That is still true. The text is emphasizing the person of Elohim over the celestial objects, over the waters, over mankind—but some have used that very real main point to detract from the fact that the text does actual contain “what” and some “how” in it as well. Yes the text says that the Who is Elohim but it also expressly says What He did (he created) and how (by speaking).

And yet, even while heavily emphasizing a Who these same people often come up with an alternate What and an extra-biblical How. It’ is not that God is creating—that occurs in verse one—they might say, it’s that He’s assigning roles for his created temple (indicated by the word “rest”). So they’ll read the English word “Let” and “Make” and they see assignment as in “Make me a King” or “Make me the Art Director for this job”. The person isn’t being created into a King or an artist but they’re being assigned to that role. And, they’ll add, the text is absolutely silent on the process (begging the question, methinks): Science—God’s second book of revelation—tells us how all things were made.

Now the assigning of roles might apply in some of the days (The fourth day for example and the assigning of roles to the lights to govern; the sixth day and the assigning of people to govern over the earth) but what role is there being assigned to light in verse 3? The passage says it was dark then God said “Let there be light” and then there was light—that’s no assigning at all but creation (it wasn’t there—now it was).Same thing with the vegetation. God doesn’t merely assign the role of Earth as vegetation producer; rather he says it and it happens (and it was so…the earth brought forth vegetation Gen 1:11).

And it really doesn’t even take into account the fact that there is no “Let” before the “there be” in this passage in the sense of assigning roles whatsoever. What it says is “Be” which as a divine utterance that brings things into being. This even applies in Gen 1:14 where we see the words “Be Lights”. So even if you hop down to verse 20 where one might try to argue heavily that the waters produced these creatures, we see that God creates all of them just as he created the heavens and the earth in verse 1 and 2.

Now as to the how (if it was an evolutionary process or not) I think it’s pretty safe to say that the passage doesn’t tell us that the creatures in the waters came about by divine selection and mutation. In the verses that matter (v 26) the verb bara (to create) which might mean made-from-pre-existent material is used, but also we see, another word coming to the fore (barak to bless) which indicates an obvious alliteration. The text is actually pretty clear that God created the creatures following after their own kind, from lesser creatures (crawling things) to the greater creatures (moon, stars, man).

Lastly, this idea of the word “rest” automatically indicating God entering into his temple needs to be examined but that’s outside of the scope of this post.

Technorati Tags: creation, elohim, genesis 1

In Genesis, if we were looking closely, another one of the key words that find quite a bit of repetition is Covenant. It’s all over the book (which is another reason why we have to think that this book is very likely not merely about the history of the world but dealing with specific things: we’ve mentioned blessing, cursing, favor, account of X, and now covenants).

Well, I talk about covenants in another post, but for now we’ll just boil it down to a fancy way of saying a package of promises which are either unilaterally enacted or bilaterally contracted. For a modern example, you can covenant with me to buy my house; I take your money, you take my deed—or the bank does. Whatever, you get the point.

We start seeing the beginning of God’s covenantal promises to Abram in chapter 12 though we don’t see a mention of a covenant (to Abram) until chapter 15. For the sake of provoking our memories let me just list this first wave of promises:

• Promise 1: I will show you a land  (Gen 12:1)
• Promise 2: I make you into a great nation (Gen 12:2)
• Promise 3: I will bless you
• Promise 4: I will make your name great
• Promise 5: You will become a blessing (for others)
• Promise 6: I will bless those who bless you (Gen 13:3)
• Promise 7: I will curse those who curse you or treat you lightly
• Promise 8: All the families of the earth will be blessed by your name

Immediately in the story we see one of God’s promises being fulfilled. Abram gets to the land! But a famine hits and Abram has to leave and go to Egypt. In Egypt Abram’s wife is taken by Pharaoh and added to his harem and God curses Pharaoh and his household. Two of God’s promises being immediately fulfilled. The mistake would be to assume since the author depicts a fulfillment of God’s promises, therefore God will not continue to fulfill that promise. Indeed, this will come up again later in the post when the author records Lot’s Rescue Part 1 and the Abimelech Situation Part 1.

