Adam and Christ: The Central Nature of the Adamic Covenant in Understanding the Work of Christ
Introduction
The person of Adam is central to biblical theology, and as such, Christian orthodoxy does not merely argue for the historicity of the first man, but demands it. The question, however, is why? Why, other than the fact that mankind comes from a single origin, or for explaining the introduction of sin into the world, does the person of Adam matter so much to to the faith. Why did he matter so much to arguments of the apostle Paul? How can mankind be subjected to the effects and condemnation of the sin which Adam, and not his posterity, partook of? Why was it that only when Adam partook of the tree the eyes of both Eve and him were opened? The answers to these questions are multi-faceted, and to provide the layers necessary to rightly answer them go beyond the limits of this paper, however, it is the argument of the author that all of these questions do have a central point of origin based upon the covenantal relationship that existed between Adam and God. This covenant has taken many names: the Adamic Covenant, Adamic Administration, Edenic Covenant, Covenant of works, Covenant of Creation, etc. There are many scholars, however, that argue that though there was clearly a relationship between God and Adam, to call it a covenant is to simply go beyond the scope of Scripture. The argument of this blog article will be to show not only that there was indeed a covenant between God and Adam, but that this covenant is central to a proper biblical theology, primarily as it pertains to the soteriological and eschatological work of Christ, the Last Adam. In order to accomplish this task, this article will be organized as follows: Section 1 will provide a biblical and theological argument for the Adamic Covenant, Section 2 will explain the covenantal responsibilities of Adam, and Section 3 will explain the way that Christ serves as the Last Adam in and through the New Covenant.
Was a Covenant Made in Eden?
The central question undergirding the entire thesis of these articles is whether or not Adam was indeed in a covenant relationship with God? The goal of this section will be to answer that question in the affirmative, and provide both biblical and theological evidence to support it. First, the question must be considered, “what constitutes a covenant within the Bible?” The most common Hebrew word for covenant is berîṯ, which also means “agreement” or “arrangement.”[1] Within the second millennium BC, there were many similarities between the structure of the treaties found in the ancient Near East, and the covenants in the Bible. There are two primary types of covenants found within the Old Testament: covenants made between human parties and those between God and man. The covenants that are made between God and man always fall under the specific category of a Suzerain and vassal treaty. These treaties are those in which a more powerful party, in this case God, sets the terms of the agreement.[2] Of the major covenants that are agreed upon within the Old Testament, all have very similar concepts within them. The Noahic covenant is a unilateral action of God, and comes with a promise and a sign (Gen. 9:8–13). The Abrahamic covenant is a unilateral action of God, but requires a bilateral response and comes with a promise and a sign (Gen. 17:1–14). The Mosaic covenant extends out the Abrahamic covenant and emphasizes the importance of covenant keeping (Ex. 19:5), it comes with the promise of blessings for covenant-keepers and curses for covenant-breakers, and bears the sign of both circumcision from the Abrahamic covenant and also the additional sign of the Sabbath (Ex. 31:13). J.V. Fesko argues that the Mosaic covenant outlined in Deuteronomy reveals the closes resemblance to the Hittite treaties of the ancient Near East.[3] Finally, with the Davidic covenant, which extends from both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, it is a total unilateral covenant where one is unable to find any explicit conditions by which God’s promise to David hinges upon. With this brief description of the covenant in the Bible, a framework can be provided to examine Gen. 1–3 and to demonstrate that these chapters lay out a covenantal context between God and Adam.
In his article on the subject, Jeffrey Niehaus provides contextual evidence that when compared side by side with other ancient Near Eastern treaties and biblical covenants, that Genesis 1–2:17 is clearly “framed after the pattern of a second millennium BC ancient Near Eastern Treaty.[4] However, not only does the structure of Genesis account allow for a covenant, but there are distinct concepts between God and Adam that attest to a covenantal relationship. In Gen. 1:28; 2:3, 16–17, Adam when placed in the garden of Eden is issued commands that contains both blessings and a curse. The imperative “you shall not eat” in Gen. 2:17 is directly paralleled with the commands found in the Mosaic Covenant, as well as with their appended blessings and curses (Ex. 20:2–27). Also, a second feature of the covenantal framework of Gen. 1–3 is seen in what J.V. Fesko calls “the sacramental signs of the Adamic covenant.”[5] Three of the four covenants noted earlier were sealed with a sign: the rainbow (Gen. 9:13–16), circumcision (Gen. 17:9–14), and the Sabbath (Ex. 31:13). These signs are reminders of God’s covenant to those he has made them with. Within the Gen. 1–3 framework, there are two signs that are put in place by God to denote the blessing found in his covenant as well as the curse. These signs are the trees of life and knowledge. They were sacramental in that they served as promises. If Adam had remained obedient to the Lord, the tree of life served as a promise of eternal life, but through disobedience the tree of knowledge served as a promise of death.[6] So from both the structure and language of Gen. 1–3, there are distinct markers that show the covenantal context of God and Adam’s relationship.
