Representationalist Misrepresentation of the Realist View on Original Sin

Continuing a train recent thoughts on a realist apologetic of original sin (link), what is often difficult is that opponents of the view don't seem to understand it. Over time, misrepresentations that stem from this seeming misunderstanding seem to have gotten worse. 

One example can be found in the works of J. V. Fesko. Fesko is an author whom I credit with opening my eyes to biblical theology, so much so that I wrote a 10 part review of his book, Last Things First (link). I quite enjoy many things he writes about. I think he may have even been involved with my local church, at some point. I visited a lecture by him at RTS Atlanta and spoke with him in passing about infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism (which I doubt he would remember, as I barely remember it). I say this because the below is not to be taken as a slight against him personally. What it does illustrate, given his pedigree, is the extent to which a breakdown has occurred in a proper, historically grounded perception of a realistic theory of original sin.

Ken Hamrick, a fellow realist with respect to original sin, has already reviewed some misrepresentations of the realist position contained in a separate book by Fesko (e.g. link). The following quote is from Fesko's book, Adam and the Covenant of Works:

...in some sense God views all of humanity as guilty because of Adam's one transgression. And while arguing that all humanity participated in Adam's sin is an accurate conclusion, we must drill down into text to determine the precise nature of this participation. In what way have all humanity sinned (ἥμαρτον)?

Answering this question brings us to the shores of some heavily trafficked territory in the history of exegesis. There are largely four different views on the manner of humanity's participation in Adam's sin... (J. V. Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, pg. 293)

Fesko then outlines the four views he has in mind, critiquing the first three and defending the last one. The four views outlined are: Pelagianism, Realism, Mediate Imputation, Immediate Imputation.

To say nothing of my suspicion towards the idea that anyone besides a realist can truly believe that "all humanity participated in Adam's sin," as I initially read this, I was right away confused by Fesko's stated contrast between realism and immediate imputation in particular. He writes,

(4) Immediate Imputation

This view appears in, among others, Francis Turretin (1693-1687), the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Savoy Declaration (1658), Second London Baptist Confession (1689), and Charles Hodge (1797-1878). Advocates of this view maintain that God immediately (apart from any physical or real means) imputes both Adam's guilt and Christ's righteousness to those whom they represent. (J. V. Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, pgs. 295-296)

This is an historic redefinition of immediate imputation. A realist with respect to original sin is completely free to hold to immediate imputation. For example:

So far is it from being the fact that the dependence of the federal upon the natural headship involves the mediate imputation of Adam's sin, directly the reverse is the case. If our relation to the covenant is founded on our natural relation to Adam, - if we are, at the bar of God, held to have sinned in him because the nature that is in us flowed to us from him, - it immediately follows that the responsibilities thence derived are the same in their order in us as they were in Adam. If his nature was first guilty of apostasy and then of consequence depravity and sin, it will be so as it flows to us. This doctrine is so entirely consistent with that of immediate imputation, that De Moor, after devoting twenty-one pages to the refutation of Placaeus, plants himself, in harmony with Marck, upon our very position as the ground of defence against the objects of those who denied immediate imputation. (Samuel Baird, The Elohim Revealed, pg. 505).

Even representationalists have understood this. For instance, John Murray, an author who was not shy in his critique of the realist view, acknowledges:

"It is not necessary to discuss the question whether Edwards was a realist in his view of the Adamic union. The realist as well as the federalist holds to immediate imputation and the point at issue is not affected by the question of Edwards' affinities on that other issue." (John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, pg. 56)

What Fesko has done - unwittingly, I imagine - is subtly redefine "immediate imputation" in terms only a representationalist would accept. 

Further, it is not clear that Fesko appreciates the divergence of views among the sources he cites as supporting his understanding of immediate imputation. In the first place, the idea that the Westminster Confession is anti-realist begs the question (cf. Baird, The Elohim Revealed, pg. 39ff.; W. G. T. Shedd, Discourses and Essays, pgs. 260-270; etc.). In fact, again, even representationalists would distance themselves from the views of, say, Charles Hodge, who denied that mankind were participants in the criminality of Adam's sin. John Murray writes:

There can be little doubt, therefore, that the most representative of Reformed theologians were jealous to maintain that reatus and poena and, if we will, reatus poenae, always presuppose culpa and that, therefore, our involvement in the reatus, the obligation to penalty, of Adam's sin means that we were also involved in the culpa of his sin...

Hence when Dr. Hodge says that the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to posterity does not mean the imputation of "criminality" or demerit" but only of "the judicial obligation to satisfy justice", we discover what we are compelled to regard as a divergence from the older Reformed theologians in respect of a principle which they esteemed basic in the construction of the doctrine of our relation to the first sin of Adam. It is just precisely the involvement of posterity in the culpa of Adam's sin that Hodge is jealous to deny, when these other theologians were insistent that poena and culpa are inseparable and that reatus arises from culpa and leads to poena. And it would appear that the difficulty which we found with Dr. Hodge's position from the standpoint of exegesis, specifically the exegesis of Romans 5:12, 19, lies close to this divergence on Hodge's part from the formulation of other Reformed theologians. (John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, pgs. 83-85)

Again, John Murray was a federalist or representationalist who, like Hodge, was of Princeton lineage. If anyone can render an objective critique of Hodge, it is Murray. And the above makes it quite clear that Hodge's contemporaries - e.g. Samuel Baird and Robert Landis, both of whom debated him - were correct about the Reformed tradition on this point. 

