CPC Sunday School | Covenant Theology #2 (1/14/24: Dan Wann)

This is a lecture on Covenant Theology. The speaker begins by thanking God for the opportunity to study His word and understand how He has chosen to redeem people. They discuss the concept of Covenant Theology and its importance. They explain that Reformed Theology is not exclusively Covenant Theology, but they share some similarities. They also discuss the five solas and the emphasis on being biblical. They mention the regulative principle of worship and the view of the sacraments. They talk about different approaches to theology, including systematic, biblical, historical, and practical theology. They explain that Covenant Theology is the foundation for all other theologies. The speaker uses the analogy of shopping for a diamond to explain the different aspects of theology. They summarize Covenant Theology as the Emmanuel principle, where God says, "I shall be your God and you shall be my people." The speaker recommends a book called "Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson. We'll get started this morning as we continue on this series in Covenant Theology. You'll forgive me for keeping my coat on. I know that all of you are outside this morning, so you understand how that started. Father in Heaven, thank you so much that we could be gathered here today, that we can study your word, that we can understand the way that you've chosen to condescend to us, to come near your people and to set us aside, that you are God and indeed we are your people. We are grateful for it. We pray that we love you more by knowing the ways and the means by which you've chosen to redeem people to yourself. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Make sure that we're on there. Yeah. Covenant Theology, Winter 2024. So we continue on this morning. Last week, we did an introduction of the concept of Covenant Theology and really that theology more broadly. Today, we're going to take a look at the First Covenants with Adam. As we continue on with that, we'll, of course, look at all of the other administrations of those covenants that we see throughout scripture. But if you were not here last week or even it's helpful every single time, this is a teaching tool to review where we've been so far, and then we'll take a look at what we've got for new material also. So just to review an outline of the pre-outline, we're going to talk about what kind of theology we're talking about, what do we mean by that, what is this covenant we're speaking of, and why, of course, does any of that matter and why should we spend some time thinking about it? Because we are a little bit distinct as Presbyterian folks thinking and talking in these terms. So I made a point last week that Reformed Theology is not exclusively Covenant Theology. So those terms have some parallels, but they're not exclusively the same. And this is early on, so I'm going to fix that. Hopefully I can get this technical difficulty for one second, maybe backwards, maybe I can walk and chew gum at the same time here. So Reformed Theology, broadly speaking, is a couple of different things. It's Protestant theology and that we are not Catholic. We made that distinction around the time of Martin Luther that there's some reforms that we wanted to get done. I think I got it. And I was seeking to get back to the original ideas that the apostles and scripture has taught us that we're seeking to be biblical. We're seeking to rely exclusively on the word of God as the authority by which we see his truth revealed to us, not the traditions of men. So that ties into being Protestant. And of course, from that, that heavy emphasis on being biblical leads us to these ideas of the five solos. That's another thing that people often think about with Reformed Theology. And a lot of groups will say, oh, you know, we're Reformed Baptists, Reformed-ish kind of churches. And what they generally mean by that is they're a non-denominational church, but they do emphasize the five solos, which I think is excellent. But when we are talking about reforms, we mean a little bit more than that generally. But I do appreciate our brothers who are at least focused on to God alone be the glory. That's solo Deo Gloria. What we would add to that when we say we're a little bit more reformed than them, we have an emphasis on, say, the regulative principle of worship, and that is bought out of the idea that we're being biblical. It's bought out of this idea that we take very seriously what does God's word specifically say about the way that he used to be worshipped. And this leads us to our view of the sacraments. And if you really understand our view of the sacraments, it ties in with our deep emphasis on the covenant. And it's because we look at the covenants so specifically, it's because we look at the regular principle of worship so deliberately that we come to our understanding of the sacraments. So again, we also looked at there are at least four ways that we can divide up talking about how we're talking about God and how we're talking about theology. One of those being systematic theology, where we take a particular concept or a particular doctrine within Christianity and we see where everywhere in the Bible does there seem to be a passage or a reference to that concept. And so that's not really the best way to do your theology. We shouldn't be looking for ideas and then finding the text to support our ideas. We should see what the whole Bible has to say something about it. I've heard said, I think this is great. A text without a context is the pretext for a proof text. So if you're looking for a text specifically without looking at the whole context of what it's saying, that is the necessary condition for you to be just finding proof text. And this is a dangerous thing for us to simply say, well, here's the theology we like. So let's find all the verses that say that. So systematics is excellent, but we shouldn't take systematics too far without having the full context. And so below that, we see biblical theology and doing a biblical theology is really seeing what we find these ideas. We find these concepts within scripture, but how do they evolve over time? So we do understand that salvation was offered to say Adam and that sin enters the world around Adam. Well, how do we understand sin in the context of law given in the garden is different than we understand sin as further revealed when the law is given to Moses when it's further refined when Christ is teaching on the Sermon on the Mount. We see things like you've heard it said, but I say to you, so Christ is refining that this is a biblical theology of sin at the biblical theology of salvation. As we see, those same concepts shown throughout time and covenant theology is particularly shown how God is redeeming people to himself. So as we go beyond even the church age, not purely biblical, but a little bit more historical, there's another avenue of theology. People talk about historical theology. And this, again, if you think back to the Reformation principles that had font has to get