It is important to note, that though the word “covenant” does not directly appear here in Gen. 1–3, there are other biblical passages that either allude or imply the reality of the Adamic covenant throughout both the Old and New Testament. For instance in Gen. 6, when God establishes the covenant with the Noah, the word that God uses for “establish” in v. 18 is very unique when compared to the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 15. When God makes the covenant with Noah the word that is used is hāqîm, which does not refer to the initiation of a new covenant rather the continuation or an extension of an already existing one.[7] Also, when one looks at Gen. 9 with the actual giving of the covenant in vv. 1–2 there is a clear connection between God’s words to Noah, and the dominion mandate of Gen. 1:28. In other words, Noah was picking up the covenantal mandate of Adam, to replenish and have dominion over the recently flooded world, and with the tree of life being cut off to man because of Adam’s disobedience, God provides a new covenant sign for Noah, the rainbow (Gen. 9:14). If this is a correct analysis of Gen. 6:18, then the Noahic covenant was not new, but simply an extension of the Adamic covenant given at creation, with an added promise of never judging creation by flood again.
A far more explicit passage which provides evidence of an Adamic covenant is Hosea 6:7. It reads, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.”[8] However, it must be admitted that such a passage has received much attention, but yielded little consensus on the proper interpretation of kə’āḏām. The LXX, and English translations derived from the Textus Receipts (NKJV, KJV) render it as “like man.” Whereas, the Vulgate, NRSV, NASV, ESV, and NIV translate it as “Like Adam.” These are the major interpretations, but there is also a smaller majority who believe that it is referring to the city of Adam (Josh. 3:16). In light of the argument, this is of great significance for either advancing the proposed thesis or simply remaining silent on it. Calvin in his commentary on Hosea, agrees with the Septuagint’s rendering and believes that to argue for a reading of Adam is “in itself vapid.”[9] However, Bavinck argues that simply rendering it “like man,” is absurd as it does not bear the weight of God’s rebuke against Israel’s sinfulness. His argument is that as Adam was planted into the garden by God, given the covenant, but then was disobedient and was plucked out of the garden; this was the indictment on Israel who had been planted by God into the promised land and yet also were covenant breakers because of their disobedience.[10] The argument by Bavinck seems to provide a more natural and powerful conclusion to the translation being rendered “Like Adam.” Also, the use of kə’āḏām in Job 31:33 being translated as Adam in the NKJV, NASV, and ASV, provides a strong corroboration of Hosea 6:7 reading “like Adam.”
Finally, the parallel relationship that Paul places between Adam and Christ (the Second Adam) in passages such as Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15 provide a strong basis that as Christ and his posterity (those of faith) enter a relationship with God through the context of covenant, such is the case with Adam. As A.W. Pink commenting on the two federal heads of mankind writes, “These two men are Adam and Christ… and neither ruin nor redemption can be Scripturally apprehended… except we understand the relationships expressed by being “in Adam” and “in Christ.”[11] More will be said on the essential role of the Adamic covenant in New Testament in the next two sections. One final note should be added to provide further weight to teaching that God established a covenant with Adam, and that can be found within non-canonical resources, for instance in the Testament of Moses, it reads, “And the Lord coming into paradise, set his throne, and called with a dreadful voice, saying Adam…since you have forsaken my covenant, I have brought upon your body seventy strokes.”[12] Texts within the Apocrypha also attest to the belief that Adam was indeed in a covenant relationship with God (Sirach 17:1, 11–12). Therefore, though there is no specific use of “covenant” within Gen. 1–3, the cumulative biblical, historical, and (in the sections to follow), theological evidence makes a strong argument for the existence of the Adamic covenant.
Adam’s Responsibilities within the Covenant
Many scholars and commentators argue that Adam was simply created to work as one who tended the garden for six days, and rest on the Sabbath, established by God in Gen. 2:1–3. For instance, Dr. R.C. Sproul takes this gardening role of Adam, and extrapolates that this creation ordinance brings about “the sanctity of all human labor.”[13] Though Adam was indeed meant to tend and be a steward of the garden, his covenantal work and responsibilities were far more. This will be especially significant when this work is paralleled with the work of the Last Adam, Christ.