Now, Fesko does tepidly acknowledge this in his book, Death in Adam, Life in Christ. There, he admits that Hodge's "penalty-only imputation view may represent a minority within the tradition." Firstly, it is a minority position; there is no maybe. Secondly, Fesko should not anachronistically lump the Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration, Francis Turretin, etc. as holding to Hodge's view of what immediate imputation entails. 

Perhaps Fesko does not intend to do that. But if not - if Fesko is not trying to suggest that all these sources have the same view of immediate imputation - then the question is begged as to why the realist position is contrasted with it.

Another way in which Fesko misrepresents the realist position is in the way he frames what said position entails. One remark Fesko made in an above quote - "apart from any physical or real means" - seems to suggest that Fesko equates realism with the idea of physical identity with Adam. This is confirmed in Fesko's outline of realism itself:

(2) Realism

This view was first made famous by Augustine who, based upon his mistranslation of Romans 5:12, believed that all humanity was seminally present in Adam. In some sense, then, humanity was really truly physically present. In addition to Augustine, similar views appear in John Calvin (1509-1564), W. G. T. Shedd (1820-1894), and James H. Thornwell (1812-1862). (J. V. Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, pg. 294)

I'm not sure what Fesko has in mind. Augustine remained undogmatic on the point of traducianism. However, he considered it, and the terms in which he considered it were immaterial, not material:

...it is necessary still to investigate and to make known the reason why, if souls are created new for every individual at his birth, those who die in infancy without the sacrament of Christ are doomed to perdition; for that they are doomed to this if they so depart from the body is testified both by Holy Scripture and by the holy Church. Wherefore, as to that opinion of yours concerning the creation of new souls, if it does not contradict this firmly grounded article of faith, let it be mine also; but if it does, let it be no longer yours.

26. Let it not be said to me that we ought to receive as supporting this opinion the words of Scripture in Zechariah, He forms the spirit of man within him, and in the book of Psalms, He forms their hearts severally. We must seek for the strongest and most indisputable proof, that we may not be compelled to believe that God is a judge who condemns any soul which has no fault. For to create signifies either as much or, probably, more than to form [fingere]; nevertheless it is written, Create in me a clean heart, O God, and yet it cannot be supposed that a soul here expresses a desire to be made before it has begun to exist. Therefore, as it is a soul already existing which is created by being renewed in righteousness, so it is a soul already existing which is formed by the moulding power of doctrine. Nor is your opinion, which I would willingly make my own, supported by that sentence in Ecclesiastes, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it. Nay, it rather favours those who think that all souls are derived from one; for they say that, as the dust returns to the earth as it was, and yet the body of which this is said returns not to the man from whom it was derived, but to the earth from which the first man was made, the spirit in like manner, though derived from the spirit of the first man, does not return to him but to the Lord, by whom it was given to our first parent. (From Augustine to Jerome, on the origin of the soul, link)

Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature (not physical creatures per se; cf. angels). For one to be interested in whether Adam's progeny were "physically present" in him would be a category error, a quasi-gnostic mistake no realist of whom I am aware (certainly none in Fesko's list of realists) has ever made. Such a [mis]representation gives the impression that realists consider physical presence relevant to participation in sin when it is rather spiritual presence which has always been at issue.

We have glanced at a few passages of the Scriptures in which our doctrine is formally asserted, or involved by direct and inevitable implication. But it would be an utter mistake to imagine that the Scripture argument in its favor is limited to a series of minute criticisms upon isolated passages in the Bible. On the contrary, the idea of the derivation of our entire being from our parents runs through every part of the book, and reappears continually in every variety of form. From the nature of the case, we are cut off from this aspect of the argument. To its elucidation volumes would be requisite, instead of a few pages. The doctrine in question constantly occurs in the historical scriptures, either in the way of formal statement, or of allusion, as to an unquestioned and unquestionable fact. In the poetic books, whether narrative, prophetic, or devotional, whether prayer or praise, it everywhere presents itself; at one time, the theme of admiring contemplation in reference to the wonderful nature of the phenomena, and at another the subject of penitential confession in view of the corruption so derived. In the doctrinal scriptures, it is made the basis of the whole doctrine of our ruin and the whole system of grace. They everywhere predicate it, as fundamental to all the representations and arguments which they exhibit on these subjects. This doctrine is thus inwrought into the very texture of the Bible; recurring continually, without any caution whatever, by which the begetting asserted should be limited to the body; but, on the contrary, contemplating the moral nature much more than the physical. On the other hand, but a single passages - Heb. xii. 9 - is adduced from the whole Bible, which it can be pretended even seems to look the other way. And in that case the seeming is consequent upon a forced interpretation, at variance with the accustomed meaning of the language employed, as well as with the analogy of Scripture, thus so complete. We make this statement, because it must be evident to any candid interpreter, that the scriptures which merely declare God to be the maker of the soul, are no more conclusive to the purpose for which they are usually cited on this subject, than would be the addition of those which speak with at least equal emphasis of the body, to prove that both body and soul are the immediate workmanship of God, and that the human species is not propagated by generation at all! (Samuel Baird, The Elohim Revealed, pgs. 383-384)

Any beginning to unravel the mischaracterizations seen above or in the conversation in the first link of this post will require a return to the primary sources. Ad fontes. Possibly, it will also require someone who actually believes the view to publish an exposition and defense of it. Although useful in its own way, I wouldn't expect a blog post to gain traction. Well, beginnings are beginnings.

