Chapter 7 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism describes God’s covenant made with man. The third second of it reads
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 offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
As time has gone on and I’ve studied the scriptures, I’ve found that covenant theology seems to be the best system of understanding the bible and its storyline. I’ve grown to love the strong continuity between the old and new testaments, the pattern of promise and fulfillment, the strong emphasis of one plan for one people throughout the Bible, and the emphasis that God cares about the children of believers.
Covenant theology teaches that when Adam was placed in the garden, a covenant of works (CoW) was established with him in the command to enjoy all the fruits of the garden, but to refrain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This covenant was broken by Adam, who functions as our “federal head.” Thus, when Adam fell, all of us fell with him. The obligations of the CoW are still upon all of humanity after Adam, yet all have broken it by nature. Covenant theology also recognizes a second covenant, called the covenant of grace (CoG). This covenant of Grace is understand as quoted above. Those who believe in God by faith are saved by Jesus Christ and given eternal life by the Holy Spirit. From the garden to the new earth, this is how salvation has always been.
While many, if not most Christians would (or should) agree that salvation has always been by grace through faith, even pre-new-covenant, there are many who do not believe in one covenant of grace. There are a variety of reasons for this, some more convincing than others, but one of them is that there does not seem to be a formal establishment or even acknowledgment of a covenant of grace made with Adam after the fall. Thus, the language of the westminster confession (it is argued) inserts something into scripture artificially.
Now any true believer cannot automatically reject a doctrine that is not found explicitly stated in the Bible. There is nowhere in scripture that explicitly states the doctrine of the trinity, though the church throughout history has considered that doctrine among the most important (if not the most important) doctrine in the Bible. How then do we get the trinity? It is because the trinity is not explicit in the Bible, but implicitly defined through explicit statements. Thus, a doctrine, even an important doctrine, can be implicit in the text rather than explicit.
The question then isn’t does the Bible explicitly mention a covenant of grace? but instead does the Bible implicitly teach a covenant of grace?
This particular question was my personal weak point of covenant theology. I saw clearly the continuity of covenants from Noah to New, but a gracious covenant with Adam was difficult to pinpoint. Likewise, Noah and all after him who are understood to be under this covenant of grace are called righteous, or at least clearly shown to believe in God, yet I did not see this with Adam. Plain and simply put: I struggled to even see an implicit covenant of Grace with Adam.
This morning, as I read through Genesis 3, that changed.
Most covenant theologians point to Genesis 3:15 as the establishment of the covenant of Grace. Indeed, this likely is the best verse to prove it. God promises to the serpent (yet also, I believe, to us) that an offspring will arise from the woman who will crush his head. Sin has come into the world by the serpent’s deception of the woman, yet from the woman will come one who will destroy the serpent and his works. Furthermore, there seems to be a separation between offspring (plural) of the serpent and of the woman. This is seen clearly in Cain and Abel, as well as Noah’s sons. The offspring of the woman (again understood in the plural) are those of faith – those who belong to God, while the offspring of the serpent are those who are separate from God, dead in their sins and trespasses. This idea is seen clearly in the Abrahamic and following covenants (I will be your God, and you will be my people), but established here. I knew this, but I don’t think I understood it until this morning.
What changed my mind was a verse that my eyes have usually glanced over: Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
In the past, I saw this as a simple, yet gracious act of God. Adam and Eve had hastily constructed clothing made of fig leaves, God was good to cover their nakedness with the far better hide of an animal. Yet this morning, it stood out to me, and something clicked.
We have to understand the broader context here in order to see the incredible meaning and significance of this verse. God indeed had said to Adam that in the day that he ate of the forbidden fruit, he would die (Genesis 2:17). On the day of Genesis 3, both Adam and his wife had eaten of the fruit. Here were two tiny creatures, made from the dust, given the most amazing gift: fellowship and intimacy with God in paradise. Yet they forfeited all of this for a piece of fruit! Instead of resting in God, they desired to be like God. God had given them countless good things, yet they became convinced that God was keeping something good for them. Not only this, but when God came to Adam, he not only refused to repent, but indirectly blamed God for what happened (Genesis 3:12). Truly, God had (and for us still retains) every right to take their lives and punish them eternally for their sin. Yet there they were: standing, breathing, living.
This verse at hand is a simple verse, but speaks myriads. God gave to Adam and Eve a garment of skin. No plant or rock has skin, only an animal with the breath of life. Thus, when God clothed these two pitiful humans, a life was taken. God had promised that in the day they ate they would die. Now of course, they died a spiritual death, yet how strange it is that they could have simply continued on living. God has taken the physical life away from many sinners throughout scripture, why not Adam and Eve? I believe this is because the death of this unknown animal was meant to be a substitute. Adam and Eve were not put to death, for in their place an animal was killed.
Not only this, but the death of this animal accomplished another purpose – clothing Adam and Eve. This, I imagine, was not merely to give them warmth and protection though it likely did so. Adam and Eve were naked and ashamed. Their sin and iniquity, their shame was before them, yet God clothed them with the skin of the substitute so that their shame would be taken away.
Here we see the gospel itself, and here I see a sign of Jesus so clearly, that I am now convinced of a gracious covenant established with Adam and Eve. We are born in sin and iniquity, this sin deserves death. Before God, we stand naked and ashamed. Yet He is gracious to us in providing for us a substitute. Jesus, the perfect and spotless lamb of God, died in our place. The physical death and eternal wrath that was demanded of us was instead put upon Jesus. Our sin was accredited to Him, and He paid the penalty in full. So too was the unknown creature slain in the place of Adam and Eve.
Not only this, but God has clothed us with the righteousness of Christ, indeed as many as have been baptized, says Paul, have put on Christ. Thus, for those who are saved, God views us not based on our own works, obedience, and righteousness, but as His own Son. We are clothed with Christ and His righteousness. As our sin is accredited to Jesus, so too is His righteousness accredited to us. Thus we see that not only was an animal killed in the place of our federal father, but this animal’s skin clothed him and hid his shame.
Now of course, we must clarify something. The death of this animal was not the true substitute for these two humans. The blood of an animal cannot take away sins nor can its skin make us to be displayed faultless before God. Yet such was also the case in every animal sacrifice. The blood of animals under the old covenant could not take away sins. Why then were such bloody rituals necessary? Because they pointed to the true sacrifice that would take away sins. A Jew under the old covenant administration was not saved by the literal blood of a physical lamb, but by the blood of Jesus, the true lamb of God. Thus, this animal that was slain in Genesis 3:21 did not take away their sins, but, I believe that it pointed to the one who would do just that – the one who was promised to make all things right in Genesis 3:15.
Thus, I see a covenant of grace given to Adam in Genesis 3 as a promise. The plural offspring of the woman are those who are in this gracious covenant by faith in this promise. All who reject this promise are the plural offspring of the serpent.
How then were Adam and Eve saved? By grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed, if salvation has always been by grace through faith, a singular unifying covenant of Grace is necessary.