Anyway, back to Gen 13, Abram, now a broken man from the Egypt situation gives Lot free reign to choose any portion of the promised land. Lot chooses apparently the juiciest part of the land but God turns Abram around to look at the entire land (Gen 13:14-18) and makes him a promise which, parenthetically speaking, is a combination and expansion of a couple of previous promises:

• Promise 9 (or 1+2): The entire land has been given to Abram and his descendants forever. (Gen 13:15)
• Promise 10 (3+4): I will make your descendants as the dust of the Earth (Gen 13:16)
• Promise 11 (1+3+4): Walk the Land; I will give it to you (Gen 13:17)

Now of course these promises have a problem since the land is occupied (not to mention Abram is childless), but Abram is so secure in God’s promises (since he’s already been brought to a land he didn’t know and he has already seen God working out curses against those who cursed him) that he believes God and starts wandering through the land like a surveyor (Gen 13:18).

Abram’s nephew is kidnapped and Abram, with three hundred house trained soldiers, manages to hunt down an army and rescue Lot. His endeavor, blessed, his enemy cursed and finally Abram strengthened by the Melchizedek King of Salem. The man, a resident of the land, solidifies God’s words by calling Abram blessed because God is on his side (Gen 14:19-20.

Note again how later, when Abram winds up with Abimelech in a Pharaoh-like situation or once again when young Isaac winds up in the same situation with another Abimelech. God’s promise of cursing on those who treat them lightly winds up occurring as stated. God keeps repeatedly fulfilling the promises He’s made to Abram but the fulfillments don’t end God’s continued commitment to keeping his promises to Abram…even if he keeps expanding on the details and even if Abram falls into the same mistakes.

God’s promises, Gen 15, come to the fore when Abram receives a vision in regards to his future security and continuance of God’s promises. How would it occur if Abram was in fact old and a descendant of the household of Abram was a servant? God promises that Abram would have a child—which the man believes but goes about bringing about the promises of God as he has done before.

• Promise 12: You will have seed from your loins (Gen 15:4)
• Promise 13 (2+3): Your seed will be countless (Gen 15:5)
• Promise 14 (13a):  Your descendants will be strangers in a  foreign land—enslaved 400 years (Gen 15:13)
• Promise 15 (13b): Your descendents will come out
• Promise 16 (13c): They will return here after the sin of the Amorites is full (Gen 15:14)
• Promise 17 (9b) To your descendents the land is given from the Nile to the Euphrates, to the land of the Canaanites.

Abram is indeed fruitful (with Ishmael via Hagar) but it was not by that route that God’s promises would evidently stand—the son was to come from Sarah which God fulfills in chapter 17.

Gen 17 opens with God speaking to a very old Abram (and still years before the man has Isaac) where he tells him

• Promise 18 (2 + 13): I will give you a multitude of descendants (Gen 17:2)
• Promise 19 (2+13+4+5): You will be the father of nations (Gen 17:4)
• Promise 20 (4+19): Kings will descend from you (Gen 17:6)
• Promise 21: I will confirm my covenant as a perpetual covenant between me and you and your descendents throughout generations after you (Gen 17:7)
• Promise 22 (9c): I will give you and them the whole land of Canaan as a permanent possession (Gen 17:8)
• Promise 23: I will be their God.
• Promise 24 (18+9+12): I will establish my covenant with Isaac whom Sarah will bear
• Promise 25 (18+20+13 +2)): I will bless Ishmael (Gen 17:16)
• Promise 26 (25b): I will make Ishmael fruitful
• Promise 27 (25c): I will make him a great nation (Gen 17:20)

What’s apparent is that God is ensuring Abraham with (1) seed/descendants (2) land/A Land (3) a nation/nation of nations (4) being a blessing/a blessing to all the nations;  that this covenant is perpetually unending; that this covenant can expand (since he has been expanding it already) but that the core of the covenant will always remain. Repeatedly we have God making, confirming, fulfilling, expanding and reiterating His promises in action. Action that ensured Abraham a future fulfillment by concretely fulfilling his promises before the actual man—he may not live to see the day that the promises are actually finalized, but he would go to his grave in peace knowing that God would act according to what he promised him (Gen 15:15).

