Covenant of Works

John Kennedy (1819-1884)

But the relation, in which man, as fallen, stands to God, must be viewed in the light of the broken covenant of works. That covenant has been broken; but it is only by man. It has not ceased to be in force. Man failed to obey; and the promise of life cannot be fulfilled to him; but “God abideth faithful.” He is pledged to condemn, just because He can no longer bless. There has been no covenant-breaking on God’s side. Nor has there been any thwarting of God’s purpose by man’s transgression. Jehovah yet stands committed to the dispensation arranged by his covenant with Adam. There can be no such modification, of the conditions of that covenant, as is inconsistent with its perfectness and its perpetuity. If a new dispensation is introduced, it is not in order to remedy any defects in this, but to give a more glorious exhibition of God’s character, such as is consistent with a perfect adherence to all its principles, and which shall secure a perfect practical regard to the minutest details of its arrangements.

And to what is God committed by the Adamic covenant?

l. He hath bound Himself for the punishment of all the sin chargeable against the race. The curse of the law requires this. Death is due for the first sin to all, and for his own sin, to each. Already accursed as a child of Adam, each sinner of the race earns for himself the death which is the wages of sin. This is the only service for which he has either heart or hand, and this the only reward to which he has any claim. “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10), is the awful sentence, which hath gone forth from the throne of judgment, and it must take effect, that justice may be satisfied (Rom. 2:3).

2. He hath bound Himself to demand perfect obedience, in order to life, from each individual of our race. His claim to perfect obedience does not rest on the terms of the covenant with Adam. This is founded on His own infinite excellence, in relation to moral agents created by Himself. What is peculiar, to the covenant of works, is not the extent of God’s claim, for this must be the same under any form of administration. Perfect obedience must always be the demand of the moral law of God. The federal peculiarity is making this the condition of life. The law’s claims cannot change. To adapt them to man’s fallen state would be to nullify the law, as a charter of divine rights, and to limit man’s responsibility by his wickedness.

How hopeless, then, is the attainment of life by man, according to the terms of the covenant of works (Rom. 3:20)! He is already condemned. His only way of meeting the demands of divine justice is to resign himself despairing to eternal death. Perfect obedience is the only condition of life, proposed to him, as he lies under the reigning power of sin! There can be no abatement of the law’s claims, and no mitigation of the law’s curse. Under the yoke of the law, and under the power of sin, at the same time, how hopeless are his attempts to reach the goal of life! Already accursed, and always sinning, how hopeless is his deliverance from “the wrath to come”!

There is a strong tendency to hide the stern features of this aspect of our state, as sinners, in relation to God. To examine our position, in the light of the law of works, would lead to humiliation and despair; and men will cleave to self and cling to hope. They refuse to receive as true, God’s account of their utter helplessness as sinners. They try to hide, from their view, the awful aspect of God’s character as presented to them by the law. “Without the law,” as they are (Rom. 7:8), sin lies dead, in the grave of their insensate hearts. It is there, and it is mighty and active and reigning, but to their consciousness it is as if it were dead,—as if it were not. They use another standard than God’s law to try what they are, and they are sure to elect one that shall not disturb their self-complacency. To be neighbour-like, is their ambition—not to be God-like,—and thinking they succeed in being so, they are content. They ignore the God who revealed His awful glory on Mount Sinai. They think of the mercy of providence as the only appreciable exhibition of God’s character. Or, they cast the veil of a universal fatherhood over the stern aspect of God’s character and relation as Judge. Or, they regard the gospel as entirely superseding the law, and as introducing a new state of things in which the law is quite ignored.

(From: “Man’s Relations to God” )

Alexander S. Paterson (1805-1828)

Obs. 54–A covenant of works was made with Adam.

The word covenant denotes any thing fixed or established. See Jer. xxviii. 25, where we read of the Lord’s “covenant with day and night.” But it has generally a reference to an agreement made and entered into between parties.

That a covenant of works was really made with Adam, as the representative of mankind, while he was in a state of innocence, or when he was created, will be evident from the following things:-

1. The transaction into which God entered with man contains every thing necessary and requisite in a covenant; such as parties, a condition, a promise, and a penalty.

2. It is expressly called a covenant.–Gal. iv. 24; Hos. vi. 7, margin.

3. It had certain signs and seals appended, which gave force to it, and which confirmed it as a covenant. These were, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life.

