From the interesting report of our delegates to the URC Synod 2014 I understand that this Synod held a "colloquium" (a learned conversation) about the coven­ant of works and the covenant of grace. Special time was set aside for this colloquium and special guests were parachuted in to Synod. In the end everyone agreed that we cannot in any way be saved by our works. Salvation is always out of grace through faith. Excellent.

How did the matter ever come up at this URC syn­od? This happened because some URC delegates were not sure about the Canadian Reformed view on the covenant. Perhaps some erroneously thought that the Canadian Re­formed Churches allowed for a covenant by which mankind could achieve salvation. Then the principle of sola gratia (only by grace) would be lost.

I also understand that the URC members wanted to preserve the concept of a covenant of works. It goes like this: before the fall man was called to work and so to merit eternal glory. This was called the covenant of works. But after the fall into sin, there was only the way of faith and grace. This is called "the covenant of grace." The covenant of works disappeared. Well, not quite.

The key of the matter is apparently that there had to be a covenant of works before the fall or Christ could not have fulfilled it. Because Christ was obedient and fulfilled the covenant of works, we may now be taken up in a second covenant, called the covenant of grace. To suggest that there was no covenant of works would be to demean the saving work of Christ.

Covenant of Works?⤒🔗

The last thing I would ever want to do is demean the work of our Lord and Saviour. At the same time I ask where the scriptural and confessional basis is for a covenant of works before the fall into sin. Fair question, right? It is deduced from the text, but not implied in the text. You will not find the expression in the Scriptures or in the (continental) Reformed confessions. When a covenant is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments it is the Mosaic covenant based on the law revealed at Sinai. This is the covenant of works which condemns us because we cannot keep it. This is the covenant fulfilled by Christ so that we no longer under works but under grace (Rom 6:14). Good works never served to merit eternal life; only Christ gives this life by his righteousness and holiness. Therefore the Scripture states, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works so that no one can boast." (Eph 2:8, 9)

I want to add to this the observation that even before the fall the Lord Jesus was chosen as our Mediator. We also read in the Scrip­tures that our Lord "was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for our sake" (1 Pet 1:20). Is anybody still prelapsarian? Let's not even go there, but I still have the question: where do we read that before the fall ("prelapsus") man could earn salva­tion? Is there really biblical data that demands belief in a time of testing before the fall? How long was this testing supposed to last? Did God place man in Eden so that he might prove himself worthy of his calling or position?

Garden of Eden←⤒🔗

God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In this gar­den Adam and Eve were fully sustained as God's children. The Lord gave them food and drink in abundance. They were allowed to eat freely of the tree of life, and from all trees really. The only limitation was that they would not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Adam was to "work the Garden and take care of it." This was the work to which he and his wife were called. We do not read that eternal life would only be given upon obedience. They could already eat of the tree of life. This blessing and privilege was explicitly taken away after the fall into sin.

Let us linger here a moment. We do not know the ex­tent of the verbs "to work (the Garden) and to take care of it" (Gen 2:15). This "work" does not mean intensive, back-breaking labour. This can also not be used as a pas­sage to undergird a "covenant of works." The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve would have merited (eternal) life by their works. The Lord does say that if they ate from the tree of knowledge and evil they would surely die. This means that there is only one obligation in this relationship, namely that Adam and Eve recognize the Lord God as Sovereign. This was said at the very begin­ning of the relationship: "When you eat of it you will surely die."

To "work" the garden means to make it even more beautiful, to cultivate it and promote in it God's glory. This "work" is not heavy labour but an enjoyable task in which Adam and Eve could serve God. Sometimes we think that Adam and Eve had nothing to do in the Garden except eat fruit. But they were not fruitcakes. In reality they were using their gifts to make the Garden even more pleasing than it already was. God would proudly observe their efforts and would come into the garden to speak with them, also about their work. He loved their work.

In the original language the verb "to take care" is literally "to guard" (Hebrew SMR). Why post a watch or issue a command to stand on guard, if there is no dan­ger? So there was danger. Adam and Eve were to keep this garden from evil. Does it go too far if I suggest that the LORD informed Adam and Eve about the sad events that led to the dragon being thrown to earth (Rev 12)? It would be strange to post a watch and not tell him about the enemy who would surely come. I do not think that Adam and Eve were people who had no clue as to what they were facing. God does not keep his children clueless.