Genesis 18:19 has the God further acting by speaking to in this way about Abraham:

“Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.”

The author is recording God’s point-of-view. Sure he keeps information from Abraham, but in no way is he trying to pull a quick one by Abraham. He’s going to destroy a city where Abraham has vested interest—the city where his nephew lives in. If God is really a blessing for Abraham, he should be concerned about Abraham’s people; so he tells him what he’s about to do.

With this Abraham becomes the type of man that becomes a blessing to even Sodom, staving off punishment by asking God at what point will He hold back His wrath. “Will the Judge of the Earth do what is right: What if ten people are in that wicked city, Lord, will you destroy it then?”

“No I won’t” and God even keeps that promise to the extent of pulling out the one righteous man in the city and his family to secure the proper outpouring of his wrath.

Abraham was so secure in God’s promises that come Genesis 22:4  when he arrives at the foothills of the mountain where he was told to sacrifice his son of Promise, he tells his servants “wait here: we’ll both be back” and journey’s on. The man expected to kill his son and have him miraculously given back to him.

That’s how serious he took the promises of God. They received the promises of God, welcoming them from a distance, knowing God would keep those explicit promises even if he blesses above and beyond that which they were expecting. (Heb 11:10-13)

Now someone might be tempted to jump to Galatians at this point; not me. Paul’s point, drawn from the situation with Abraham, isn’t derived solely from the promises to Abraham. The Christological aspects blossom out in the actualization of the Abrahamic Covenant in time, but I have to establish that by some notes on the historical outworking of this covenant.

That will be the next post.

Technorati Tags: abraham, covenant, promises

Now, the argument I’m making isn’t a deductive argument (e.g. If p then q. p. Therefore q.) An inductive argument is where one concludes with the most probable answer as reasonable to hold (like you can’t deductively prove that there is someone posting this, but you can inductively support it to make belief in that reasonable).

So, taking a step back to the previous post, you would think that Genesis would be merely a mythology or a history of world events yet the author skips some pretty major characters(e.g. Dinosaurs) and completely ignores other areas (e.g. Chinese culture). Those things, it seems, are not the point of the text. In fact, after the last post I doubt a reader can ever look at Genesis again without thinking about blessings and cursing (and if you took my advice and looked at the book some more you would have believed me about favor and discovered some other things as well (genealogies, the book of the account of X-family).

The author writes his history by cutting the story arc in two. From chapter one to eleven (roughly) he deals with the general history of the world (within the sphere of a specific topic; let the observation stand for now) and for the rest of the book he deals with a history of a family.

This is nothing new; fairly old stuff. But it doesn’t end there.

The first half of the book is punctuated by three “Creation” accounts.

• The first creation account (1-2:3) is concerned with the very beginning using careful wording and punctuated with the Father’s contingent blessing of his creation. This account covers all.
• The second creation account (2:4 – 4) starts with the account of the heavens and earth and delves almost immediately into the beginning of man (the jewel of the heavens and the earth)—but it ends with catastrophe. This account focuses on the specific beginning of humanity.
• The third creation account (5 -11:9) begins with the creation of Adam in the likeness of God and then has a genealogy of death, a flood (resulting in a major catastrophe) and finally a non-dispersing humanity that is forced to disperse at Babel (another catastrophe). This account deals with the broadening, the expansion, of humanity: the people.

The second half of the book begins with another account of creation, the creation of a family

• The first creation-family account is the genealogy of Shem resulting in Abram (chapters 11:10-23) and a miraculous child (11 – 23) in the midst of several near catastrophe’s
• The second creation-family account dealing with the promised son Isaac (chapters 24-26) almost ending in catastrophe
• The third creation-family account dealing with Jacob (Chapters 27 – 50) expanded to Israel (the people), in the midst of several (apparent) catastrophes.