4. In Scripture we read of a twofold law, the one opposed to the other; namely, the law of works and the law of faith. See Rom. iii. 27, where, by the law of faith, we must understand the covenant of grace; and by the law of works, the covenant of works; for what is said of the one is also said of the other. But,

5. Nothing proves more effectually that a real and proper covenant was made with Adam, that the imputation of his first sin to all his natural posterity. See Rom. v. 12, 17, 18.

Obs. 55.–The parties of the covenant of works were, God and man.

1. On the one side was God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, man’s Creator and Sovereign Lord, who is the great Lawgiver, and the Author of all good to his creatures.

2. On the other side was man, God’s creature,–Adam, representing all mankind, and covenanting with God, not only for himself, but also for all his posterity, as the natural father of all, and the appointed federal head.

In this covenant there was no Mediator: nor was there need of one; for man was yet the friend of God; and his service, while he continued in innocence, was acceptable to him, being fully conformable to his law.

Obs. 56.–The condition of the covenant of works was perfect obedience.

By the condition of this covenant, we are to understand that which God required of Adam, in order that he might have a right, both for himself and for all his posterity, to eternal life, which was the promised reward.

The obedience required, was a regard to the whole law of God–that law which was written on man’s heart at his creation; and also to the positive precept that he gave him, which was, “Not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;” and all this from a due regard to the Divine authority. This tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because, on his eating of it, Adam knew by experience what good he had lost, and what evil he had brought upon himself and his posterity.

With respect to the nature of this obedience, it was necessary that it should be,–

1. Perfect in respect of its principle. It was to proceed from love to God, who requires not only external, but internal obedience, or the obedience of the heart.

2. Perfect in parts. It was to extend to all the commands of God, with respect to thoughts, words, and actions.

3. Perfect in degrees. Every act of obedience was to be perfect in degree, wanting nothing of that perfection which the law required. He was to love the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his strength, and with all his mind.

4. Perfect in duration,–without interruption, while God should continue him in the state of trial.–Gal. iii. 10.

This was the condition of the covenant of works. On no other terms could Adam have attained to eternal happiness by it, or be justified in respect of his state before God. Hence it appears, that sincere obedience could not have been accepted, and that there was no place for repentance under this covenant. The threatening was, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Such a positive denunciation cut off all hope, and rendered repentance unavailable.

Obs. 57.–The reward promised in the covenant of works was life.

The words, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” evidently imply, that life should have been preserved, if innocence had not been lost.

The reward promised was life in its fullest extent, both here and hereafter; and hence this covenant is called the covenant of life. The life promised was,–

1. Natural life, which consists in the union of the soul and body.

2. Spiritual life, which consists in the union of the soul with God, the supreme good.

3. Eternal life, which consists in the perfect, immutable, and eternal happiness of both soul and body in heaven for ever.

Obs. 58.–The penalty of the covenant of works, or the threatening denounced in case of disobedience, was death.

“In the day that thou eatest thereof, that is, of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt surely die; or, dying thou shalt die.” This includes,–

1. Natural death, or the death of the body; to which man became liable the moment he sinned.–See Rom. vi. 23.

2. Spiritual death; which consists in the separation of the soul from God.

3. Eternal death; or the separation of both soul and body from God for ever, in that place which is prepared for all the workers of iniquity. This is also called the second death; and it includes in it the perfect and complete loss of every thing comfortable in respect of this life, as well as that which is to come.

The penalty of the violated law of works is not properly an act, a mere act, of the will of God,–it flows from his perfections; for if we consider the nature of God, we shall find that it is absolutely necessary that there should be such a strict and awful penalty.

(From: “A Concise System of Theology on the Basis of the Shorter Catechism”)

Robert Shaw (1795-1863)

I. That God entered into a covenant with Adam in his state of innocence, appears from Gen. ii. 16, 17: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Here, indeed, there is no express mention of a covenant; but we find all the essential requisites of a proper covenant. In this transaction there are two parties; the Lord God on the one hand, and man on the other. There is a condition expressly stated, in the positive precept respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man’s obedience. There is a penalty subjoined: “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” There is a also a promise, not distinctly expressed, but implied in the threatening; for, if death was to be the consequence of disobedience, it clearly follows that life was to be the reward of obedience. That a promise of life was annexed to man’s obedience, may also be inferred from the description which Moses gives of the righteousness of the law: “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,”–Rom. x. 5; from our Lord’s answer to the young man who inquired what he should do to inherit eternal life: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,”–Matt. xix. 17; and from the declaration of the apostle, that “the commandment was ordained to life.”–Rom. vii. 10. We are, therefore, warranted to call the transaction between God and Adam a covenant. We may even allege, for the use of this term, the language of Scripture. In Hos. vi. 7 (margin), we read, “They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant.” This necessarily implies that a covenant was made with Adam, and that he violated it.