back to the original source, the reformers were deeply concerned with understanding how have we historically understood this? And this is not to say that we're adding traditions and men, but how has theology developed over time? So both biblical and then taking a little bit further, say, what have all of our forefathers and the people who've come before us understood about theology? So then this leads us to what is practical theology. And this is where probably most people think of when they think of their day to day understanding of theology. Well, how does this impact me? What should I do about it? It's fine to have a whole bunch of theological principles, but if it doesn't change your life or it doesn't change the practice of worship of the church, then we have a great big collection of meaningless thoughts in our head that don't actually work out into our life and practice. So all of these things are important. And there is this other five dollar quote that says that covenant theology is this architectonic principle on which we build all of our other theologies. So I think arc like architecture and tectonic like the plates that the earth sits upon. So if you think about covenant theology is this bedrock that we're building all of these other things on. We understand that this is the broad way that we're communicating a simple principle to us that God is doing something and we should build everything else that we understand upon that. So that covenant framework binds together all of these methodologies. So I made a comparison. I said, you know, we can do these various kinds of theology and it's the way you might go about shopping for something like a diamond. You can do systematics where you're looking at the numbers behind the diamond, the color of the cut with clarity. Do you want a pear shaped diamond? Do you want a square cut diamond? Those are different values that people place on things. It could be just you want to really clear down and maybe you clear about the biggest size of the rock. Well, those are the systematic ways of approaching purchasing a gemstone. But if you're maybe looking at the aesthetics and how it is set and you can really understand the context of the diamond, that's more biblical theology. Historical peace would be, let's say, this ring may not be the prettiest one on the shelf, but it was once owned by the archduke of wherever land. Practical, you're purchasing this ring, this rock, this stone for a purpose, and hopefully it'll be to dazzle some young lady into agreeing to marry you. So there's various ways that we use different ideas to achieve an end. And they're all important, but they come together really well to show us something a little bit grander than just the individual pieces. And some of those may be more important to you at different times in your life or at different usefulness for a particular purpose. So the broad concepts that we're looking at in this covenant theology idea, what it really matters, if we had to summarize all of what we're talking about into one sentence, it's this Emmanuel principle where God says that I shall be your God and you shall be my people. So we're talking about covenant theology. We're understanding how God is doing this. All right, we've said the word covenant a bunch of times, and so let's just remind ourselves, this is O. Palmer Robertson, a lot of the material for this, the probably the great text, if you really want to do a deep dive on this will be Christ of the Covenants. And I do like to name drop because I sat next to this guy at GA once and I've actually met him. He's still with us and he's still active. Wonderful brother. And just I had to have a conversation with him. It's so wonderful to meet a saint like this and just really appreciate his love for Christ and seeing that his hand is still the plow and he's still working and doing what he can, even into his old age. But Dr. Robinson has a kind of definitive work that most Presbyterian circles will look at. So if you wanted more information on this, that'd be a place to go. He defines the covenants and there's many people who have taken a stab at having various definitions of this as a bond and blood sovereignly administered. So a bond, meaning some kind of relationship, some kind of contractual agreement, not one that is easily severed. It's not an association. It's not, oh, I know God, but we are bound to him in blood that it is very costly. And we see that in each of these covenants and each week we'll see the cost and the associated sacrifice that is required for this bond and that is sovereignly administered in each of these times. We see that it is not man who comes to God offering him a good deal, but rather it is God who condescends and comes close to us so that he establishes the relationship between us. This is never our way of making it up to God, but rather God coming down to us. Somebody once said, and I think it's a good summary, that all religions in the world are basically coming down to various means of man justifying himself to God, with the exception of Christianity, which is the story of how God justifies man to himself. And that is a unilateral and a sovereign action that he takes. And so I also made this comparison between the covenants and a wedding, because this is a covenant ceremony. Indeed, it is a bond and it is for a lifetime and it is sovereignly administered that God has established all the steps of our life and he joins together what no man is to take us under. And so as we're looking at these various covenants that we're going to come, whether they're with Adam or with Noah or with David, we see there's forms. And so if you're at a wedding, if you just walked into, let's say you're at a hotel and you accidentally stroll into a banquet room and you walked into this scene, you would immediately know, oops, I've come across a wedding. And we know it's a wedding because it looks like a wedding. The pieces are all there. We see the bride and the groom. We see everybody lined up, got the officiant. If you watch for a little while, if you weren't sure, you'd understand that there are vows being taken, that there are tokens exchanged. And so there's all of these things that we find within the covenants as we're studying that and we'll see little glimpses of it. Not every single one of the covenants we're going to look at has all of these pieces in black and white. It may not be that there is here is the token of this covenant. It won't say this is the sign that I'm giving to you to establish this covenant. But nevertheless, if we take a look, we'll see that they're often there. Not every single piece will be in every single covenant, but we can still see the commonalities between them. And I think the summary that I really appreciate about this is the symmetry of the Bible that we're seeing in it. And so this covenant with Adam, we see God interacting with the entire world and then way at the back by the consummation and the redemption of everything in the Garden of Heaven. We have the Garden of Eden in the Garden of Heaven with Noah. We see God dealing