In each story, it is God who is working to preserve in the midst of the catastrophe. God provides (as Father) in story 1; God promises in Story 2; God preserves in Story 3; God promises in story 4; God preserves in story 5; God provides in story 6.

Note the catastrophe’s in the second half of the book:

• The first creation-family story Abram the Wanderer loses his wife but gets her back, impregnates a servant-girl but she’s not the means of promise and finally God provides Isaac from Sarah just as promised but then seems to approach taking him away—but he provides himself a sacrifice.
• The second creation-family story Isaac the Settled refuses to bestow the blessing on the proper son and is forced to bestow it and later almost loses his wife as well. But the promises were bestowed just as God had stated, preserving his word to Abraham.
• The third creation-family story Jacob the Lying Wanderer is living away from the land, in enmity with his brother and finally finds himself in the midst of a famine with a quarter of his boys gone. And yet, at the end, Jacob gains two boys, gains his missing sons and bestows a blessing on them and Pharaoh.

The author goes out of his way to ensure that we see a correlation of Man’s Falling (and Promised Cursing) and God’s Favor (and Promised Blessing). By laying the stories across the material like this, the author is making use of the tools of pattern, structure and thought-flow to ensure that we note their importance and their effect.

Quickly jumping between two parts of the book:

• The second creation story culminates with mankind being punished and the ground being cursed and this curse being evident as Cain is sent running. It ends with a serious low point: the repeated death of people. This is awful: Adam, the son of God becomes the cause for cursing of the land—and somehow the people, and Cain becomes a wanderer who settles (or builds) a city in opposition.
• In chapter 11 (the ending of the third creation account )begins with a group of people wanting to make their name great but the first creation-family story in Chapter 12 begins with God wanting to make Abram’s name great by means of promised blessing. Here, Abram, the man of faith, is made a blessing to the people—and to the land—and becomes a wanderer in an unknown land for an unseen inheritance provided by God (recalling God’s provision of the first creation story).

All of this is to underscore that Abraham is the hinge point of the book by which the favor and blessings of God are made evident (1) to Abram, (2)  to the People (meaning [1a] the nations and [1b] the family of Abram) and (3) to the land (meaning both [2a] the land and [2b] the land that God had promised Abram).

Now that last bit I’ll have to substantiate with a long examination of the promises; that’s another post. Also a warning: it’s easy to jump from here to Paul and do some backward reading—but I want to avoid that in light of my Unifying Principle. I’m examining the text as it stands so that when we get to Paul’s use of the text we can see what he’s saying and what he’s not

Technorati Tags: abraham, genesis, hermeneutics

Most of us would spend hours researching Liby , Herodotus, some Ibn al-Tiqtaqā’s, the Mayans and the Aztecs, plus some Jedi Holocron over in the rediscovered Jedi Temple and then compile something in chronological order (starting a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away). Some of us would delve into Josephus and Eusebius to spice it all up with some Church History. We’d make a timeline, group it by geographical area and then tick off major events within those areas. We would try as much as possible to remove ourselves from the recounting and Stick To The Facts And Nothing But The Facts. We most definitely would avoid interpreting historical events but only rarely wondering what would’ve transpired if events went another way.

We would then take that methodology with us and start reading Genesis.

Since Genesis is a history of the world, we would mumble to ourselves, and this is how we would write history then we should expect the author to Genesis to be doing the same thing. We take the author to task for the (embarrassingly, though we’d never admit it) mythological sections and click our tongues at the complete ignorance of events around the globe (egad, no mention of South America!) and maybe lightly roll our eyes when we start talking about Jacob’s view of genetics. By the end of the book we would have congratulated ourselves for having gotten through the material and wistfully hope to get to the Good Parts like Romans or Hebrews or First Peter.

But the author of Genesis, under the careful eyes of observation, organized his material very carefully and intentionally repeating certain key terms throughout the book.

For example the book opens with a blessing (Genesis 1:22) and closes with a blessing (Gen 49:28). Scratching their modern head, the reader of today would see that as a strange thing to include in any historical account. Maybe this is an oddity of the author, wonders the modern reader, like the strange tics in a homeless guy.