Back to Biblical and Covenant Theology: the Mosaic Covenant

It's been a while since I've read biblical and covenant theology. It's hard for me to synthesize them with philosophical and systematic theology. J. V. Fesko has said that biblical theology is to building as systematic theology is to building inspector. That's the best way I can understand how they relate.

Anyways, a friend and I were discussing covenant theology recently, particularly whether or not the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace to individual Israelites and/or a typological republication of the covenant of works for corporate Israel. My friend thought that Galatians 4:24 was a direct reference to the covenant of works and that the reference to Mt. Sinai was to the eternal moral law of God (which always ought to be obeyed) rather than a synecdoche the Mosaic covenant, but I think I've convinced him that Galatians 3-4:20 sets the context for 4:21-31 to be understood as contrasting the Mosaic covenant with the covenant of grace. This would have interesting implications as to how we understand the purpose for which the Mosaic covenant was given. I was a little rusty while discussing this, so hopefully I can put some of my thoughts in order here.

The covenant of grace, while the same in essence throughout redemptive history, has been administered differently. As the Westminster Larger Catechism puts it:

Question 34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?

Answer: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

Question 35: How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?

Answer: Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.

When the question is posed as to whether or not the Mosaic covenant falls under the rubric of the covenant of grace as administered in the Old Testament, in comparing the above exposition to Exodus 19:5-6, the answer appears to be negative. The purpose, rather, is to typologically revive the covenant of works.

Now, I have not committed myself to believing that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant merely superimposed onto the administrative history of the covenant of grace, for there are elements in it - especially the ritual laws which were fulfilled by Christ - which seem to indicate otherwise. But perhaps these only served to demonstrate that the covenant of grace was administered under the Mosaic covenant although not by it, since the Mosaic covenant was established upon but did not abrogate the Abrahamic.

If the essence of the Mosaic covenant is Exodus 19:5-6, then it would seem that the Mosaic covenant was with the nation of Israel rather than individual Israelites per se and typified the covenant of works, at least to the extent that such was possible for a collection of sinners. Adam, Israel, and Jesus are all uniquely connected to this covenant. Adam had Eden, Israel had the promised land of Canaan, and Christ has the promised land of new Eden. The former sons of God failed to meet the demands of the covenant of works, though there existence establishes a pattern which helps us to understand Christ's work. In the case of Israel especially, it was impossible for them to actually fulfill the covenant of works:

Even though they were not able to keep this law in the Pauline, spiritual sense, yea, even though they were unable to keep it externally and ritually, the requirement could not be lowered. When apostacy on a general scale took place, they could not remain in the promised land. When they disqualified themselves for typifying the state of holiness, they ipso facto disqualified themselves for typifying that of blessedness, and had to go into captivity. This did not mean that every individual Israelite, in every detail of his life, had to be perfect, and that on this was suspended the continuance of God's favor. Jehovah dealt primarily with the nation and through the nation with the individual, as even now in the covenant of grace He deals with believers and their children in the continuity of generations. - Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology pgs. 127-128

The point of "apostasy on a general scale" occurred when the nation as such acted in a sufficiently dissimilar manner to that which was necessary in order for there to be a recognizable connection to the obedience of one who actually rather than merely typologically attempted to fulfill of the covenant of works.

But strictly speaking, every Israelite was a sinner, so each broke this first covenant to which Paul refers in Galatians 4:24. So perhaps the Judaizers in Galatians 4 misunderstand the purpose of the Mosaic covenant by attempting to individualize its promises on the condition of general obedience. Or perhaps insofar as the Mosaic covenant typologically recapitulates the covenant of works, it would be more safe to say they understood its demands applied to themselves (which is true regarding the moral law) but misunderstood their own inability to meet its demands. In this case, they still misunderstood the purpose of the laws of the Mosaic covenant to be a means of salvation rather than a "tutor."

So I suppose all of this means I lean more toward a more Owenian (link) understanding of the Mosaic covenant, although Witsius' position could be arguable as well (cf. pgs. 35-39 here). Fesko's coming out with a new commentary on Galatians this month, so I'm looking forward to reading what more he has to say about this topic.

Fesko on Baptism: Reflections

After having read Part I of J. V. Fesko's three-part book, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, in which Fesko traces the historical theology of baptism, a few thoughts came to mind:

- The London Baptist Confession 1689 sticks out like a sore thumb by claiming immersion is the only valid administration of baptism. Baptism, as a sign and seal of the New Covenant, is meant, analogous to circumcision, to reflect the the cleansing of Christ's blood and the washing of regeneration. Imagery of these significations in both the Old and New Testaments include, in contrast to "immersion," both sprinkling and pouring (e.g. Ezekiel 36:25, Luke 22:20, Titus 3:6, 1 Peter 1:2).