specifically with mankind and then God is working toward that end toward the finality in heaven. And so we see like the undoing of the Tower of Babel, say, in the Book of Acts at Pentecost, where God is making all one people. There's so many ways that we can link all of these things between Old Testament realities and New Testament realities. Another quote, and we'll have several of these today, is that people often refer to the Old Testament as the gospel concealed and the New Testament is the gospel revealed. So we see the ways that God is establishing this story for us and tying together these storylines to show us as we read the fullness of Scripture, there it is. There's the answer to that question. There is a call and a response. And Scripture gives us that in a way that's really beautiful. And one of the things I really love about covenant theology is it seems to not leave any loose ends. It seems to be a story that you can take the whole of Scripture and then say, ha, I see what the point of that was. And again, maybe take another example, David, the covenant with David, you see that God is now moved, focusing in on who is this king who will redeem all of us? And is David that man? No, he's not. But then Christ comes and he is the fulfillment of the Davidic king. He's the fulfillment of that promise. And so we'll sometimes see this in something we call types where we see that David is a type, a foreshadowing of some figure. But all of these promises in Scripture find their fulfillment in the person of Christ. And again, this is a picture that I added that I think Tim Challies originally published. Down on the bottom line here, we see these little white bars. And these are times that there are references within Scripture to a promise or times in the New Testament that that promise is referred to. And so if there is a text that is often cited or if there is a promise or a prefiguring of the fulfillment of Scripture, then you find the little lines going across the top, linking the Old and the New Testament. And so somebody sat out to simply visually represent the way that the Old and the New Testament have connections with each other. And this is what they ended up coming up with. And it's just an interesting side note, this person who did this kind of randomly assigned, depending on the length of time and depending on how strong the correlation was between those two pieces. You see in the color coding, there's various shades that have been and hues that are attached to it. And so kind of accidentally, the person who put this together finished it and said, well, look at that, it's a rainbow, a sign of peace that's given in the covenant to Noah. So that's just fun. As far as summary, anything so far from last week or anything that we've covered to this point, if there are questions on, I asked my wife for feedback and she said, well, you know, you asked for questions, but you really give about three seconds. So I'm trying to improve my Sunday school teaching by doing a couple of things. One is to have a little bit more space and then also not to give you guys 75 slides in 45 minutes. Thank you. Say our ring exchange, there's some kind of gift or a sign. And so the previous series we were talking about as we started this idea of in our series, it was on the attributes of God. I made the mention on one of those slides that the token is always less than the reality. And so if you say, look at your wedding ring, if you're married or kids, if you look at your mom and dad's wedding ring, it's a symbol, it's a symbol that we can see visually a representation of this is what this represents. It says, oh, I'm I'm a married person, but the symbol is always far less to those in heaven and hell. That was a series. The symbol is always far less than the reality of the thing that it's meant to represent. And so when I was saying, if we look at heaven, we've got pictures, but we don't have really the fullness. We can't understand what heaven is meant to be. But I was specifically talking about this in hell, that there are representations within fire, wailing, gnashing of teeth, annihilation and all those things we can wrap our minds around. But we can't really understand the seriousness, the gravity of what those represent, because the symbol is meant to give us a warning and a picture, but it's never as complete as the fullness of that. So in the same way that your wedding ring is not really the fullness of your wedding, not the fullness of your marriage, because that's something that can't be represented in physical, material means. In the same way, those tokens are meant to give us just a picture of, oh, this is a much bigger concept, but it's still at least some kind of visual and tangible representation of that. Oh, as far as the symbol and the sacraments, I mean, so we that's a great question. Paul's question was, you know, can I can expand upon that concept when we're talking about our view of sacraments and that we do have a physical, tangible means of having that. But at the same time, it's not the fullness of that reality. If we take baptism, we'll have a couple of infant baptisms coming up shortly. Praise the Lord for that. And so when we do a baptism, you know, Pastor Mark will say something along the lines of, you know, as surely as this water falls upon your head, so too we understand that when the Holy Spirit promises to apply that salvation to the child's life or to the adult's life, we also see that this is a this is the picture. This is a visual representation for us because we can't see the moment that somebody is saved. We can't see the moment that new life has come. But we understand through Scripture that the Spirit comes down upon that person and regenerates them. But in God's kindness, he's given us these ordinances that we are to follow, that this is a visual representation that we can tangibly feel like here's that promise. And so it's just a kindness that God has given us, that here is a visual that we have. Here's a picture that we can see right now that this is that promise that we find in Scripture and it ties us back to it. Or with the bread and wine each week, you know, you can't understand Christ's body being broken. But there is something good for us that God has ordained that we each week take and eat of his body and that each week we see Pastor Mark take that loaf and break it. Now, it's not the agony of Christ being broken on the cross on our behalf. And the wine is a little bitter. It's a little, you know, it's both a symbol in Scripture of celebration. And then also we taste its bitterness and we understand that this was the cup that he poured out on our behalf. So it reminds us of the things that we see in Scripture. It reminds us tactfully in a way that is meant to build up our faith. And it's just a gracious way that God has given to us to be reminded of those things. All right. That's right. This is why we're not taking Doritos and Mountain Dew for for the Lord's Supper, as I've heard some youth groups doing. It's a thing. Yeah, that's happened. Yeah, there's many things happening