Until we see that a blessing occurs in just about every major story in the book. God rested on the seventh day and blessed it (Gen 2:3); He created them male and female and blessed them (Gen 5:2). Then God took Noah and his family and blessed them (9:1); Abram being blessed by the Lord (Gen 12:2); Isaac is blessed (Gen 24:1). Heck the story of Jacob and Esau deals with Jacob stealing the blessing from Esau (Gen 27). As if to hit you on the head the author puts the story of Jacob blessing Joseph’s Sons (Gen 48) next to the story of Jacob blessing all of his sons (Gen 49).

Something important is happening in this book. We mentioned earlier that whole bit about patterns, structure that underscores thought flow—and here we’re seeing a pattern that is doing Something…likely establishing thought flow.

Just as surprising is the other word that keep popping up throughout the book: curse. In the beginning of the book we see a curse (which we Christians spend a lot of time citing in Gen 3:14-17). But we see another curse before the flood (Gen 5:29) another curse after the fall (Gen 9:25) God saying he would curse folk that mess with his vessel of blessing (Gen 12:3) a cursing by Isaac (Gen 27) and even a cursing close to the end of the book (Gen 49).

Well, when we notice a repeating pattern within an author’s story we know that we’re getting a peek into the author’s mind—especially in Jewish literature. The repetition underscores importance. Like the decorations on a wall, or the shapes on the floor, they are found throughout a home generating a complete theme which reflects the mindset of the designer. They are the elements that bring color and reveal something of the mind of the author—what is some of his or her major concerns.

When those details are brought to the fore then someone has to ask some other questions of the book. Why is the author concerned about these things and what do they have to do with the material as presented? What other words does the author seem intent to hit us over the head with? (I’ll cheat and tell you favor comes up a whole lot as well). How is the author using those words? Where do those appear?

Why did the author relate his history in this way? Some interesting questions that will need some further examination.

Technorati Tags: dispensationalism, genesis, themes

Covenants and the Ancient Near East
The Old Testament is threaded with covenantal language. You read the text expecting it. Sometimes the language is employed in making allies (Gen 14:2, Eze 30:5) and other times it means terms or a treaty (1 Kings 20:34, 1 Sam 11:1) . Sometimes the language is there preempting a covenant (Gen 12) but it’s readily admitted that the Covenant isn’t officially ratified until specific activity (Gen 15). Sometimes the language is there (2 Sam 7) without mentioning that it is a Covenant,  but everyone recognizes it as a covenant (2 Sam 23:5; Psalm 89). Other times the language is there but it’s reiterating something said earlier so there seems to be no need to add anything else to solidify it as a Covenant(Gen 17, Eze 37).

Stepping back from the text, the Ancient Near East culture was threaded with Covenantal language as well. A study of late bronze era ANE covenantal treaties reveals a general pattern, some scholars calling it the ideal pattern of: (A) Preamble, (B) The History (C), The Stipulations, (D) Provision for Deposit of Public Reading (E) The Witnesses (F) curses and Blessings and (G) Ratification Ceremony. These covenants would always be set up in creating a new relationship (between two parties, one stronger, one weaker), always be ratified, and almost always with a ratification ritual, frequently by animal sacrifice.

They were always declared in a literary or oral form to ensure that all parties knew how to think of themselves and later action, were usually affecting a sense of gratefulness resulting in self-obligation, and the cloud of curses and blessings were pretty much connected to the divine but really not implemented by the Divine. Iron Age ANE treaties were exceedingly more brutal and were totally focused on the diminished recipient party.

