I recently read a great quote from A. A. Hodge on the matter:
Now, the covenant of works is so called because its condition is the condition of works; it is called also, and just as legitimately, the covenant of life, because it promises life; it is called a legal covenant, because it proceeded, of course, upon the assumption of perfect obedience, conformity in character and action to the perfect law of God. And it is no less a covenant of grace, because it was a covenant in which our heavenly Father, as a guardian of all the natural rights of his newly-created creatures, sought to provide for this race in his infinite wisdom and love and infinite grace through what we call a covenant of works. The covenant of grace is just as much and just as entire a covenant, receiving it as coming from an infinite superior to an inferior" (Popular Lectures, p. 195).I found the quote was on Doug Wilson's blog, to which he added: 'It is called a covenant of works because its condition was one of works, not because its nature was one of works. The nature was of grace -- coming as it did from God's "infinite wisdom and love and infinite grace".'
Now, it would have been an infinite loss to us, an inconceivable danger, if God had determined to keep us for ever, throughout all the unending ages of eternity, hanging thus upon the ragged edge of possible probation, and always in this unstable condition, this unstable equilibrium, able to do right, and liable also to fall; and therefore God offered to man in this gracious covenant of works an opportunity of accepting his grace and receiving his covenant gift of a confirmed, holy character, secured on the condition of personal choice (Popular Lectures, p. 197).
Thus, the covenant of works is also a covenant of grace, because God graciously added a promise to his law. Hodge refers to it as a "Covenant of Life" because the added promise is one of life. If Adam obeyed he would be graciously awarded "a confirmed, holy character."
In a similar way, the condition of the New Covenant is faith, grace is the nature of the covenant (and every covenant), while good works may be considered the fruit of the covenant.
13 comments:
Hello Matt,
Interesting post. For Hodge, if God had not added this promise, then what would have happened to Adam and Eve had they kept the law? Or, what reason would they have had for keeping the law, if the divine promise had not been given? I'm wondering whether, for Hodge, there would have been a reward for keeping the law (had there been no promise given), and whether the promise augmented that original reward.
Aquinas makes a distinction between a natural end of man, and a supernatural end of man. Both the natural end of man and the supernatural end of man, are knowing God. The natural end of man is to know God according to the natural rational ability of man (apart from grace). The supernatural end of man is to know God by participating in the divine nature, and this participation requires the gift of grace. So Aquinas thinks that God gave Adam and Eve grace initially so that they could merit this *supernatural* end. But apart from grace, the best that they could do is attain their natural end, a knowledge of God from His effects (i.e. through natural theology, philosophy).
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Hi Bryan! Thanks for your comment. I miss our Cov. Sem. discussions.
I would say that Adam already owed perfect obedience to God and so there would have been no reward unless a promise was added. The promise was admittance to the tree of life. The reward was later denied to him.
Gen 3:22 -- Then the LORD God said,(W) "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever"
Had there been no promise added to the law then I suppose obedience would have been its own reward.
Regarding Aquinas, God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden and spoke his Word to them. This is a supernatural grace, and without it they would have only know God by his effects, as you say. It seems that for Aquinas, whom I greatly respect, grace like is like an infused substance, rather than like God speaking and walking. Am I right? I would say that grace is not a substance that can be channeled or infused but primarily a relational gift.
Aside from that, given the fall, I think it's safe to say that God did not give them a supernatural grace or ability to merit the tree of life or persevere through the serpent's temptation. Luther said simply that God withdrew from them and they fell. In the Enchiridion Augustine said that God willed to permit the fall.
What do you think?
Yours, matt
Matt,
Are you saying Adam and Eve pre-fall had no access to the Tree of Life?
Chris
Good question Chris. God only forbade them from eating from the tree of knowledge. He banished them from the tree of life after the fall b/c they might eat it and live forever. If the promised reward was a confirmed state of holiness it seems tied to the tree of life. Doesn't it?
If so, perhaps God kept them from the tree until after the probationary period. If the met the condition they would eat and live forever, otherwise they would be banished.
Can we say the tree of knowledge was forbidden and the text implies that the tree of life was a reward?
I think that they were to eat of the tree of life pre-fall. It was never forbidden for them to eat. 2:16 says they could eat from every tree except one. Adam would continue to eat of the tree of life to show his belief in his need for God's provision. To eat of it, was to live in and by God's provision. It was a "sacrament" of the Adamic covenant.
