A Covenant in the Garden?

He goes on to concede that the ‘reward’ part of it isn’t really exactly there in Genesis. So you have…

• not called a covenant
• only sort of has some of the characteristics of a covenant

Add to that: why? Why is it so important to call the arrangement a covenant of works? What’s wrong with “God said don’t and they did”?

It’s also missing the essential element of an oath, but don’t let that stop you if you really want to have a covenant in the garden.

“Believe on Christ and you will be saved” is a covenant of faith.

Uh, sure. Because he says so?

I have read many attempts to locate a covenant of some sort (there’s three options) in the early chapters of Genesis and have never found a convincing case made. This one is far from convincing. In order to find a covenant here the whole notion of covenant has to be downplayed.

[Paul Henebury]

I have read many attempts to locate a covenant of some sort (there’s three options) in the early chapters of Genesis and have never found a convincing case made. This one is far from convincing. In order to find a covenant here the whole notion of covenant has to be downplayed.

Would Hosea 6:7 change your mind?, “But they, like Adam, have violated the covenant; there they have betrayed me”

I have written this previuosly:

this belief in a pre-Noahic covenant just might be supplemented by Hosea 6, but the all-important substance of that “covenant” remains anyone’s guess. Attempts to designate Genesis 2:16 as the oath are exegetically specious. All one can properly bring out of the text is what is there: a prohibition and a dire warning. That is all. So one is left with a vacuous covenant with no identifiable solemn oath: rich pickings for a theologically charged imagination! As for Hosea 6:7, although studies by Warfield and others lend support to the notion of a covenant allusion, too many problems and unanswered questions plague the suggestion. The immediate context favors a location “Adam” (Tell ed-Damiyeh?) rather than the first man. Concerning identifying the text’s adam with the person Adam, McKenzie comments: modern scholars are nearly unanimous in rejecting this understanding. For one thing, there is no mention anywhere else in the Bible, including Genesis 2-3, of a covenant between God and Adam… Furthermore, the word “there” in the second line of the verse suggests that Adam may be a place name, and this possibility is strengthened by the places mentioned in subsequent verses – Gilead (v.8) and Shechem (v.9).
Ernest Nicholson is of much the same opinion. Garrett thinks there is a deliberate wordplay between the man Adam and the place of transgression, the town of Adam in the area of Gilead. What should be stressed is the fact that even if the case for the historical Adam were in the future universally accepted, we would still be none the wiser as to what the covenant actually entailed. We would certainly not be constrained to embrace a “covenant of works,” a “covenant of grace,” a “creation covenant,” etc., on such flimsy internal evidence. While not everyone will agree with my conclusions, and while respect is owed to those whose opinions differ, I believe the arguments for a covenant prior to the Noahic covenant fall short of being convincing and rely upon inferences brought to the text. More important is the glaring fact that there is just not enough scriptural data to provide content for these putative covenants. Personally, I could wish that I could confidently detect a true covenant in Genesis 1, or Genesis 1 - 2, or Genesis 2 – 3. I am, after all, attempting to show that the biblical covenants contain both the telos and the eschatos of the Creation Project as set out in the pages of Scripture. It would serve my position. But I fear that any attempt to ground my scheme upon a covenant without an oath would be to make it, in fact, groundless.

The translation “Adam” is disputed and, if accepted, the designation for “Adam” is also disputed, the place rather than the person being preferable.

[Paul Henebury]

I have written this previuosly:

this belief in a pre-Noahic covenant just might be supplemented by Hosea 6, but the all-important substance of that “covenant” remains anyone’s guess. Attempts to designate Genesis 2:16 as the oath are exegetically specious. All one can properly bring out of the text is what is there: a prohibition and a dire warning. That is all. So one is left with a vacuous covenant with no identifiable solemn oath: rich pickings for a theologically charged imagination! As for Hosea 6:7, although studies by Warfield and others lend support to the notion of a covenant allusion, too many problems and unanswered questions plague the suggestion. The immediate context favors a location “Adam” (Tell ed-Damiyeh?) rather than the first man. Concerning identifying the text’s adam with the person Adam, McKenzie comments: modern scholars are nearly unanimous in rejecting this understanding. For one thing, there is no mention anywhere else in the Bible, including Genesis 2-3, of a covenant between God and Adam… Furthermore, the word “there” in the second line of the verse suggests that Adam may be a place name, and this possibility is strengthened by the places mentioned in subsequent verses – Gilead (v.8) and Shechem (v.9).
Ernest Nicholson is of much the same opinion. Garrett thinks there is a deliberate wordplay between the man Adam and the place of transgression, the town of Adam in the area of Gilead. What should be stressed is the fact that even if the case for the historical Adam were in the future universally accepted, we would still be none the wiser as to what the covenant actually entailed. We would certainly not be constrained to embrace a “covenant of works,” a “covenant of grace,” a “creation covenant,” etc., on such flimsy internal evidence. While not everyone will agree with my conclusions, and while respect is owed to those whose opinions differ, I believe the arguments for a covenant prior to the Noahic covenant fall short of being convincing and rely upon inferences brought to the text. More important is the glaring fact that there is just not enough scriptural data to provide content for these putative covenants. Personally, I could wish that I could confidently detect a true covenant in Genesis 1, or Genesis 1 - 2, or Genesis 2 – 3. I am, after all, attempting to show that the biblical covenants contain both the telos and the eschatos of the Creation Project as set out in the pages of Scripture. It would serve my position. But I fear that any attempt to ground my scheme upon a covenant without an oath would be to make it, in fact, groundless.

The translation “Adam” is disputed and, if accepted, the designation for “Adam” is also disputed, the place rather than the person being preferable.

Helpful thanks!