CHAPTER 1
ADAM AND ISRAEL
The church has always struggled to avoid, on the one hand, a Marcionite temptation to pit the God of redemption and grace against the God of creation and law and, on the other hand, a tendency to assimilate the gospel to the law. Church fathers like Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Augustine refer explicitly to the covenant with Adam and the Sinai covenant as law-covenants distinguished from the covenant of grace.1
Similarly, elaborating the law-gospel distinction, the Reformed tradition developed a covenant theology that distinguished between the conditional covenants sworn by the people (Adam and Israel) and the unconditional oath sworn by God (the protoeuangelion of Genesis 3:15 and the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants). The mediatorial work of Christ is construed in this light: Jesus is the Last Adam, who by his active obedience fulfilled the covenant and won for his coheirs the right to eat from the Tree of Life. Thus the Sinai covenant was the script for a geopolitical and typological theocracy analogous to Hamletâs play-within-a-play, recapitulating Adamâs original vocation. And âlike Adam, they broke the covenantâ (Hos 6:7). Nevertheless, the evangelical promise remained all along the basis for redemption from the curse of sin and death.
This narrative is not only exegetically demonstrable but also provides the best doctrinal coordinates for atonement and justification. The law at the heart of creation was not circumvented but satisfied by the self-offering of the incarnate Son. I make this case by attending, first, to the relation of Israel to Adam and, second, to the relationship of Sinai to Zion. There has been a happy renaissance of interest in the Bibleâs covenant theology over the last half-century, but questions hinge on the type of covenant theology we find there.
But first, allow me to sketch an outline and genealogy of monocovenantalismâthat is, the widespread tendency to reduce diverse covenants to a single type. No less than in modern dogmatics has biblical scholarship been given to a priori dogmas driving exegesis. Just as the biblical phrase âthe righteousness of Godâ has come to be construed even lexically as a purely positive concept (e.g., deliverance, deliverdict, rectification, etc.),2 there is an a priori assumption among many biblical scholars and theologians that âcovenantâ is an inherently gracious concept.3
At one end of this spectrum is the tendency to assimilate the gospel to the law. The one relationship with God is considered basically nomistic but modified in a gracious direction by being covenantal.4 E. P. Sanders insists that the one covenant is gracious because all along Israel âgets inâ by grace; God even provides all sorts of ways for them to âstay inâ by grace-assisted obedience. Sandersâs own citations (e.g., of election conditioned on foreseen merits) call into question even this gracious âgetting in.â5 In any case, Sanders recognizes that Paul does not agree with this position, but instead of seeing Paul as carrying forward the longing for a new and better covenant in the Hebrew prophets themselves, he treats the apostle as an innovator: âPaul in fact explicitly denies that the Jewish covenant can be effective for salvation, thus consciously denying the basis of Judaism. Circumcision without complete obedience is worthless or worse (Rom. 2.25â3.2; Gal. 3.10).â6 Sanders concludes, âPaulâs view could hardly be maintained, and it was not maintained. Christianity rapidly became a new covenantal nomism, but Paulinism is not thereby proved inferior or superior.â7
James Dunn demurs from Sandersâs stark contrast, focusing on a more restricted scope for Paulâs polemic: the ethnic exclusion of gentiles from the covenant community.8 In fact, from Sandersâs description of Second Temple Judaism, Dunn goes as far as to conclude (beyond Sanders himself) that â âcovenantal nomismâ can now be seen to preach good Protestant doctrine: that grace is always prior; that human effort is ever the response to divine initiative; that good works are the fruit and not the root of salvation.â9 Similarly, Walter Brueggemann: âThus I suggest that E. P. Sandersâs term covenantal nomism is about right, because it subsumes law (nomos) under the rubric of covenant. . . . By inference, I suggest that grace must also be subsumed under covenant.â10 N. T. Wright notes in Climax of the Covenant, âThe overall title reflects my growing conviction that covenant theology is one of the main clues, usually neglected, for understanding Paul,â11 and since writing that, he has developed this motif with profound insight. Nevertheless, especially in his recent study of the atonement (The Day the Revolution Began), he also sees the various biblical covenants as the outworking of an original âcovenant of vocationâ given to Adam and Eveâa commission to rule and subdue, bringing reality under the lordship of Yahweh.12