in the evangelical world. And this is why, once again, that we we trust exclusively upon God's promises and the regular principle of worship will not let you down in that direction. That's a pretty flagrant example. But, yeah, it happens. Okay. And then we also looked at our confession because Chapter seven in the Confession talks specifically about these first two covenants. And there were at least four parts that I found interesting about that that are worthwhile. So this is not from the Westminster Confession, but it's a summary idea of what we find there. And there are four parts that Chapter seven. And it begins saying that this distance between man and God is so great that man could not come to God unless God first condescended to him. And the Lord made this covenant of works with Adam, which was conditional upon his perfect obedience. We all know that Adam fell, that he and his wife broke that covenant, that they took the fruit of the garden that they were not supposed to have, and that afterwards we have the state of sin and misery. But in his grace, God still forestalls the punishment that was due them, that he would promise them and made offering of a substitute through the promise of the coming Messiah who would save all of mankind. And this covenant of grace now is the everlasting covenant through which the elect will receive their inheritance. And all of those promises that are given to us in Christ are secured for us. So we've got this covenant of works and a covenant of grace that we find in the confession. So you may be saying to yourself, wait a minute, how many? Because the confession is talking about covenant of works and covenant of grace. And if you are reading your confession faithfully and you find that you're like, great covenant theology, there's precisely two covenants. Yet on our agenda, you may be looking at our schedule and saying, wait a minute, we got this covenant with Adam and a covenant with Noah and a covenant with Abraham and a covenant with Moses. And then we got the covenant with David. And then there seems to be this new covenant with Christ. So how many covenants are there? Are there two covenants or are there six covenants? And maybe some of you are even more shrewd. So to say, like, wait a minute now, now you're playing sneaky math on me because we know that those first two covenants were both made with Adam. So you got two for Adam and then the other five. So there's seven covenants. All right, we're going to take a poll. How many say two covenants? How many say six covenants? How many say seven covenants? Some of you say yes. All right. I like it. I like it. There are three covenants. There are three covenants that we are going to take a look at and we're going to touch on all three of them today. First, we have what we refer to theologically is the pactum salutis, the eternal covenant, the pact in Latin, meaning covenant or agreement and salutis of glorification like the holy covenants. We have the covenant of life or the covenant of works. And so if you're reading something like Robertson or if you're reading another book on the covenant theology, depending on who wrote it and when they wrote it, they will use different terms. We're going to use those two things synonymously. I like covenant of works because it's a little bit more common in what we're talking about in these circles. So Adam receives this covenant of works. And then we have the covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace, as we'll often call it, which is the one made with Adam again, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and with Christ. So we can see that there are now at least three covenants. These are not the same in their importance or in their scope. And so when I'm talking about this pactum salutis, if we're going to draw a Venn diagram, there is this covenant, eternal covenant that God has made, which is apart from time, which is entirely different. So if we're talking about, say, thinking back to our course on the attributes of God, we have grander things because God is not bound by the realities of, say, time or of being a finite being. So because God is infinite, he infinitely makes this covenant. His purposes are eternal. And so then we go to the other two covenant works, covenant of grace. These are ones that operate within the bounds of time. And so we've got to do a little bit of philosophy on this because we don't necessarily find this idea of the eternal covenant or the pactum salutis within scripture exactly. So this is somewhat controversial. Some people will say, no, no, there is no eternal covenant. And the reason they would say that, because what it is, is that idea that God has eternally planned to redeem his people through a Trinitarian agreement. And this is where people have a problem with it, is the concept of a Trinitarian agreement. You may have heard of this divine economy where the father elects, the son agrees to redeem and the spirit agrees to apply. So we do find in scripture explicitly things which we would say, yes, in fact, the son does agree to have obedience to the father and he receives reward for that obedience. And so people get uncomfortable with this idea because this means that Christ is rewarded by the father and that there's some conditionality to it. But we see that this is somewhat anthropomorphic because God does not do as we do. God is not contingent. God succeeds. He is able to accomplish all because he is sovereign. We do not have that sovereignty. So we're ascribing now infinite characteristics within the Trinity to listen again. We do not want to place man's ideas upon God. We have God speak to us and then we understand who we are in relationship to him, not who he is in relationship to us. So we also do not see explicitly in scripture where you have the Holy Spirit agreeing to apply. There's not a verse that you can say. And this is where the spirit covenanted to apply the work of Christ. We see these by what we find is good and necessary consequence. And so this is where I'm saying it's a little bit more philosophy. We're doing a little bit of this. Therefore, that. But when we see in Isaiah 53, please the Lord to crush him, to redeem his people. This is an eternal plan that God has to put forth the plan of salvation for his people. In John, many places, Jesus says that he has come to do the will of his father, the Christ him in Philippians chapter 2, 5 through 11. We see the eternality of the plan of Christ to come down or redeem people to himself. And he receives the name which is above every name. So he receives that honor, receives glory. So Christ in this is getting two things. He is getting people that are redeemed to himself. He gets us. And he also receives glory from the father. And it is covenantal. If we see in Romans chapter 5, Paul is talking about the necessity of the second Adam. And so we see in terms of the covenant, Paul is commenting that if Christ is the second Adam, then the covenant promises and the covenant obligations that are imparted to Adam are also imparted to Christ. There's a symmetry between