II. That this covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself, but also for all his natural posterity, is a doctrine which has met with much opposition. It is denied by Pelagians and Socinians, who maintain that he acted for himself alone, and that the effects of his fall terminated upon himself. Arminians admit that the whole human race is injured by the first sin, but at the same time controvert the proposition, that Adam was their proper representative. This truth, however, may be easily established. The Scripture represents Adam as a figure or type of Christ,–Rom. v. 14; and wherein does the resemblance between them consist? Simply in this, that as Christ was a federal head, representing all his spiritual seed in the covenant of grace, so Adam was a federal head representing all his natural seed in the covenant of works. In 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47, the one is called the first Adam, the other, the last Adam; the one the first man, the other the second man. Now, Christ was not the second man in any other sense, but as being the federal head or representative of his seed; and, therefore, the first man must have sustained a similar character, as being the federal head or representative of all his natural posterity. The extension of the effects of Adam’s first sin to all his descendants, is another strong proof of his having represented them in the covenant made with him. That he has transmitted sin and death to all his posterity, is clearly taught in the 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; and unless his public character, as a representative in the covenant, be admitted, no satisfactory reason can be assigned why we are affected by his first sin in a way that we are not affected by his subsequent transgressions, or the transgressions of our more immediate progenitors. We know that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezek. xviii. 20); and had Adam been merely a private person, his sin could have affected us no more than that of our immediate parents. The conclusion is inevitable,–that, in the covenant of works, our first parent not only acted for himself, but represented all his natural posterity.

Often has this part of the divine procedure been arraigned by presumptuous man. The supposition that God called Adam to represent us in a covenant, into which he entered with him long before we had a being, and to the making of which we could not personally consent, is, it has been alleged, inconsistent with the divine goodness, and contrary to moral justice and equity. To this it might be sufficient to reply, that this transaction being the proposal and deed of God, it must be fit and equitable. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” “He is a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is he.” But though we ought to acquiesce in the propriety of this transaction, simply because it was the will of God, yet it might be evinced, by various considerations, that it was not only consistent with equity, but manifested much of the divine goodness. If Adam had fulfilled the condition of the covenant, and thus secured happiness, not only to himself, but also to all his posterity, no one, certainly, would have complained that Adam was constituted his representative; and why should that transaction, which, in this event, would have been deemed just, be pronounced unjust on the contrary event? Adam, being made after the image of God, was as capable of keeping the covenant as any of his posterity could ever be supposed to be; that he should fulfil it was as much his personal interest as that of any of his descendants, his own felicity, no less than theirs, being at stake; and he was intimately related to the persons whom he represented, and had the strongest inducement to take care of his numerous offspring, as well as of himself. Adam having such peculiar advantages and inducements to perform the demanded obedience, it may be fairly presumed, that, had it been possible for us to be present when the federal transaction was entered into, we would have readily agreed that it was more eligible and safe for us to have our everlasting felicity insured by the obedience of our first parent, as our covenant head, than that it should depend upon our own personal behaviour. And who would complain of his being represented by Adam in the covenant of works, since God has opened up a way for our recovery from the from the consequences of the breach of that covenant, by another and a superior covenant?

(From: “An Exposition of the Confession of Faith”)

John Willison (1680-1750)

[On Shorter Catechism Q./A. 12]

Q. What did God with man after he had created him?

A. He entered into a covenant with him.

Q. What do you mean by a covenant?

A. A mutual paction or agreement between two parties.

Q. How many covenants hath God entered into with man?

A. Two; viz. the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

Q. Which of these two covenants did God make with Adam at first?

A. It was the covenant of works, which in the answer is called a “covenant of life.”

Q. Why is it called both a “covenant of works” and a “covenant of life”?

A. It is called a covenant of works, from the condition of it; and a covenant of life, from the promise or reward of it.

Q. How did it appear that God and Adam did really enter into covenant?

A. From this, that God required Adam to obey his will, promising him life if he should do it, and threatening death to him if he did not. And doubtless Adam, who was made after the image of God, consented to this his Creator’s will, when first intimated to him.