Divine Constitutions
The Divine Covenants (specific texts that don’t only use Covenantal language but are completely based on God toward Man) in Scripture do not always follow the exact pattern of ANE covenants and don’t even really read as covenants, but more like self-contracts by the Deity. Gen 15 for example, is definitely a Covenant but it’s a Covenant by God with Himself toward Abraham as beneficiary—so much so that God performs the ratification ceremony without Abraham’s participation. 2 Samuel 7 has David ready to do some great work of building a house for God, and God preempting him by building up his house while removing any activity on the part of David. These Divine Contracts (I’m not even sure that’s a good word for it; maybe a Constitution would be better) were explicit and binding, not merely between the parties, but in the part of Yahweh as giving them. These Divine Constitutions also do not always create a new relationship but are predicated on pre-established realities. 2 Sam 7 already assumes the Kingship is in place, but solidifies it; Gen 9 already assumes people will govern and fill the earth, but solidifies how they will be preserved; Gen 15 already has Abraham as involved religiously (Gen 12) but solidifies the relationship.

So it is not possible to define Covenant as merely binding or merely Constitutional when it’s littered throughout the text doing different things at different times but it is possible to see the Divine Covenants working an explicit way. You always know who is enacting them (Yahweh), you always know what He is intending and promising, and they are always based on a relationship that already exists but solidifying that relationship in a special way that makes transfers those under the covenantal borders under the purview of God. Further the Divine Constitution are more often than not unilateral (when they are bi-lateral they start bearing more similarities to ANE covenants) and they are enacted in such a way that all parties are to remember the benefits that are given.

Covenant of Works and the Ancient Near East
But is Genesis 1-3 explicating a Covenant of Works (a Divine Covenant in which the recipient party is afforded a status as representative but with covenantal responsibilities and duties—like the Mosaic Covenant—which can result in break of Covenant) as argued by just about every Covenant Theologian? Well, according to the Ancient Near East Covenantal language, I think we can see some similarities with ANE covenants and even the Divine Constitutions in other parts of Scripture.

• 1) The creation account can be taken as the History of the relationship of the sovereign over the vassal (compare to (B) above)
• 2) The heavenly hosts (Let us create man) could be seen as witnesses (compare to (E) above)
• 3) There are blessings and curses.(compare to (F) above)

But there are some major differences from any ANE Covenant:

• 1) There is no explicit preamble about who is creating the covenant (contra (A)). The character is assumed and he goes about making everything. Unlike Deuteronomy where the entire book is structured in this ANE Covenantal form ((A) Preamble (1:1-6), (B)History (1:7-4:49); (C) Stipulations (5-26; General/Specific); (D) Deposit and Public Reading (only implied: Exo 20,27, Deut 27:11-26, later Josh 24);(E) the witnesses are the people listening to the reading (F) curses and Blessings (27, 28);(G) Ratification Ceremony (Exo 19:8 Assent; Exodus 24 Sprinkling of Blood), the same compiler didn’t bother doing the same thing here.
• 2) The  stipulations don’t speak in terms of obligation to Elohim (contra (C)). In Genesis 2, the obligation seems to be assumed by the fact that the man is contingent on the one who made him. Indeed, this is the same contingent obligation that belongs to every parent from their child as evidenced in Genesis.
• 3) There is no provision for the depositing of the covenant stipulations (contra (D)). No record of the blessings are being mandated to be recorded by God. What is repeated is the cursing (Gen 4,5) which makes us assume that people took with them the future hope of being redeemed from the curse—but that doesn’t mean that they were covenantaly bound to keeping true to that.
• 4) The curses and blessings are divorced from each other (contra (F)). ANE Covenantal language pairs these things (If you X then Y, if you Not-X then Q) but none of that exists in this text. Indeed, they are blessed apart from Lordship (YHWH is never used in Genesis 1 but in Genesis 2) and a curse is stipulated as a warning—but this is expected in a relationship from Father to Son (notice Genesis 49 and the blessings and curses of Jacob with his 12 Sons)
• 5) There is no ratification of the covenant (contra (G)). No Sacrifice. No shed blood. Surprisingly, the only shedding of blood occurs after the point where most Covenant Theologians would say the Covenant was broken. Here it might be good to mention that in 2 Sam 7 there doesn’t seem to be any ratification ceremony (unlike Genesis 9 and Genesis 15 which both contain explicit ceremonies, as does Deuteronomy and even the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai). But there is the fact that after receiving the promises, David goes “in before the Lord” which would mean the tabernacle where the sacrifices are offered. If Genesis 1-2 has a tabernacle where the sacrifices are being offered but we don’t even have a shadow of cultic activity until after the Fall and expulsion from the Garden (Gen 5).