- The Reformers were awesome. Fesko covers, in brief, the beliefs regarding the nature of the sacraments and [infant] baptism of the following Reformers and Reformed Catechisms: Calvin, Polanus, Wollebius, Ames, Turretin, Witsius, The Thirty-Nine Articles, the Irish Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession. I hadn't even heard of some of these giants, but I believe that out of all of them, I shall be revisiting Witsius the soonest.

- The Abrahamic covenant received brief attention, and though I expect it will be treated later in the book, I cannot help drawing attention to the fact of covenant continuity and its implications. A standard point of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians is the extent to which each see a covenant continuity. I will not post an extensive defense of infant baptism here, as I expect it will be treated by Fesko in Part II or III, wherein he considers baptism from the perspectives of biblical and systematic theology, respectively. However, the cumulative force of several of the following [paraphrased] observations made by the aforementioned Reformers necessitate the practice of infant baptism:

1) Circumcision no longer functions as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant, a covenant which has not been abrogated (cf. Galatians 3-4).

2) In order for it to be true that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant extend to Abraham's descendants and throughout their generations (Genesis 17:7), it must be the case that we have a correlative sign and seal by which we may claim, as could Abraham, that we have a covenant in our flesh for an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:13).

3) Although it may be imprecise to call baptism a replacement for circumcision, since there are differences which shall, in due time, be pointed out, it is undeniable that baptism signifies the same soteric activity as did circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). It is the sign and seal of the God's eternal covenant with Abraham (Galatians 3:27ff.).

4) Moreover, infants were regarded as members of the OT covenant community, as is evident from the fact that the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant was applied to them at the command of God (Genesis 17:12).

5) Baptists sometimes complain that there is no explicit Scriptural command to baptize infants. I believe I will from now on complain that Baptists cannot point in Scripture wherein infants born after the institution of baptism are said to be cut off from the Abrahamic covenant. That is indeed what Baptists must argue, for there is no other reason to deny a member of the covenant the sign and seal of that covenant, given that the parallel sacrament from the OT (circumcision) was applied indiscriminately (cf. Matthew 19:13, Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 7:14, et. al.).

- One final observation, and I believe it is the most interesting: Fesko mentions in his section on Luther that Luther wavered between the idea that infant baptism implies infants possess faith and the idea that infant baptism is based on the faith of another (fides aliena). While Luther ultimately defended the former, the contrast compelled me to examine the Roman Catholic belief, for what reason I shall make clear in a moment.

Augustine, upon whom Fesko argues Rome grounded their baptismal practice, wrote in Book I of his A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants:

Chapter 25. Infants are Described as Believers and as Penitents. Sins Alone Separate Between God and Men.

“Some one will say: How then are mere infants called to repentance? How can such as they repent of anything? The answer to this is: If they must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they likewise have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called believers, because they in a certain sense profess faith by the words of their parents, why are they not also held to be before that penitents when they are shown to renounce the devil and this world by the profession again of the same parents?”

Now it is clear that Augustine held to fides aliena, and predicated the validity of infant baptism upon the faith of the parents. The sense in which infants are said to be believers is not due to intrinsic faith, but is rather coventantal or relational: viz. the infant was to be regarded a believer due to the faith of his or her parents. It would appear, at least, that Rome has followed suit, as its Catechism, while qualifying that the fides aliena is a reference to the church, nevertheless teaches fides aliena:

1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

However, if infants are regarded by God as believers on the basis of the faith of another, this undercuts the ontological charge of "legal fiction" so commonly put forth against the Protestant teaching on justification. It seems to me that the closer Rome gets to covenant theology, the less they are able to wield these types of arguments.

More on the NPP

A while ago, I posted a link to Daniel Wallace's excellent article on the New Perspective on Paul, a review of N. T. Wright's understanding of justification in the context of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Maybe I'm a little behind the curve on this next one, but I just stumbled across Ligonier Ministries' February 2010 Tabletalk, a collection of articles written by [who I consider to be] some of the the most respected Protestants against the NPP. Sproul, Piper, Fesko, Carson, Ferguson, Horton, Schreiner, and more on justification and in one location? Yes, please. You can read the articles here.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 10

Just as Christology defines anthropology, eschatology defines protology; due to the Fall, one must know what will be in order to know what ought to have been. God’s covenants with men have repeatedly incorporated the idea of the necessity of the satisfaction of dominion mandate on the condition of perfect obedience, but to what end has not yet been examined in detail. In the last chapter of “Last Things First,” Fesko lengthens excursus on the Sabbath from consideration strictly within the circumstances of the Mosaic covenant to the greater context as bridge between protology and eschatology. Fesko’s thesis in this chapter is that, had Adam completed his probative labors, his reward would have been a permanent Sabbath, a rest which, simply put, would have consisted of eternal fellowship with God. If this “Sabbatical principle” is true, it would mean that eschatology precedes and even in some sense defines soteriology, a concept which would certainly have an impact on perspectives within modern theology.