I also think that they were eventually going to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the text says that the trees in the garden were good for food (2:9). Eating of this tree would have confirmed them in holiness.
Chris
Hey Matt, can you explain further the essential difference between having a "condition of works" and a "nature of works"? Are we too under the 'condition of works'?
-Michael
Is the nature of grace unconditional - e.g. unconditional love and merit while the condition of works "conditional" in the sense being a required outworking as a member of the covenant - and if the fruit doesn't exist, the covenant is broken by the one who has failed to labor in it?
Maikel
I like your scenario Chris, but 3:22 makes it sounds like the tree of life would have made them live forever. Now that they were fallen God protected them from being confirmed in a state of sin. Doesn't this mean that the tree has a permanent effect on the one who eats? God told them they could eat of any tree but one, but they must not have eaten from the tree of life yet or they would have already been confirmed in life.
Or can we say that God protected them from the perpetual sacrament of the tree of life. We know that partaking of sacraments in an unworthy manner has terrible consequences. So was God protecting them from a sacrament that would keep them alive in a state of sin forever?
Regarding Michael's perceptive comment, the "condition of works" means that the gracious promise of life was theirs "if" the obeyed God. I must confess that I cannot conjure up a clear picture of a covenant whose nature is one of works. I think that covenants established by God must be necessarily of grace.
The closest I can come right now to imagining a "nature of works" would be if Adam's relationship to God would be based on law without promise or special revelation. Perhaps Adam would obey and have a natural knowledge of God through his effects as Bryan pointed out with Aquinas. Perhaps Adam would earn a increasing natural knowledge of God and avoid judgement through unaided human effort. Pelagius on steroids?
I think the "nature of a covenant" refers to its formal cause. The Adamic covenant "is" a gracious promise of life conditioned on obedience. In the suzerain-vassal treaty obedience to the suzerain would be part of the stipulations, while the promise of the suzerain to protect and provide or punish would belong to the blessings and curses.
The Adamic covenant was gracious b/c Adam already owed God perfect obedience. God gave him unmerited favor by adding the promise of life to what Adam was already obligated to do.
Before the fall, I would distinguish grace and mercy. Before the fall, grace is favor that Adam cannot merit without a promise above and beyond the law. After the fall, grace takes the form of mercy. Before the fall grace is favor that we don't deserve, after the fall grace is favor when we actually deserve the opposite.
Matt,
I suppose I am making a distinction between being confirmed in the initial life and being confirmed in a more mature life. Had Adam eaten of the Tree of Life he would have been confirmed in the initial phase. But, it seems based on later Biblical evidence, that Adam would have, with God's permission, eaten from the Tree of the K of G and E.
Chris
Very interesting Chris. Obedience would have confirmed them in the covenant of life, and the sacraments would do what sacraments are supposed to do--bring them life-giving grace.
Matt,
Thanks for your answer. I think your comment about obedience being its own reward in that case answers my question, and it is similar to Aquinas's answer.
Aquinas does not think that grace is a substance. He taught that the term grace has three senses: favor, gift, and gratitude. The 'gift' sense of grace refers to what is given to us, in our souls, so that we may participate in the divine nature. It is not a substance, he says, but a quality. Perhaps an example would be an infused ability to perceive what you could not naturally see. Without that grace, our nature is not proportioned to God so as to participate in the divine nature. So, for Aquinas, this infused grace in the soul is what allowed Adam and Eve to have friendship with God, and enjoy His fellowship in the garden. For Aquinas, this grace (called "sanctifying grace") did not restrict or inhibit their free will. So they were still able to choose for God or against God, even while being in a state of grace. And, as we know, they chose wrongly, and lost grace.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Thanks for the clarification on Aquinas Bryan. Is the whole thing about grace being a substance a Protestant caricature? Did any Catholic theologian posit this?
When you say that sanctifying grace did not inhibit free will do you mean only natural freedom or also the ability of the will to incline itself equally to the good and to evil?
Would it be safe to say that God withdrew or never granted persevering grace to Adam? God did not choose to sustain Adam in a state of grace, and so Adam freely chose to sin in the sense of natural or voluntary freedom.
Given the sinless state and God's presence, how was the fall possible? We assume that a sinful desire must come from a sinful nature, but if sin is a perversion of the good then why can't Adam's desire for the good simply be out of whack?
Anything less than God can fall if God should will it. It doesn't take sin to beget sin, just finitude, right? Augustine said in the Enchiridion that God willed the fall. Does Aquinas speak to this?
Post a Comment