those two things. So when Paul is talking in Romans chapter 5 about Christ being the second Adam, the covenant obligations on Adam are fulfilled in Christ. And so we see, therefore, there is a covenant with God and Christ specifically. This is eternal again, Philippians 2 and or in John 638, when Jesus says that he has come down to do his father's will, the father's will, it does not develop over time. God's purposes are eternal. And so Jesus is now coming into time to do those things. Or in Ephesians chapter 3, Paul talks about we are participators, that we know this mystery that was from the beginning of the ages. So this plan that God is redeeming people to himself has been something which is eternal. So this is some of our proof ideas that support this idea that there's a eternal covenant and the objections to this. Again, this is not explicitly stated. It does not say in Genesis negative one that God before history did this thing. Some people also say, like, well, wait a minute, if there's various will here that the father has chosen to elect and now the father and the son are making an agreement to do things, doesn't that mean that they're necessarily opposed to one another within that agreement? Does it mean that there's almost a negotiation to it? We're not dividing the attributes of God. We are saying that this is God as a whole single entity making a decision. And within that, not the parts of God, but the persons of God are taking on individual aspects of it. The other thing that people get uncomfortable with this idea in the Pactum Salutis is typically that covenants are made between unequal parties and every single covenant that we see within covenant theology is God coming down and making an agreement with man. Well, this is God making an agreement with God. And so there are not unequal parties. Christ is fully God. The spirit is fully God. The father is fully God. So we just have to start with this concept that we're not dividing the essence of the Trinity and that these are not unequal parties. So every other time it's because they're unequal parties, but these are a image of what the true agreement is. The true agreement is that God, who is not divided, is equally making an agreement within himself. And all of the other examples are the exception proving the rule. OK, enough of that stuff because we have to Genesis already. So we'll start. So as a broad framework, just review that there is this eternal covenant that God has always planned to save his people. So we find in Genesis one in the beginning, God. Well, we've already gone back to doing theology forwards into the Bible. And you will remember how many times might use this picture as often as I possibly can. The pastor, Mark, is mutable, that he will not live forever. He is not infinite. He gains wisdom. Hopefully he'll gain even more strength. His goodness is not fixed. His knowledge and power is not fixed. But this is not so with the Lord. And so we're making some key inferences from scripture as soon as we've said in the beginning, God, because God was before the beginning and he is transcendent. He is all wise, all good, all knowing, all powerful, sovereign and able to do whichever he pleases. So we know that God, because he is omniscient, he knows everything that will happen. So he set the deck in Genesis to create this garden. God was not surprised by Adam falling. This is the idea that we find in the Pactum Salutis, that God, from all eternity, has already made a way that if this agreement throughout time that Christ will redeem these people, whether when Adam is made, then, yep, we know that it's going to go poorly. This is part of the plan. But God has sovereignly made a way before this is all began ahead of time. So that's where the idea of the Pactum Salutis comes. He knows that God is able to do whatever he wills. And so he chooses to make all things. We know that it's good and we can see evidence from that because each of the days of creation, he makes things and behold, it's good. And we make man. It's very good when they have marriage. And he's able to accomplish all that he wishes. So everything which has come into existence, God has brought to existence. Again, this is we see at least in the first four words, an implication, maybe an insinuation that there is this eternal covenant. So then we find ourselves beginning with these two accounts of creation. Yes, two accounts of creation, because if you read Genesis chapter one, it's almost a summary view. We see the light, sky, land, sea and plants, sun, moon and stars, the sea and everything in it with all the flying creatures and the sea creatures, then the land animals and then man. I put parenthetically because we see in chapter two, a refining of the telling of the story of making man. And what's interesting to note as we're looking at each of the creatures, that they are all made after their kind, the trees with their seed in them. The fish after their kind, the birds after their kind, the animals after their kind. The Lord takes that seventh day and rests and then we get the commentary on the making of man. In verse seven of chapter two, so man is made from the dust of the ground. Whereas everything else is spoken into existence, man is it would appear handmade by God. He's forming him and he takes him and he breathes into him the breath of life. And this is what distinguishes us from the rest of creation is that everything else is spoken and it has its life within it. But God breathes his life, his spirit into us. And man is made different. And so because of that, we are given dominion over the world because we have the breath of God in us, because we have his we are made in his image. We are different than the rest of the world. We are thinking we have moral agency. We have power to manipulate the environment. You certainly see that man is the apex of creation and that we are distinct from all of the rest of the world. And yet man is finite. He is not eternal. He is not omnipotent or omniscient. So we are a type of picture of what God is like. So then we begin into this covenant of works. So man has been made and now it is time for God to give him this covenant of works. So the covenant of works, what is that? The covenant of works is God's agreement with Adam that he would grant him eternal life on the condition of his obedience to his commands. So when Adam was formed, he does not have eternal life at this point. It was not as though if Adam stayed in the garden, that he would live forever and ever. And we'll see that at the end of chapter three, that Lord kicks him out of the garden, cast him out so that he does not eat of the tree of life and it would be eternal. But again, we see here that there is a bond in blood that is sovereignly administered. There is a bond that Adam is now in relationship with the Lord, that the condition of his obedience is a life or death decision. And Adam did not choose to be made. Adam did not choose to be placed in the garden. He did not choose to be formed from the dust of the ground. The Lord unilaterally made Adam and it was so. So