A bilateral covenant possesses stipulations which have a terminus; a covenant with conditions that cannot be met is nonsensical. When considering whether not Genesis 1-2 contains evidence which could substantiate a claim that the ultimate end of Adam’s covenantal work was the Sabbatical principle, it is important to keep in mind that whatever else the case may be, had Adam completed his tasks, something would have had to happen. Merely from a probabilistic standpoint, then, that Adam’s efforts to subdue the surrounding disorder was analogous to God’s creative activity would at least mean it is reasonable to suppose that, upon the complete subjugation of all things to himself as God’s right hand, Adam would have, like God, rested. Also, if the sacramental function of the tree of life did not represent eternal life, it is difficult to imagine what it could have represented. Eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge cost Adam his life; ostensibly, eating the fruit of the tree of life would have antithetically rewarded Adam with eternal life, life in which Adam would have gloried in God’s presence with His extensive family, ceasing any further duties which could have cost Adam his life.

Because Adam sinned, the means by which the Adamic work must be appropriated to those who themselves do not possess the capacity to satisfy the covenant of works is different. However, God’s plan throughout redemptive history is consistent with His design for the first Adam: He didn’t change the vocation for the second Adam (prophet, priest, and king), He didn’t alter the covenantal work for the second Adam (the dominion mandate), and He didn’t compromise the means by which the second Adam’s work must be accomplished (perfect obedience). In light of the harmony between the two federal heads of the covenant themselves, then, the burden of proof is on one who believes God has purposed the eschatological goal of the second Adam’s work to be different from that which He purposed as the eschatological goal of the first’s work to explain why he believes so. By considering the import of the Sabbath throughout redemptive history, then, one should have a fair understanding of its connection to Genesis 1-2.

As was mentioned in a previous chapter, Fesko points out that, insofar as the Sabbath pertains to soteriology, it is evident in passages like Exodus 31:13 and Hebrews 4 that salvation must be by grace alone through faith alone. The Sabbatical typifies God’s work to save us and our inability to do anything to cooperatively merit it, which, in redemptive history, is the point at which the foreshadowed need for Jesus and salvation “solus Christus” becomes clear. To work on the Sabbath must merit death (Exodus 31:14-15), because such work suggests that the worker believes he can merit his own salvation (Romans 6:23). As the fourth commandment in the 10 commandments and the sign of the covenant itself, the Mosaic covenant was the first instance since the Fall that the concept of the Sabbath enjoyed explicit emphasis. If one can discern the way in which Israel – who was, like Adam, a son of God (Exodus 4:22, cf. Luke 3:38) and priestly kingdom (Exodus 19:6, cf. Genesis 1:28) placed in Paradise (Exodus 33:1-3, cf. Genesis 1-2) – related to the Sabbath – given to each son of God upon completion of the creation of the contextual tabernacles (Exodus 25-31, cf. Genesis 1-2) – the protological relation between Adam and the Sabbath can in turn be better understood.

Of course, that the Sabbath possesses a soteric quality in the Mosaic covenant (e.g. Exodus 31:13) is disanalogous to its function in pre-redemptive history, but the antitypical reality to which each concept points is the same: rest or cessation from work (Exodus 31:15, cf. Genesis 2:2-3). The author of Hebrews, commenting on Numbers 14 in chapters 3-4, sheds more light on Israel’s relation to the Sabbath to stress the necessity of a persevering faith to his readers (Hebrews 4:3); it is noteworthy that he equates true believers with God’s household, which recalls one to Adam’s office as priest within the garden-temple (4:6). The author’s primary point, made in 4:8-11, is that entering the promised land itself was no more what it meant for Israel to enter the Sabbath than it was for Adam to simply dwell in Eden. This presupposes, however, that there is a real Sabbath into which the people of Israel – and his readers – would enter: a true, antitypical Sabbath which can only be attained if one perseveres in faith (4:3). This binds the protological to the eschatological. Each respective paradise was meant to be a type of the heavenly Paradise into which each person would really enter upon completion of the stipulations of the covenant, which reveals more clearly why God regarded the Sabbath as an everlasting sign between God and His people (Exodus 31:17).

Because only Christ could complete the covenant of works subsequent to Adam’s fall, He must and has entered into the Sabbath rest first (Hebrews 10:12-13). An important point that the author makes is that while Christ’s labors have ceased, the outworking of those labors continues. The creation is not “consummated,” but it is ensured. The dominion mandate – specifically, kingship – is mentioned in 10:13, but one could just as easily apply this concept to Christ’s role as intercessor, advocate, multiplier of children in the divine image, &c. His life and death, however, satisfied all the requisite demands of the covenant of works and its curse, so He really did complete all His labors on the sixth day of the week, resting on the Sabbath (John 19:31). Christ was aware His resurrection would begin a new creation from the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:18-21), and the year of Jubilee to which He referred is, in fact, the Sabbath year (Exodus 23:10-11, Leviticus 25:7-18). This inaugurated new creation begets a new Sabbath day: Sunday, the first of the week on which Christ was raised (John 20:1). The reason is simple: unlike the covenant of works and Mosaic covenant, each of which illustrated the necessity of working for one’s salvation in order to be saved and enter rest by placing the Sabbath on the last day of the week, Christ’s completed work demands a change in perspective as to how one views salvation and God’s covenant with man – i.e. sola gratia – and correlative change in the structure of the week. Because Christ’s work has already guaranteed the covenant of works is fulfilled for believers, rest precedes work in new creation. Having been baptized into the new creation by the washing of regeneration, the believer exists in the “already-not yet” age in which there is work yet to be done (Romans 6:4), although it is work which Christ has already purchased.