To say it succinctly, Adam and Eve were given end­less abundance so that God would receive constant obedience. This is the essence of a covenant: I give you all, you give me all. As in every covenant, the coven­ant-maker sets the rules and the covenant-keeper accepts those rules. It remains a covenant through the ages that follow. This is how God wished to live with his children.

Why would God ever enter into such a relationship with Adam and Eve? Because he loved them, as the work of his hands. God made them so that they would live for him. There is no other reason why God would give such blessings to a man and woman. God alone made this covenant and he also safeguarded it. It was made to last as an eternal covenant.

Let us take this one step farther. There is an eter­nal covenant of love. That is why it was safeguarded in Christ before the creation of the world. I do not read any­where about a covenant of works. Christ did not become our Saviour after and because we broke the covenant of works. We broke the covenant of love and Christ immedi­ately was proclaimed as a Lamb without blemish or de­fect (1 Pet 1:19). I think we see the extent of our deprav­ity clearer when we realize that sin is a breaking of the one covenant of love.

Westminster Standards←⤒🔗

Is there any place where a covenant of works is men­tioned? Well, yes, you can find it in Chapter VII of the Westminster Standards.

There we read,

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.

We also read,

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace, wherein he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ...

So, first, there is a covenant of works before the fall by which man could merit life, and second, there is a covenant of grace after the fall wherein God freely offers life and salvation in Jesus Christ. Sounds good. But we do not find anywhere in Scripture the evidence for this first covenant, a covenant of works. It almost sounds as if God kept a second option at hand, to use if the first covenant did not work out.

The Canadian Reformed Churches called this approach to the covenant a "divergence" which needed further dis­cussion, but they did not intimate that the Westminster Standards were in error. Let me quote from the report to the Canadian Reformed Synod of Burlington 1986,

Al­though in this respect continued discussion is desirable since weaknesses and imperfections in the Westminster Standards could benefit from careful emendation, the divergency (sic) now discussed was not an impediment to recognize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as a true Church of the Lord Jesus ChristActs, p. 146

Sometimes I tremble at the gall which our synods showed when they dared to speak of weaknesses and im­perfections in the Westminster Standards. But really, this did not hinder the Canadian Reformed Churches to accept the OPC as sister church. We cannot allow for errors, but we can live with weaknesses. We all have our own his­tory and formulations which may be discussed, but this should be done within the existing bond of fellowship as sister churches.

Who Cares?←⤒🔗

Is this matter really important? I would have let the matter rest. Sometimes doctrinal matters are made too complex. But apparently it is important enough to have a colloquium on it at a general synod. I have never heard of such a colloquium being held at one of our synods. But there is something more precious at stake. God loves us as a father loves his children. He has entered into a relationship with us which was made secure in Christ even before we were created. The striving of our life must be that we respond to this love, find joy in this wondrous re­lationship, and walk in good works which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph 2: 10). There is one covenant and it is God's covenant of love. I wrote a book a while back dealing extensively with this topic. Probably never made it to any synod.

Believers and their Seed←⤒🔗

Some have said that God's covenant is made only with the elect. Wrong. The covenant of love is made with believers and their seed and it sometimes becomes clear that not all who are of Israel are truly Israel (Rom 9:6). Still, upon all covenant children there lies an obligation to love God and serve him. Regeneration and faith are required not as conditions but as obligations. Noblesse oblige, as we sometimes say.

People sometimes think that they have the right to break with God and his church. Or to keep it in terms of God's covenant: I never asked for this covenant and so I don't really want it. Someone even added: I never asked to be baptized, either. Or I hear that someone says, "Well, I did made public profession faith, but I didn't mean it. I did it because it was expected." Sounds tough and hon­est, but I find it rather pathetic. God is not moved by our pathetic prowess. We can break the covenant, but it still exists. God calls us back to it in Christ. If we don't listen, we should read Edward's sermon on sinners in the hands of an angry God, an unbearable sermon actually preached at Enfield, Connecticut, on July 8, 1741. That sermon would also benefit from careful emendation, es­pecially in its Christology. Only love, not terror, will lead a sinner heaven-ward.

In the covenant God keeps us to his word. His prom­ises are true and remain true. So we must remain true to God. The covenant is not a contract, but a relationship. A relationship needs to grow. It has its ups and downs. It is a living and dynamic reality. God entered into this re­lationship with Adam and Eve well before the fall. After the fall it became clear that this covenant of love could be salvaged only through the redeeming work of Christ.

God so loved the world that he gave his on­ly-begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.John 3:16