Adam’s responsibility within the covenant can best be laid out in the dominion mandate of Gen. 1:28 which reads, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” So Adam was given three primary tasks within this mandate: 1) he was to procreate and fill the earth with image bearers; 2) he was to subdue the earth; and 3) he was to exercise dominion or authority over the creation. The Garden of Eden was God’s special place on earth, and Richard Barcellos expanding upon the work of G.K. Beale makes a strong case that the garden served as God’s first temple. Barcellos writes, “God’s walking in the garden indicates His special presence among men. In this sense, the garden of Eden was a temple, the earth’s first sanctuary.”[14] There is strong Scriptural evidence that Eden was considered the first temple of God, primarily in Ezekiel 28:11–19. In verses 14 and 16 of this passage, Ezekiel refers to Eden as “the holy mountain of God.” This is of great significance when it comes to a biblical understanding of temples. As G.K. Beal notes, “Ezekiel portrays Eden on a mountain (Ezek. 28:14, 16). Israel’s temple was on Mount Zion (Ex. 15:17), and the eschatological temple was to be located on a mountain (Ezek. 40:2; Rev. 21:10).[15] This is so important in like of Adam’s work in the Garden. Adam was called as a sinless image-bearer of God to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. In other words, Adam was to extend the garden-temple of God throughout the entire earth. Barcellos puts it this way, “the whole earth was to be God’s special dwelling place with man. Eden was a prototype of something so much greater.”[16] While extending the garden-temple throughout all the earth through his obedience to God’s mandate, Adam was also tasked with “working” (or cultivating) and “keeping the Garden” (Gen. 2:15). However, though cultivate can refer to agricultural work on its own, Beale once again shows how when these to words occur together throughout the Old Testament, they usually refer to the work of priests who keep the service or charge of the tabernacle (see Num. 3:7–8). Beale states that within Gen. 2, Adam “was the archetypical priest who served in and guarded God’s first temple.”[17]
Therefore, Adam’s responsibility in his covenant relationship to God was to bring all of creation under submission to his authority, extending God’s special dwelling place into every corner of the world, and perfectly cultivate and keep this special dwelling place as a God’s priest. Through the works of the covenant Adam would have been able to enter into a permanent Sabbath rest, and would have obtained the state of non posse peccary (the inability to sin) and non posse mori (the inability to die).[18] How this ultimately would have worked itself out, or how long this period would last is simply unknowable, but because such was built upon Adam’s sole obedience to the noted works, the Adamic covenant can be rightly called the Covenant of Works. Nevertheless, Adam was disobedient and in his disobedience removed from the special dwelling place of God. However, in spite of his disobedience, Adam is given a promise by God that “the offspring of the woman would destroy the works of the wicked serpent who brought temptation into the garden” (Gen. 3:15). This was the promise of a greater Adam, one who would in spite of being wounded “crush the head of the serpent.” This Last Adam would accomplish in a New Covenant, what the first Adam failed to do with his.
The Adamic Covenant and the Last Adam
Having established the existence of the covenant in Eden and the responsibilities of Adam within the covenant, it is now important to show the essential nature of the Adamic Covenant as it relates to an overall biblical theology, primarily in the soteriological and eschatological work of Christ (though one may rightly argue that they are inseparable). Why is it that Paul so greatly attributes the title of the Last Adam to Christ? There are many similarities between the first and second Adam. Adam was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), and “Christ, is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Adam was called God’s son (Luke 3:38). Throughout the Bible, image bearing and sonship are inextricably linked; for instance one can find this in Gen. 5:3 and see how Adam is said to father a son (Seth) “in his own likeness.”[19] This can be further displayed in the book of Hebrews’ description of Christ, “in these last days God has spoken to us by his Son…who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person (Heb. 1:2–3).
Also, when one compares the responsibilities of Adam within the adamic covenant, and mirror those with the work of Christ, a powerful parallel is framed. Adam was to multiply and fill the earth with image bearers who glorified God, and Christ commissions his disciples “to go into all the world making disciples” (Matt. 28:19). Adam was to subdue the earth and have dominion over all of it, Christ said “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Adam’s glorification hinged upon his obedience to the Father, and Christ’s victory over sin and death and his being glorified back to his past state of Glory hinged upon his being obedient even unto death (Phil. 2:5–11). The first Adam failed in the presence of Satan’s temptation (Gen. 3), Christ perfectly overcame Satan’s temptation (Luke 4). But of all the passages of Scripture, the greatest passage that provides the covenantal parallels between Adam and Christ (the Last Adam) and their covenantal headship is Rom. 5:12–19.