Adam has the creation witness, so in Romans chapter one, verse 20, it says that we are without excuse because all of nature decries there is a God and you are not him. Adam would have seen that in perfection. He was in the garden. So in the fall in the world we see around us, we are without excuse. How much more for Adam if he was walking and talking with the garden and with the Lord in the garden? And in one twenty eight of Genesis, it says the Lord blessed him and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and of the birds of the heavens and every living thing that moves on the earth. So Adam knows God. He has interacted with him. He also knows that he is not God because everything else around him and he are there. But there's this other being God. So he can say, like, all right, I'm me. I've got the world around me and there's this guy and I'm not him. He understands that he has authority. At least he's been told to take dominion over it. The concept of authority is not something that is new to Adam. But in all of this, he is blessed. The very first thing it says is that God blessed them and then gives them a job to do. As we move forward, we see the Lord took the man and put him in the garden and eaten to work it and to keep it. And the Lord commanded the man saying, you may surely eat of the tree of every tree of the garden. But if the tree is a knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from the day you eat of it. You shall die. So even before he is specifically given this law mandate with the consequences, Adam has been given a charge to do and he has an option to either obey or disobey. So the law, even before the previous slide, I'm making the point is the law, even before this, is that you are to do something. And so your options are to do it or to not do it. And so it seems simple, but this is actually a broad, this is an enormous undertaking. It is further refined in chapter two that we see that the consequences specifically laid out. If you do not do what you are commanded to do, then you shall surely die. So notice the form that we see again and again. So we have this wedding idea that there's tokens, there's parties, promises, consequences. All of that is here. And we find this again and again in each of these covenants. So who are the parties? This is between God and Adam. Adam acting federally, both for he and his wife and all of his posterity. The promises and blessings he has given life. He's given perfect communion with the Lord. He's been given the whole earth and its fullness. So the token here that is given to him is the garden. But with the expectation that he will fulfill the entire earth and his only option here is perfect obedience. And the consequence there is death. And so we see again, here is God. And he says, I am God and you, Adam, you and your wife, you will be my people. So I shall be your God and you shall be my people. We see this manual principle even the very first. So we know that Adam falls. So now we are going to have to have a answer to the problem that has been created. So in comes the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is that arrangement whereby God plans to save man from the just consequences of his sin, namely immorality, misery, death and damnation. So it is a bond in blood, which is, again, sovereignly administered. We'll see how the Lord does that. So this is a long section, but I'm going to read it and then we're going to use a couple slides to point some things out about it. Before I keep going, covenant of works so far. Any questions? A bond is just there is some relationship, but it's a not a trivial relationship. It is a longstanding relationship, not one to be cast out like a similar concept of a bond would be like, say, adoption. Or with your own children, like a familial bond, it's not one that is just cast away. Yeah, so the bond, meaning that there's a relationship in bond and blood, meaning that it's a serious relationship, there's consequences to severing it. And then the sovereignly minister that God is the one who establishes it. All right, so three, 14 through 19, and the Lord said to the serpent, because you have done this curse, are you above all the livestock and all the beasts of the field on your belly shall go and the dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman in between your offspring and her offspring shall bruise your head. You shall bruise his heel to the woman, he said. I will surely multiply your pain and childbearing and pain. You shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. And Adam, he said, because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I have commanded you, you shall not eat of it. Cursed is the ground because of you. And in pain, you shall eat all the days of your life, thorns and thistles. It shall bring forth for you and you shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your face. You shall eat bread till till you return to the ground for out of it you were taken. And for you, for for you are the for your dust and your dust, you shall return. OK, so we're going to notice a couple of things about this. We are promised death to Adam in Genesis chapter two on the day that you shall eat of it. You're surely going to die. That does not happen. And so we see that there are promises, of course. Within God's law, however, when we actually look at chapter three, when the cursing is all about to start, the only person in Genesis chapter three who is cursed is the serpent. The Lord said to the serpent, you are cursed. And the promise here is that there will be retribution that is completely fulfilled, but it's still delayed. So we see the judgment of the Lord still delayed. And immediately upon the fall, when God comes down and lays judgment upon this, the promise of redemption is given. Now, to Adam and Eve, he starts, you know, it could be the covenant breakers, the first people, the Lord, so it's his attention to you. But rather than that, he addresses the issue of sin first. And we see here that there is a reinstatement of Adam and Eve, even within the punishment. So all of this is laid out, but there is a grace to it. So remember, in chapter one, we see Adam and Eve being given this charge to fill the earth, to do it, the cultural mandate, the dominion mandate, all of that within scripture. They search Adam's job. And upon his fall, he is given a new covenant. And this new covenant, he is once again told you are going to do actually the very same things. So Eve is told that her childbearing will be painful. This is, again, saying be fruitful and multiply. There is her charge. Once again, the concept of your desire will be contrary to your husband. This presupposes that marriage is still part of your work here on earth. The concept of dominion is at least echoed in that he shall rule over you. So rule has not gone out the window. Order has not gone out the window. Authority has not gone out the window. Authority is still in a post-fall state. And to Adam, he says, in pain you shall eat. So Adam will still be tending the ground, but it's going to be