Any covenant between God and man has a purpose. Because Adam sinned, it is necessary to examine the last things to know what the first things ought to have yielded. Because the eschatological goal is rest in every covenant in redemptive history – not to mention the scores of other parallels between the covenant of works, its republications, and the new covenant – it is illogical to assume that the Sabbatical principle has no roots in protology and covenant theology. Because the Sabbath is imbued with soteric implications since the Fall, however, the telos of the new creation will be different than the old; the elect will be clothed in Christ’s righteousness (Revelation 7:9-14) rather than stand naked before God. Christ’s work does not merely expiate sin and put mankind back in the prelapsarian state, His righteousness is imputed to believers, who are thereby regarded as having completed the covenant of works. One should consider that whatever occurs is inevitably a means towards this end, which actually promotes eschatology as among the first of doctrines which should be taught and considered in one’s hermeneutic approach to Scripture. In other words: “Last Things First.”

Final observations: This was simply a great book. It’s certainly inspired thoughts that I’ve never considered and allowed me to better understand the interconnectedness of Scripture. Covenant theology and eschatology were subjects which intrigued me but always seemed to be handled with too little care or in too technical a fashion for me to maintain any attention. This, however, was a meaty book put together in an easy-to-read fashion. I knew Fesko was a great lecturer, now I know he was a great writer. I’ll certainly look into his future works (including a forthcoming book on baptism), and I encourage anyone who found this review helpful to grab this and other books by the author. Thanks, Dr. Fesko.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 9

In addition to the regenerative work of the Spirit to which both circumcision and baptism allude, both sacraments also are connected to Christ’s death. The bloody sacrament of circumcision foreshadowed the propitiatory death of the coming Messiah who would fulfill or secure the conditions of salvation for those who will believe, by which one could know whether or not he adhered to the Abrahamic covenant in which God promised Abraham to bless all nations through him. Because Christ lived, died, and was resurrected as the innocent God-man, however, the that to which circumcision actually points has been fulfilled. To continue to require circumcision as a rite of introduction to the covenant community, then, would be another form of law salvation, as it would at least imply circumcision did not receive its teleological end in Christ. Bloodless baptism is the new covenant’s analogous sacrament, but it pictures the way in which an elect individual becomes united to Christ’s resurrection as well as His death; in the same way Christ was buried and resurrected, so too God buries the old man by regenerative work of the Spirit and resurrects His elect – as He did with Christ – as new creations made alive in Christ by faith (Colossians 2:11-13). God’s promise to Abraham is reality in the new covenant, and this reality is depicted by baptism, not circumcision (Galatians 3:27-28).

The goal of the covenant of works, the realization of the dominion mandate, did not change with the coming of the covenant of grace. The means, not the goal itself, have changed, insofar as it is no longer mankind as such who bring to pass the stipulations of the dominion mandate in perfection. Jesus is the second Adam, not the church. Just as the requirements of God’s original covenant with man – unwavering obedience to His law – did not change, so too Christ must, in order to be the successful second Adam, bring about the multiplication of the divine image throughout the whole earth, subdue and exercise dominion over the inhabitants of the earth itself, and do so with a helpmate. By His death and resurrection, not our deeds, Christ indeed continues to do this. Philippians 2:5-11 has already been mentioned as a passage which links Christ’s humble obedience as God-man, His procreation of the divine image by conformity to His image, and the Father’s exaltation of His name such that all will acknowledge Him as King. The second half of Fesko’s fifth chapter draws out more explicitly how the goals are achieved by Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:20-49, like Romans 5:12-19, is pregnant with protological meaning. Just as all men in Adam die, all men in Christ live (15:22). Of course, in order for believers to live, Christ must have been raised first, as it is to His image men are to conform (15:23, cf. Exodus 23:19). It is a certainty that all will live in Christ, however, since He has by His sacrifice accomplished all necessary conditions which need to be met for His people to be saved (Romans 8:32). As this grace which He has procured is more and more applied throughout the world at times of God’s eternal appointment, Christ is accomplishing the command to multiply the earth with men in the [renewed] divine image (Romans 8:29, Philippians 2:20-21). This renewal is regeneration (15:42-45, cf. 1 Peter 1:23-25), and having already shown that the Spirit’s regenerative work as the beginning of the grace by which one is conformed to the heavenly image (15:47-49) is intrinsically annexed to baptism and recreation, it should come as no surprise that both are found in context (15:29-30, 36-41). It seems Genesis 1-2 is implicitly found in every verse. Furthermore, just as Adam was to subdue all things such that he would be the immediate authority under God, Paul writes that Christ is the eschatological fulfillment of Psalm 8:6 (15:27). He will wipe out every power which opposes His Father, including death, and He will have thereby merited the position of King of Kings (15:24-26, cf. Psalm 2, Daniel 7, cf. Revelation 13-14). In fact, He has already defeated these enemies Himself – even death – by His resurrection, a vindication of His righteousness and capacity to be the eschatological Adam.

