cutting” of an animal to make a treaty; the cutting refers to the killing, part of making a sacrifice. But as of Genesis 2, death has not yet arrived. It would be safer to associate covenants with the redemptive age of mercy after death has entered the scene.
5) Hosea 6:7’s unsettled interpretation
It’s inappropriate to base the heavy theological framework of the Covenant of Works on one verse, like Hosea 6:7, “But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant….” While the verse could refer to a covenant God made with Adam, it is unclear. Remember that the Hebrew word for Adam can equally mean men or mankind. The three valid translations of the original Hebrew phrase “like Adam” in Hosea 6:7 are even more unsettling.
“(1) proper name: “like Adam” (כְּאָדָם), (2) collective singular: “like [sinful] men” (כְּאָדָם), and (3) proper location: “at Adam,” referring to a city in the Jordan Valley (Josh 3:16).”
If there had been more support for this notion of covenant in Genesis 2, we could more readily entertain this interpretation and the usage of the Covenant of Works, but to base a systematic understanding on a verse’s questionable interpretation is dangerous. Theologians should be more careful than to suggest that others believe and trust their ideas when there are insufficient underpinnings. Hosea 6:7’s possible association with Romans 5:12- 21 is discussed next.
6) A reverse theology
The Covenant of Works arose from a desire to link Adam, as the representative of mankind, to Adam’s sin imputed to mankind (sometimes called federal headship). It’s used to show our righteousness is secured through faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22,47). However, a straightforward observation of Genesis 1-3 makes the Covenant of Works look unnatural and contrived.
Imputation’s argument gains no support except through the connection to Adam’s sin. There is no substantive support in Genesis 2 for this supposed connection between a covenant of law and obedience. Covenants are clear statements of God’s judgment and gracious work, not arguments from subtleties. In the least, this understanding should not be considered a theological system’s founding point.
7) Works and disobedience
The association of works with the command not to eat from the one forbidden tree is peculiar. Since caring for the garden is not considered part of the required obedience, the whole notion of works—doing (really “no works”) from Genesis 2:16-17 builds on not eating (i.e., not doing)—“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” While this point might seem trivial, it gains traction when trying to pin down the covenant’s promise. It appears unnecessarily contorted.
8) Confusion of works
The Covenant of Works has us focus on works due to its terminology. Though we agree God gave Adam work to do (i.e., tend the garden), he does not need it for salvation but only to maintain his good standing. Adam was not, nor could be, saved from self-reliance due to his works. Maintaining the status quo and securing an excellent, intimate relationship with God was only needed. The ‘works,’ therefore, have nothing to do with gaining salvation and mislead our thoughts because they are often associated with our arguments on salvation. Genesis 1 and 2 present an expected sincere and pure response to God. Adam considers obedience a means to complete the Father’s will, not to gain salvation.
This is similar to Jesus, who sought to do the works God His Father assigned Him.
“But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36).
9) A distraction
This theological overlay causes us to ignore the emphasis on what God says. I’ve already mentioned how this attention diminishes the importance of caring for the Garden of Eden and the ongoing sense of joy in completing God’s appointed work (Eph 2:10).
A more considerable distraction arises from the arguments surrounding this supposed covenant. Instead of expending valuable time explaining and defending the Covenant of Works, we should center on what the passage teaches about God’s will and the temptation to disobey. We ought to come away from this passage observant that we, like Adam, face such temptations and must encourage each other to walk uprightly to gain the fruit of obedience.
1. A Brief Introduction to the Covenant of Works
2. Evidence Against the Covenant of Works (1-9) (10/10)
3. Five Alternate Biblical Themes for Genesis 2:15-17 (1-2) (3-5)