different. And so we see this reinstatement of all of these concepts that all of the things that Adam was supposed to do, you will still do them, but they're going to be more difficult because of sin. But even that, remember, these things that he was supposed to do were a blessing to him. It was gracious that the Lord gave him this work to do. He blessed them and then told them to work. Here, rather than cursing Adam and killing him that same day, he blesses him again. But his blessing is still now stained with the consequence of Adam's sin. So let's notice the forms again. Again, this is between God and Adam. And the promise here is actually we see the. The promise of the serpent being crushed. This is the proto gospel. This is the beginning, the very first mention that we see that this person, this Christ, this serpent crusher will come and death is foresold. So the promise and blessing is the very first thing that the Lord leads with. So in Genesis chapter three, you notice that the serpent is cursed and even in the cursing of the serpent, Adam is blessed and they are continually going to be doing their work and their work was a blessing. It still is a blessing, although it's going to be different now. The term now is that they must believe that God will accomplish this and the tokens that we receive of this. We see this angel is given the flaming sword to guard the garden. And then in Genesis three, 21, Adam is given the skins to wear because they realize that they are naked. And so he's given a garment to cover his nakedness. This is another picture that there will be sacrifice to cover your transgressions. He says, still, though you have sinned, I will still be your God and you shall still be my people. So again, the Lord blesses them and gives them work. And in the covenant of grace, then the Lord gave them this grace, but then still sends them out of the garden in order to do that work. So we have this idea sometimes in Christianity that the Old Testament God is the God of law and then grace is to come. Grace is always present. It's always what God leads with. And then he gives us a law that we must obey afterwards. You see this again and again, and this is just one example, just because we went through Ephesians, but notice the theme even in the New Testament and a lot of other places that grace is granted. And then what is required of us is always given afterwards. If you take the first half of Ephesians, we look at the wealth, the riches that we have in Christ. We see that we have made made accepted, made aware, made alive, brought near, made fellow heirs, given the fullness of Christ. So you're reminded of all the promises and blessings that you have. And then there's always a turn. And then the last half of Ephesians tells you what you were to do afterwards. You can see this in Galatians. You can see this in numerous other books. And this is a theme that we see again and again in scripture, that God is making us his people and he is being our God. And we're to walk in a particular way thereafter. But it's always grace first and always the law and our obligation second. And that should come out of gratitude. Adam should have obeyed the Lord in the garden out of gratitude for everything he had. But the Lord is still patient with him after that. So some questions that come up, people will sometimes ask, well, what if Adam had kept the covenant of works? Sometimes people refer to this as a probationary period, meaning that there was some other blessing that God was holding back and not giving Adam in its fullness. And I alluded to this the very first week that that actually shows up in the confession. So even before the covenant of works is initiated and this is not scripture here, this is commentary on it. But I think it's interesting that even before the covenant of works initiated, we still see the distance between God and man is too great for him to have eternal reward unless he first enters the covenant and obeys it and follows it. So we see this covenant of works as maybe that the Lord would have granted Adam some additional blessing. And so at the end of Genesis chapter three, we see the Lord then says that we must prevent him from eating of the tree of life so that he would also live forever. So Adam was not yet given eternal life, conditional upon him completing this task of what is thought of, and this is a little philosophical, as this probationary period. We do not see probationary period in black and white. But again, in Romans chapter five, we see the the work of Christ being applied to all of Adam's posterity, that there is the covenant with Adam being fulfilled in the person of Christ. And then in when Jesus is on the cross, there is a point where Jesus in his testing, in his obedience, is done. There is a period of his ministry where Jesus says he can't say it is finished if there is not a start and an end to it. It is his life and his ministry and sacrifice. So the concept of probationary period is brought on the idea that, one, Christ is the true and better Adam to come through this, and that Christ had a task to complete and he did finish it. So the idea that Adam could have received this glorification and eternal life comes from that. Somebody else might say, well, yeah, well, these these covenants, this covenants with Adam, that it's not a covenant because the word beret does not appear anywhere in the text of Genesis until it fully gets to chapter six. So since there is no word beret, the word covenant is not there anywhere in the story of Adam, then it's not a covenant. Well, to jump ahead just slightly, I don't want to steal anybody's thunder. We see there is a covenant with David that we're making reference to. And nowhere in Second Samuel is David given a covenant beret promise directly from the Lord. But later, David is referring to the promise that his agreement with the Lord shows. And it's in Psalm 89 that says, you have said, you have said, I have made a covenant with my chosen. I've sworn to David, my servant. I will establish your offspring forever to build your throne for all generations. So David tells us not directly in Second Samuel where we see the Davidic covenant explicitly laid out when we're going to study that. But David makes commentary and says that, no, this was a covenant. So just because the word covenant is not directly in Genesis one through five doesn't mean that it does not exist because we see all these types. We see the pieces and we see we recognize immediately as we walk into that hotel ballroom we're at a wedding. Or we can see the same thing actually applied to Genesis, Hosea referring the disobedience of the people of Israel makes comment and they say, like, but like Adam, they transgress the covenant. Now, you could say that Adam here is the Hebrew word for all man, but there's plenty of scholars who would actually say, no, this is referring to Adam transgressing the covenant that he had made with the Lord. So there's still some disagreement to it. But I think the preponderance of evidence would dictate that, yes, actually, it is a covenant that we