Of course, for the Christ to be the true second Adam, He must have a true bride with which to generate children in His image, and here Fesko ties in ecclesiology to Christology, protology, and eschatology, for he notes that Paul regards the church as Christ’s antitypical helpmate in Ephesians 5:21-33. It sounds obvious when one thinks about it, yet the implications are profound. It was no more good that Christ should bring about the goals of the dominion mandate – goals which His work alone could effect – than it was for the first Adam to attempt to do so. The church is woman in Genesis 1-2 (Isaiah 54:5-8, John 3:29), yet a woman who will no longer be seduced by Satan’s temptations (Revelation 21:2, cf. Ezekiel 16, Hosea). Paul’s revelation of the relationship between Christ and the church functions as an explanation of the ways in which they interact: Christ as head, church as body; Christ as authoritative, church as submissive. Believers are not to be static after salvation – in fact, it is not a stretch to suppose co-working with Christ is a means of conformity to His image, as such would reflect what would seem to be an appropriate inter-connectedness of biblical theology. Regardless, Jesus made it clear in the Great Commission that the church was to spread His name throughout all nations (cf. Romans 10:14-15), and the reason He did not do this on His own should by now be evident: because the assistance of the church is necessary in the same way woman was necessary for Adam to have protologically fulfilled the dominion mandate (compare Genesis 22:18 to Matthew 28:19). The church is God’s chosen means of effecting His predestined, merited goals. She spreads the gospel which, when the Father sends His Spirit to regenerate an individual unto the image of Christ, adopts the newborn believer into God’s family so that he or she can further propagate God’s word, literally extending the temples of God in which the Holy Spirit dwells and which we are, as a royal priesthood, to treat with care. The primary point is that the dominion mandate is fulfilled spiritually, not physically (John 1:12-13), which is why Paul – who didn’t marry – could call Timothy and his other disciples his own children (1 Corinthians 7:8, Titus 1:4, &c.).

In the final section of this chapter, Fesko considers John’s Revelation, which describes the eschatological completion of Christ’s work, the goal of God’s covenants with men. All prophetic writings point toward a savior who will fulfill the dominion mandate (e.g. Psalm 72:8), not only for Israel, but for all nations (e.g. Isaiah 49:6). Not only does Revelation 5:9-12 confirm this, it is paralleled to 4:11 – each passage entails songs of glory for God’s creation and redemption, synthesizing the two acts of God once again (cf. 7:9-12). Because the temple-paradise will have been typologically extended to all nations in His elect, God will be able to once again dwell among the church, Christ’s bride (21:1-3). Genesis 1-2 is interwoven to every face of the eschatological city: its position on a mountain (21:10), the precious metals which form the city (21:18-20), the flowing rivers (22:1), and the tree of life itself (22:2) around which all fruit-bearing believers reside. Apocalyptic literature, however, foretells that this new, enormous Eden will be even more glorious than the first: it will be lighted by God Himself (21:23, cf. Isaiah 60:19, Ezekiel 43:2-5) and His dwelling among the community of those in the image of the new Adam will be immanent, not mediated (21:22, cf. Ephesians 2:19-22, Hebrews 3:6, 1 Peter 2:5); there will, then, be no night, for He is always with us (21:25, 22:5). Glorified believers will be able to serve Him face-to-face (22:4) uninhibited by the prospect of sin (21:26-27, 22:3), clothed by Christ’s righteousness (19:8) and praising the Triune God (4:8). That is the way things are meant to be.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 8

Thus far, Fesko has established that the first Adam, made in the image of God, was a prophet, priest, and king who was set in a primeval temple, Eden, which was the holy of holies in the cosmic tabernacle. This Adam existed in a covenantal relationship with God in which he was commanded to multiply, fill the earth, and extend his domain and rule all things with the help of his mate, the goal being that, as God’s vicegerent, he could extend Paradise and conquer the external chaos like God did in His creative work so that God’s presence and glory would extend to the ends of the earth. Upon fulfilling this dominion mandate, Adam would have, like God did, become indefectibly blessed and rested from his covenantal work; the Sabbath would have become a reality. Because Adam failed to follow the stipulations of the covenant, however, the curse of the covenant was placed on him: the image of God in mankind is thusly corrupted, we have become necessarily mortal, and we are in need of saving from God’s wrath. The subsequent covenants God made with men in the Old Testament each republish the covenant goals for the first Adam, yet they all display the impossibility for man to attain these goals. The law, God’s standard of righteousness has not been compromised. Hence, each of these covenants – especially the [Adamic] covenant of works itself – prefigure the coming Messiah who would be able to set His people right with God, as He would fulfill the requirements for them and the goals with them. It is to the antitypical life and work of this Messiah, the essence of the gospel, to which Fesko now turns.

The context surrounding Christ’s work is highly reminiscent of Genesis 1-3. Like Adam was: Jesus Christ is the image of God, to whom all men must now conform (Colossians 1:15, Romans 8:29); He is God’s Son; He is prophet, priest, and king (Hebrews 1:1-3, 7:23-25, 10:9-14); He was tempted with half-truths for 40 days by the devil (Luke 4:1-13), which some have suggested is meant to parallel the length of time Adam was in the garden before he succumbed to temptation. Unlike Adam: Jesus’ image was never corrupted; He never needed to be adopted by God; He was a perfect in His ability to keep His three-fold office; Adam’s surroundings during his probative period was bountiful whereas Jesus was tempted in wilderness where He fasted.

