What is the Edenic covenant?

But thus far we have found — that the statement as to Adam, that he was put under the terms "Do this and live," is not found in scripture; but that, on the contrary, he was set in a quite different condition, and on other terms. It is a subversion of scripture instruction to place him under the law as subsequently given. He was under a covenant; but, as living, threatened with falling under the power of death. We have found that Abraham, the next remarkable dealing and revelation of God, was not placed under any law at all as the ground of righteousness — he was justified by faith; and that the promise was given to him without any condition whatever, and that that promise was not of life, but of the Seed, Christ. These cases shew that this general putting under law, from Adam onwards, is an effacing of the clear positive instruction of scripture as to the various positions in which men were set. The notion that the law was written in Adam's heart is equally unfounded. He had not yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil necessary to the application of the law, and it is yet more evident, for he had another formal law to test obedience; and, certainly, that was not written on his heart.

But I will notice one point which I do not see how any intelligent Christian could accept: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." Again, "God gave to Adam a law, a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments and written on two tables." All this is a fable and a mischievous fable. And I notice it because it is the foundation of the whole religious system to which it belongs.

346 Where is a trace of promise of life to Adam and his posterity if they exactly kept the law? It is a pure invention, falsifying Adam's real position and relationship with God in order to propitiate the law of the ten commandments. There is not a tittle of scripture for it. Adam, having life, was tested by a positive wellknown commandment of not eating the forbidden fruit; and the perfectness of this consisted in the point that there was no intrinsic moral question in it. It was a test of simple obedience to a sinless being with a threat of death (for life he had). A promise of life to Adam on keeping a moral law, which supposed the knowledge of good and evil, is a mischievous fable, and denies the whole position of Adam who was innocent. There would have been no harm in eating that fruit more than another, unless it had been forbidden. And, as I have said, this test of obedience was the only true one for an innocent being, not, as is alleged, a righteous and holy one (both which terms suppose the knowledge of good and evil, delighting in one and abhorring the other). Adam acquired the knowledge of good and evil by his disobedience: "The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil." But this by the by. What I insist on is, there was no promise of life, which supposed he had it not; but a threat of death, which supposed him to be alive, but alive innocent with no knowledge of good and evil.

Adam had a double rule of life. He was set in blessing, with a nature suited to it, to dress and keep the garden, and manifest his thankfulness to Him who set him there. The breath of life breathed into his nostrils would naturally have gone up in praise to Him who had breathed it into him. He would have enjoyed with thankfulness the blessings in the midst of which he was placed, and have been the affectionate centre of those placed around him, the kind and good head of a subject world. His nature, though our data be small, would have loved and acted suitably in the place of blessing. We can see, from the circumstances of the discovery of his fall, that intercourse with God according to His good pleasure would have been his portion.

But another principle also appears. The condition of the continued enjoyment of this was attached to obedience, and death threatened. Not only was obedience claimed, besides worship and enjoyment and rule, but the threat of death on disobedience was added. He was placed in Paradise to enjoy and manifest the blessing of Him who had conferred it. He was placed under law; not a law supposing lust or sin, but a test of obedience, and the sanction of the threatened consequence of death on its breach.

As we close Genesis 2 we have Adam the Divine representative holding dominion over the earthly creation and Eve his helpmeet associated with him. Yet he was under law, a law of but one commandment, and therefore he stood before God on the ground of his own responsibility. Obedient, he abode in Divine favour and maintained his position. If disobedient he was surely to die.

I affirm then that, when God thus made man, when He put him in Eden, the actual test was the interdict not of a thing which was in itself evil, but simply and prescriptively wrong for man because God had forbidden it. Such is the very essence of a test for an innocent man. In fact any other thought (such as the law) is not only contrary to scripture, but when you closely and seriously think of it as a believer, it will be seen to be an impossible state of things then. Consequently a moral test such as the wise and prudent would introduce here, and count a worthier reason why there should be so vast a ruin for the world ensuing, is out of the question. No, it was the simple question whether God was really Jehovah-Elohim, whether He was a moral governor or not, whether man was to be independent of God or not. This was decided not by some grave and mighty matter, of which man could reason and see the consequences, but simply by doing or not doing the will of God. Thus we see how the simple truth is after all the deepest wisdom.

Genesis 2:15, etc. It was from God that the man had received his being, and it was by Him that he was placed in the garden prepared for him — placed there, not to be inactive, but "to dress it and to keep it." How absolute were God's rights over the creature that He had formed! All Adam's rights, as regarded the garden, the earth, and the various tribes of inferior creatures, flowed from the sovereign appointment of Him, whose, equally with Adam himself, they all were. How fitting that there be some test of whether Adam recognised these rights of His Creator: and if there were to be a test, how could there have been one easier or more favourable to man? In Genesis 2:16-17, observe, 1, God's authority — He "commanded the man;" 2, His bounty — "Of every tree," etc.; 3, His prohibition — "Thou shalt not;" 4, His threatening — "In the day," etc. Man is thus fully set in responsibility before that woman is created. She was to share the responsibility with him.

But as this is of fundamental importance, we will look a little more closely into it, and in point of fact the whole question will be found to turn on this, whether I am "in Christ," or "in the flesh." If in the flesh under law, I am condemned: if in Christ, then He is my righteousness, and my life, and my example. I have not lost my responsibility; but it is after a new order. For "law" is not identical with "responsibility." Law is a pressure on an unrighteous man (1 Tim. 1:9), to restrict lust: it is the perfect measure of what the creature ought to be; condemning him if he does not come up to the mark. Responsibility and moral obligation to God is the due relationship of the creature, man, in every condition to God as sovereign and supreme. Responsibility never ceases from Gen. 2 to Rev. 22. But the law is limited of necessity to the trial of fallen man, (Gal. 3:19), and to man in his fallen state ( 1 Tim. 1:9). It was not in Eden, though responsibility to obedience was there: hence it is written, "The Lord God commanded the man" (Gen. 2:16). But this commandment was not a prohibition against what was in itself wrong, as "Thou shalt do no murder," but a simple test of obedience. It is commonly said he was put under the law, and it is even tried to be shown how he broke all the commandments, but it is mere nonsense — the warping of the mind by tradition, to suppose, for example, that he could be told not to covet his neighbour's wife! He was under responsibility to obey God, and failed in it, and with his sin got the knowledge of good and evil; and thus being turned out of the garden, was without law (anomos) (Rom. 2:12-15), and his posterity, though not without responsibility, having a knowledge of good and evil, and the work of the law written on their hearts, their consciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them.

The idea of the Covenant of Works is drawn from Hosea 6:7. Romans 5:14 is taken as referring to this verse. The marginal reading states: ‘They like Adam have transgressed the covenant' . However, a wrong inference is drawn from it. Adam was given a prohibition or set a boundary that he was forbidden to cross. It need not imply a covenant as such. Even so, death as the penalty was made clear to him should he disobey. In overstepping the limitation, he transgressed. Adam, therefore, had a law . The question also needed to be asked as regards the reference to Hosea 6:7 is, Who are ‘they'? In the context, ‘they' are the nation of Israel. Israel as a nation had similarly transgressed. This was the law given by God through Moses. The covenant mentioned in Hosea 6, therefore, is not some inferred covenant that God made with Adam on behalf of his posterity, but, rather, His covenant with Israel.

There are really but two covenants in Scripture ― the old covenant and the new. Still the word covenant is used in several places in connection with the Lord, when it is but the enunciation of certain relationships into which He was pleased to enter with man or the creature (Gen. 9:8-17, etc), or by which He should be approached by man, but without conditions. The context must decide the sense.