find with Adam. So this is some of the common objections to the idea of there being an actual covenant with Adam. All right, we're going to run out of time shortly, but because I had a really great follow up question last week, I wanted to come this a little bit. This is a little bit on dispensational theology. And it's only the last time I could talk about this, I promise. So the covenants, I said that one of the things I love about covenant theology is it keeps the storyline and the biblical narrative going so well and that with each of these breaks, you feel like that with the covenant with Adam is one thing and we get to Noah and it's almost like we're doing an entirely separate thing within dispensational theology. Or if we see we move forward to Abraham, it's almost like it wasn't working. And then so now we've got a new law and a new thing given. And so there's these periods of time what they were referred to as dispensations where God works with people in a particular way and we get to a new dispensation and the rest of that is kind of cast off and then we're doing a different thing, whereas we would see things far more building upon each other. They have much more of a break in the way that they look at the various covenants. They would say, yeah, they're covenants, but they're more dispensations, a new administration. So we would say this is a refining and a narrowing pointing to Christ. And they would see a little bit more of, no, this is new and new and new. And the reason we get to that mostly is between the church and the people of God and the Israelites, because it seems that they still would hold to, well, when the second coming comes after the tribulation, then there's still validity to the sacrifices for the Israelites when they reinstate temple worship. And so that's key to their theology. But we don't need to go into the fullness of their eschatology today. All right, like there's one more thing about that. So if we're talking about dispensationalism, I have just a few little bits that along that line, there's more of a clean break between each of those ideas. But there's a few things, just a few things in this chart, which is from dispensational theology, not like they will hold to this exactly. But in general, the arrow that there is when you think of Christ returning, his second coming is really kind of a first kind of hidden second coming and then a real second coming. So there's the first second coming and the second second coming. And that's essential because there's the rapture of the church and then the reinstatement of the temple worship. And so this Mosaic Covenant is now no longer binding because we're in the church age. But then it picks back up again because the people of God will then reinstate temple worship. And so salvation is through faith, but also obedience, whereas we would say, no, it was always through faith entirely. And as far as the box goes, I feel like one of my personal criticisms of the dispensational theology is that Satan becomes essential to this story of salvation, where I feel like the serpent's head is crushed because the work of Christ is done. And when he says it is finished, it is truly finished. And I feel like the the rise of the Antichrist and the man of lawlessness and all of that has too much of a place in prominence in their theology. And I feel like it gives too much credit to the devil. We don't want to not give him his due, but still. And then for, yeah, we'll skip for the rest of that for the sake of time. But there's a few other little things. Yes, ma'am. It says Satan bound and that's millennium. And if you if any of you would like these slides, I will certainly email them all to you. We may actually have some of that up and I can give you some of these things. And so, yeah, the abiding nature of the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenant in dispensational theology, particularly for the Jews after the rapture, is one of those things that I find a little odd. I feel like all of those things have found their complete fulfillment in Christ and it's not worth the not worth the laboring. So. With that idea, with covenant theology, keep in mind that each of these things build upon one another. We see the same forms again and again and we see these same ideas. And so if you think back to that chart where we see that each of these is further refining our view that we're not just all of creation, but we're seeking to start answering that question that Eve must have wondered, who will be the serpent crusher? Who will be the one who redeems people to the Lord? And so the overarching concept, again, is God says, I will be your God and you shall be my people. And that is what we're looking at. We're seeing how through time in a biblical theology, God is showing that. And in preparation for next week, I would encourage you guys to read the story of Noah. Just very short. It's more like 30 verses. Read Genesis chapter six. You've got something in your mind ahead of time. Are there any questions on what I've talked about today? Absolutely. So there is a separation of God and I don't want to mitigate that in any way. But the promise was on that day you shall surely die. But I think, you know, there is that Adam could have been as soon as he sunk his teeth in that apple struck down dead. But we see again, I mean, that's I think just a good reiteration. But the Lord is kind, but he is gracious and that he didn't have to say, oh, no, Adam has eaten of his fruit. I said I was going to kill him. What am I going to do? It's not like he took time to do it. That Paxon salute is this eternal decree is that God has always planned for this and that Christ has always said, no, they will fall and I will redeem my people. And I think that gives us more of a view of God's his holiness and his goodness over time that though he is perfect, he knows that we are imperfect. And there's there's so much grace that's infused that entire thing. So, yes, Adam and Eve, 100 percent, that's orthodox to say that they suffered a spiritual death in that moment. And so there's separation from God. But they not only lost the potential to live forever, but they were made now sinful and miserable, and that is still a consequence. And they definitely died and they absolutely died. Adam did die and he did die. Yep. They're not still around. All right, looking forward to Paul getting started next week on the covenant with Noah. Father in heaven, we thank you so much for your word. We thank you for your goodness and your steadfast love to us. You are our God and indeed you have made us your people. And we are so grateful for that. Help us to worship you rightly this morning. We pray to the glory of Christ in his name. Amen. I want to let everybody know I saw you guys taking notes, taking pictures of the slides where we're trying to ramp up our technology here. So we're adding we've added the slides to YouTube. So if you go back and watch the YouTube recording, the slides should be in sync with everything. So let's get it now. Thank you, sir. I could give you the microphone. Awesome.