Covenant of Works as A Divine Constitution versus Familial Accountability
Even if we tried to really stretch it by saying that this is the first temporal Divine Constitution of which all other covenants then find their source, we would still encounter problems:

• 1) The future language of Genesis 6 (ie: “I will establish my Covenant with…”) which implies Divine purpose but it doesn’t state that there was a Covenant that was broken to begin with.
• 2) The Divine Covenants are redemptive after the Fall but one has to wonder why there is a Covenant (of works) that works antithetically to God’s grace before the Fall. I mean, if every Covenant after the Garden is based on faith and God’s grace, then why would the Covenant of Works before the Fall (and in an ideal situation) be based on Works over Faith? Technically, faith winds up being only a substitute (and lowered bar) for works which makes no theological sense to me. Salvation is always by faith, so if there was an Adamic Covenant it would have the intent of ensuring that Adam remains in the family, not setting him up for a fall. Of course, I’m ignoring any discussion of previous Covenants from eternity past to make what occurs in the Garden a necessity.
• 3) The Divine Covenants always (repeat always) make it a point for the recipient party to know the covenantal blessings that come with being part of the covenantal community. Not so the Genesis account. The blessings are not only are granted, but they carry over even outside of what usually is stated as being the breaking of the Covenant.

In fact, I think there are some really good reasons to think that what we see in Genesis 1-3 isn’t the establishment and failure of a Covenant of Works, but rather the establishment of a family via the birth of a Son:

• 1) Genesis 2 reflects something more akin to the bat’ab where the Father is immediately over his son (since he has birthed him), the son has specific obligations to the family (cf Deut 21:18–21), the Father trains the son (placing him in a garden in the midst of a non-Garden world) and the Father ultimately gets a wife for the son (who the son immediately recognizes as wife). The Father even seems to have the right to declare a death punishment on his own child (Genesis 38:24) or a curse if need be (Gen 49). But this relationship is the one that naturally occurs without a covenant.
• 2) The text goes out of its way to declare genealogical (familial) lines (Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam—then speaks about Adam’s kids; Genesis 6:9 This is the account of Noah—then speaks about Noah’s kids;  Genesis 11:10 This is the account of Shem—then speaks about his kids; Genesis 25:19 This is the account of Abraham—then speaks about Isaac; Genesis 37:2 This is the account of Jacob—then speaks about his kids; Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—then speaks about Adam and Eve.
• 3) The blessings (Genesis 1) carry over outside of the Garden and at some points are even points of contact for punishment (Gen 5, 6, 9). As children, the father naturally provides for them and they are naturally to be fruitful and fill the earth, taking over the family business. Still retaining their familial connection, they are punished when they kill their brothers, where they are incited in violence and when they refuse to restrict their own activity in regards to violence via government. Indeed, this likeness to the patriarch of the family (Lord God) winds up affecting thinking in the New Testament in the treatment of other people.
• 4) The creating of people in the image and likeness of God doesn’t merely seem to imply representation (which Covenant Theologians draw from Romans 5 to further the covenant of works position) but seems to point to a tighter relationship of parent to child. For example, when Adam later births Seth, the man doesn’t only stand as his representative but the familial blessing that is given by the father to the son—the inheritor via firstborn status (not temporal firstborn position). And in Adam’s case, we see the language that Adam became the father of a son who was in the image and likeness of Adam (Gen 5:3) and Adam named his son Seth. In the same exact way, Adam is made in the image and likeness of God and God names his son Adam. Indeed, Luke easily sees the connection when he draws up the genealogy of Christ by calling Adam the Son of God—not as mere representative, but as his Dad (Luke 3:38)

Covenant of Works in Later Scripture
So much for the near context. There are two later texts that some use to prove that there was a covenant at creation.