In this passage, Paul highlights the way in which Adam and Christ serve as the two federal heads of mankind. Every human is either under the headship of the first Adam, or under the headship of the second Adam, Christ. According to Paul, because Adam sinned and brought death into the wold, all men now are under the sting of this death because of sin (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22a). Because Adam in his covenant with God was placed as the federal head over mankind, when he fell, his posterity fell with him. A.W. Pink illustrates it as such, “He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him.”[20] All of mankind finds itself under this covenant of works, yet unable to do any good and be obedient of our own ability (Rom. 3:12; Isa. 64:6). Mankind stands not only condemned by the disobedience of Adam, but by our continual disobedience to “the law written on our hearts” (Rom. 2:14–15). Therefore, it was necessary, that if God’s telos, his end to which he created the world was to be accomplished, it would be through a new federal head, a second Adam, so He sent his υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ (only begotten Son) to serve as such. As Paul, teaches in Rom. 5, because of Christ’s perfect obedience, all that are found in him through faith, are imputed his righteousness. Both of the declarations, condemned or justified, is based upon whose headship a person falls under. If you remain under the first Adam, you are imputed the results of his disobedience, and if you are under Christ you are imputed the results of his obedience. How can this be just? Only through a covenantal framework. Because these two serve as covenantal representatives for those who are considered their posterity, there is no means by which this imputation can be done injustly, primarily as it pertains to the doctrine of the imputation of original sin.
So Christ in both his active and passive obedience, abrogates the Covenant of works for those who believe in him, and establishes the New Covenant, a covenant of grace, whereby justification is a free gift, not something earned by obedience.[21] However, Christ also serves to accomplish the goal of not merely redeeming sinners, but of accomplishing the dominion mandate given to the first Adam. Jesus does not extend a literal temple of God, but becomes the temple of God. Jesus tells the Pharisees that he is going to destroy the temple and then build it up in three days, and this is their response, “The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he [Jesus] was speaking about the temple of his body” (Jn. 2:20–21). The extension of this holy temple is the church, who are the posterity of Christ, a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:5). The church is also the Last Adam’s suitable helpmate to help him in establishing his authority over the world (Rev. 21:9; Matt. 28:19–20). Unlike the first Adam, the Last Adam will “bring many sons to glory” (Heb. 2:10). The New Covenant in Christ (Last Adam) is the remedy to Adam’s failure of the covenant made with him. Understanding the failed covenantal work of the first Adam, is vital to understanding the accomplished covenantal work of the Last Adam.
Conclusion
Arthur Pink makes this statement in his book on Divine Covenants, without an understanding of the Adamic Covenant of Works, “we are without the key to God’s dealings with the human race, we are unable to discern man’s relation to the divine law, and we appreciate not the fundamental principles upon which the atonement of Christ proceeded.”[22] Throughout this article a biblical argument for the adamic covenant has been made, an outline providing the covenantal responsibilities of Adam has been given, and the essential connection between the covenant work of the first Adam and the Last Adam discussed. What this reveals more than anything, is the essential role that the first three chapters of Genesis play in biblical theology. The historicity and narrative structure of these chapters must be maintained by evangelicals, for if they are surrendered, the spark which ignites the entire biblical story of God’s redemption is put out.What occurred between God and Adam and the covenantal relationship in these three chapters is not only essential in providing a proper biblical anthropology, but also Christology, soteriology, and eschatology. However, in order to remotely grasp the deep significance of this, one must read those three chapters holistically in light of New Testament revelation, for what might seem to be stretching arguments for the adamic covenant becomes extremely clear in light of Paul’s teachings, the teachings Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament shadows in the book of Hebrews, and the eschatological work of Jesus as read in Revelation. With regards to the evidence put forth, it seems clear that not only does the Adamic Covenant exist, but it is central to a proper biblical theology.
Footnotes
[1] A.C. Meyers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 240.
[2] J.V. Fesko, Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1–3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Rosshire, Scotland: Mentor Publishing, 2007), 79.
[3] Fesko, 81
[4] Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “Covenant and Narrative, God and Time,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 3 (2010): 540.
[5] Fesko, 85
[6] Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Man before the Law, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems Inc., 1681), 22.
[7] Fesko, 88
[8] All Bible verses are taken from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.
[9] John Calvin, Hosea, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 13 (rep.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 1993), 235.
[10] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume, ed. by John Bolt, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 329.
[11] A.W. Pink, The Divine Covenants, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), 30.
[12] Fesko, 87.
[13] R.C. Sproul, “Like Father, Like Son,” Tabletalk Magazine, (July, 2003), 7.
[14] Richard Barcellos, Better than the Beginning: Creation in Biblical Perspective, (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2013), 109.
[15] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 73.
[16] Barcellos, 112.
[17] Beale, 68.
[18] Bavinck, , 330.
[19] Fesko, 147.
[2] Pink, 31.
[3] Fesko, 158.
[4] Pink, 29.