At the other end of the monocovenantal spectrum is the biblical-theological program rooted in Karl Barth and carried forward by Ernst KĂ€semann, J. Louis Martyn, Richard Hays, and Douglas Campbell. Here, the law is assimilated to the gospel. There is one covenant of grace that is synonymous with the eternal election of Christ and, with him, all of humanity. There can never be a reciprocal relationship with God, Barth insists.13 Appealing to Barth (CD IV/1, 57), Campbell insists that âGodâs relationship with humanity is fundamentally unconditional and benevolent. In more biblical parlance, it is covenantal. In theological or dogmatic terms, it is elective, in the sense especially that Barth recovered so insightfully.â14 Thus, âcovenantalâ equals âunconditionally gracious,â because of universal election. Accordingly, âGod does not conditionally act toward humanity at all.â15 Thus, the traditional Reformed distinction between a covenant of law (or works) and a covenant of grace represents a âcontractualâ system, he insists.16 Campbell insists therefore that Sandersâs âcovenantal nomismâ is just as dangerous as âlegalism.â17 âNo strings attachedâ is probably not the first impression that Deuteronomy 28 has on a casual reader. However, like Picassoâs retort to critics who said that his portrait of Gertrude Stein did not bear her likeness, the monocovenantalist replies, âNo matter, she will.â
THE COVENANT OF CREATION
In order to demonstrate the distinctive character of the original covenant, I begin by highlighting its elements. It was (a) based on law (with the act-consequence connection), (b) federal or representative of all humanity âin Adam,â (c) with the reward of confirmation in everlasting life, immortality, and righteousness.
According to the founding narrative of the Hebrew scriptures, humanityârepresented by Adamâcame into being as an image-son of the Creator Yahweh, an image that he shared with his partner, Eve.18 The Westminster Confession summarizes succinctly, âThe 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.â19 Reformed theologians have also designated this the covenant of creation, of law and of life.
Although the word
(
berith) never appears in Genesis 1â3, it is hard to think that Israel could have even imagined a relationship with God on the part of a creature that was
not covenantal. Walther Eichrodt observes, âEven where the covenant is not explicitly mentioned the spiritual premises of a covenant relationship with God are manifestly present.â
20 In addition to a preamble and historical prologue identifying the suzerain and his just claim, the text features a stipulation with a sanction: everlasting life for obedience and death for disobedience, as well as the sacramental tree of life standing as a reward for faithful fulfillment of the divine commission.
21 First, the basis of this covenant was law rather than grace. Given the integrity of human nature as created by God, it is not surprising that grace and mercy do not enter the picture until the promise in Genesis 3:15. Assuming that law is the opposite of love, our modern culture finds it difficult to comprehend the integral relationship of law and love in ancient Near Eastern societies. In the Bible, Godâs moral law merely stipulates what love looks like in concrete relationships. The suzerain is represented as a shepherd, father, guardian, and benefactor of the people. Nevertheless, the relationship is conditional, with the vassal swearing fealty and assuming the responsibility for carrying out the covenantâs sanctions upon the penalty of death for treason against the suzerainâs love, wealth, and protection. The conviction that law merely stipulates the concrete rule of love is stated explicitly in Deuteronomy 6:5 (cf. 10:12) and of course by Jesus in his famous summary of the law (Matt 22:38; cf. 1 John 4:21). As Max Stackhouse has observed, âThe sociotheological idea of covenant is so rich with ethical content that it gives moral meaning to all it touches.â22 If the fall had never occurred, the relation of humanity to God, to each other, and to their fellow creatures would have been a symphony of love with each member playing his or her role in the orchestra.
The name given in biblical scholarship to this original constitution is the act-consequence connection.23 While the gospel is a surprising and foreign announcement, this law of creation is so woven into the human consciousness that no concept is more universally recognized in the worldâs wisdom literatures.24 It is the law of reaping what you sow, the Stoic idea of going with the grain of nature, of karma and samsara, getting back what you dish out. This principle dominates Israelâs horizon, provoking some of the most fascinating theodicy literature in the Hebrew Bible, such as Asaphâs wrestling with the prosperity of the wicked in Psalm 73 and the book of Job. The disciples assumed the principle when they asked Jesus whether a man was blind from birth because of his sin or that of his parents (John 9:2â3). Not all sickness, disease and natural disasters were signs of Godâs displeasure, but God sent them episodically (and restricted to certain people, places, and things) as a foretaste of the waste that would come upon the nation as a whole if God judged the covenant to be thoroughly violated. It was through this prism of the act-consequence connection at the heart of the Sinai pact that Israel interpreted the story of Adam.
Second, the Scriptures represent this original coven...