Q. Had this covenant a condition in it?

A. Yes; viz., works, or obedience to the will of God.

Q. What do you mean by the condition of a covenant?

A. A special article or term, upon the fulfilling of which the promised blessings of the covenant only are to be bestowed.

Q. What sort of obedience did this covenant require as the condition of it?

A. Perfect obedience to the whole will of God.

Q. When may obedience be reckoned perfect?

A. It is so when a man continues in doing all things commanded by God, without any defect in matter or manner, principle or ends.

Q. Was there no grace in the covenant of works?

A. Yes, there was much grace in God’s condescending to enter into covenant with his own creature, and promising him great rewards to encourage him to obedience, when he was absolutely obliged to it by his creation, though nothing had been promised at all.

Q. What was the reward promised in this covenant for man’s obedience?–A. Life.

Q. What sort of life was it?

A. A threefold life, natural , spiritual, and eternal. The natural and spiritual life, given to man at his creation, was to be continued with him; and in due time he was to be translated to eternal life in heaven, without dying.

Q. What account can you give of the nature of that threefold life?

A. The natural life consists in the union of soul and body; the spiritual life in the union of the soul with God; the eternal life in the happiness of the whole man in the immediate vision and fruition of God in heaven for ever.

Q. Was this covenant made with Adam for himself alone?

A. No; it was made with him, not only for himself, but in the name of all his posterity.

Q. Had Adam sufficiency of strength and grace given him at first, to perform the condition of this covenant?–A. Yes.

Q. Did not this covenant require obedience to the whole moral law?–A. Yes.

Q. Where was that law written?

A. In the hearts of our first parents?

Q. Was there not something else that God required of them as a present trial of their obedience/

A. Yes, namely, that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Q. Why did God deny them that one tree?

A. To try their subjection and obedience to their sovereign Lord, of whom they held all comforts; and to teach them that their chief happiness did not lie in the enjoyment of temporal things, but of God’s favour; and that they ought to prefer his will and pleasure to all the delights of sense.

Q. Had that tree any virtue in it to make men knowing and wise?

A. No, it had none, though Satan deluded them with his temptation.

Q. Why then was it called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

A. It was so called, to assure them, that, if they did eat of it, they should know, to their sad experience, both what good they would forfeit, and what evil they would bring upon themselves and their posterity.

Q. What good were they to forfeit and lost?

A. Both the image and favour of God.

Q. What evil were they to feel?

A. The wrath and curse of God.

Q. Was this penalty plainly intimated to them, when the covenant was made with them?

A. Yes; for God said, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Q. What sort of death did God threaten them with?

A. A threefold death, answerable to the life promised; to wit, death temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

Q. What account can you give of the nature of that threefold death?

A. Temporal or natural death consists in the separation of the soul from the body; spiritual death in the separation of the soul from God, and the loss of his image; eternal death lies in the separation of both soul and body from the comfortable presence of God for ever.

Q. Did Adam die naturally that very day he ate this fruit?

A. No; for he lived till he was 930 years old.

Q. How then was the threatening of God accomplished?

A. On the day he did eat, he died spiritually, and became liable to temporal and eternal death.

Q. What do you understand by these words, “He died spiritually,” &c.

A. I understand, that Adam lost the image and favour of God; that he became mortal, and liable to all afflictions in this life, and to the torments of hell hereafter.

Q. Why was not the sentence fully executed upon him personally?

A. We have ground to believe he was saved from eternal death by the mediation of Christ; and, for the elect’s sake, who were to spring from him, he got a reprieve as to natural death for a time: yet sin gave his body the death’s wound, of which he died at length.

Q. May we not read much of sin’s evil in that awful threatening?

A. Yes; for sin is an evil that deprives man of the happiness of a threefold life, and exposes him to the misery of a threefold death.

Q. Was there any place in that covenant for a mediator or Surety?

A. No; for it required personal obedience or suffering from every man, for himself.

Q. Would it not accept of repentance from sinners, and sincere endeavours after obedience, though imperfect?

A. No; for it required obedience absolutely perfect, and sentenced the transgressor to wrath for the least failure, without any hope of mercy to the penitent.

Q. Ought not all believer to bless God that they are not under this covenant?–A. God.

Q. Is not the case of unbelievers said, who still remain under it?–A. Yes.

(From: “Practical Works”)