• 1) Jeremiah 33:20-26 speaks about the covenant of night and day. Some have (incorrectly) taken this to mean the establishment of the covenant of works. Well, the furthest they can go with this text is to establish that there is a covenant with the day and the night at their appointed times. That’s it. God established this either on the 1st Day of Creation or the 4th Day but in either case, it is speaking about the unending system that day follows night and night follows day. If the Covenant at Creation was solely that God established things with order then we wouldn’t have a problem—but people seem to make more of that then what it is.
• 2) Hosea 6:7 is also used but ignoring the serious textual issues. Is it “[At Adam] where the people have broken [the] Covenant” (cf. Josh 3:16)? Is it “[like Adam transgressed the Covenant] the people also transgressed when they broke [the] Covenant”? Is it “[Like covenant breaking men], they have broken The Covenant? Is it “But they have broken a covenant in Adam”?  Or could it be [Like Men] they have broken covenant?Well contextually, the passage is speaking about the way Ephraim/Jacob (spoken of in the third person) has proved that their loyalty is useless: here for a little bit and gone shortly later (Hose 6:4-6). It may be referring to a town where specific activity occurred but I don’t know how we can contextually justify that beyond showing that other cities are mentioned (ie: Gilead, Shechem).

  Further on (Hos 6:8-10) we see how they are acting in different spheres of activity which are all completely antithetical to their calling. Gilead is tracked with bloody footprints (of people who are wont for violence), the priests are murderers, and Israel’s house there is harlotry (likely religious) going on. We might automatically assume then the covenant being spoken of here is therefore the Mosaic covenant (ie: Exo 20:13) between the Lord God and Israel but why does Hosea avoid having God speak about the Covenant as his own, as he does elsewhere (Hos 8:1). Furthermore, we can see this sort of indictment repeated (Hos 10:4) when they make inappropriately make treaties: their covenants are empty; they speak mere words.So I think it is safer to conclude that God is referring generally about the Mosaic Covenant but specifically about Ephraim’s actions being similar to men’s activity with covenants in general. “Like men [treat covenants poorly] they have broken covenant; they dealt treacherously with me [God] (by treating me as a mere man, they offered their sacrifices while constantly disobeying me)” So the text is highly unlikely to refer to any Creation Covenant at all. As Calvin brusquely says in his commentary on Hosea:

Others explain the words thus, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant.” But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant;” that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed God’s commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid.

Is there a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Creation in the Biblical record?
If covenant is taken to mean the establishment of order, maybe; but if it is taken with theological weight that is usually afforded to the term: explicitly No. There might be some peripheral similarities to covenantal situations in the ANE as well as in Scripture (with later Divine Constitutions (Gen 9, Gen 15, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31)) but those similarities can easily be explained by the familial relationship that makes more sense of the text as it stands. Not only is there strong evidence against a Covenant of Works, but there’s also some serious theological evidence against it skewing the whole thing more likely the imaginative fabrication of Cocceius than anything found in the text. Since the entire three chapters are rather structured as the retelling of the first family (God and his children Adam and Eve) I don’t think there’s any need to go further: what we see is the establishment of the first family and the way the relationship was broken. Every Divine Covenant seems to be aimed at fixing what was broken; bringing the family back home.

Now there have been people that have said that all of Genesis is part of the introductory formula of an ANE covenant in Deuteronomy. This would make the Genesis and early part of Exodus portion both the Historical and the Introductory portion of a formulating or presented covenant—that being the Mosaic Covenant. Genesis 1-3 may very well function in this way in the minds of the Israelites and even as solidifying the importance of what happened at Sinai but it is a far cry from seeing into this some unstated covenant in which works(instead of faith) is the ultimate means of the salvation.

I think it’s fair to consider a warning. When it comes to the promises and curses of God it is better to see the text as it stands rather than assume covenantal promises where there are none explicitly stated. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God not those words which we have tried to stuff into His mouth.

Technorati Tags: adam, covenant of works, federal headship, federal theology, genesis