Moreover, Jesus was baptized prior to His temptation, which signals the beginning of the work of the mediator of a new, better covenant. Christ’s baptism and allusion to the Holy Spirit as a dove in Luke 4:22 should recall one to the hovering Holy Spirit during creation (Genesis 1:2) and subsequent aerial imagery during typological [re]creations (Genesis 8:11, Exodus 13:21-22, Deuteronomy 32:11). The deluge, which was an undoing of creation, enabled Noah and his family to be saved by water (1 Peter 3:20) as were Moses and the Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:1-2) – that is, by waters which could on the occasion of this destruction effect a completely new creation. Baptism puts to death the old by creating the new, which is seen too in soteriological terms as well (Colossians 2:11-15): being dead in sins, God puts to death the old man by the regenerative grace of the always present Holy Spirit, after which the elect individual is immediately raised with Christ unto faith and righteousness (cf. Romans 6:1-4, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 2:1-6, 1 Peter 3:21-22). In the same way, Christ’s baptism anticipates that He will put to death the old, Adamic means of attaining righteousness, works, by the creation of new means, grace alone (Romans 8:32), which He will purchase for His people by obeying the covenantal stipulations by His own works.

After rebuffing Satan’s temptations, Christ was evidenced as qualified to begin his ministerial work. In consideration of this work, Fesko chooses to utilize Philippians 2:5-11 to clarify more protological connections to Christology. Philippians 2:5 reiterates a point already established: that the image in which man was created has been corrupted such that he must now become transformed to Christ’s in order to recapture the intimate fellowship with God he had in the garden. Why? Because Christ, who is in the image of God, did not, as the first Adam did, regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped (2:6, cf. Genesis 3:4-5); that is, even though the Son is co-equal with the Father (Isaiah 6:1-8, John 12:41), He did not seize upon this fact during His life on earth advantageously in order that we who need to be conformed to Christ’s image could have an appropriate pattern – as persons obviously not equal to God – to follow. Adam, who wasn’t equal to God whatsoever, did try to use his position greedily. Christ, the humble servant, obeyed the will of His Father even to His [necessary] death (2:7-8), which is a point Paul uses as a contextual argument for the privilege of suffering for God’s sake (1:29-30): because it is necessary for renewal of the mind. Because of this active and passive obedience, Christ secured all the conditions necessary for the fulfillment of the covenant of works and its application to us.

Romans 5:19 particularly expresses how those under the respective federal heads are either condemned or made righteous by one man’s work: imputation (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ’s life and death made possible a substitutionary atonement by having paid for the curse of the covenant and obeying its ordinances. Those who are under the Mosaic covenant (who are also under the Adamic covenant) are made clean by Christ’s death (Hebrews 9:15-22), as He who a part of the inauguration of the covenant must bear the antitypical curse of the covenant (Jeremiah 34:17-20, cf. Genesis 15:8-17, Exodus 24:3-8). Just as the Father would have had to bear the oath curse in the Abrahamic covenant if His promises to Abraham were in vain (Hebrews 6:13-19), so too either we must bear the penalty for having transgressed the law covenant – a penalty which we can never erase by works alone – or have Christ bear it for us (Matthew 26:28).

Christ’s capacity to do this for us is the realization of Adam’s and Eve’s coverings and why we shall not revert to nakedness in heaven: Christ’s righteousness clothes us. As high priest, Christ was able to enter the holy of holies by means of His bloody sacrifice and once and for all obtain the eternal redemption of God’s people (Hebrews 8-10:14), thus sending the cherubim who were set to guard the holy of holies after the transgression of the first covenant (Genesis 3:24, cf. 26:31-33) back to the throne of God (Matthew 27:51, Revelation 4:6-8) so that we may once more approach God. His death on the sixth day of the week functioned as the New Testament deluge such that He could pronounce the old covenant’s means of attaining the goal of God’s eternal covenant to be “finished” (John 19:30). He rested on the seventh day as did God (John 19:31, cf. Genesis 2:1-3), then rose on the first day of the week (John 20:1) in signification of the beginning of the new and final creation, which is why Paul associated it with baptism as has been noted. The elements of this new creation is that with which the next half of Fesko’s chapter is concerned.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 7

Abrahamic Covenant

God’s covenant with Abraham (no longer Abram) in Genesis 17, a realization of an expectation grounded in Genesis 12:1-7, announced that Abraham would be the father of many nations who God would, like Abraham, bless by an extension of land and fruitfulness in posterity to all ends of the earth (Genesis 18:18, cf. Galatians 3:8). This covenant exemplifies a continually progressive revelation of a covenant of grace, for God no longer merely commanded man to follow the dominion mandate; now, God has declared that He will see to it that man achieves the goal.

In fact, in Genesis 12:7, Abram reacted to the first patriarchal theophany by erecting an altar – a place of meeting with God (e.g. Exodus 20:24) and priestly sacrifice (Noah, Cain, and Abel, Noah; cf. Genesis 8:20, Hebrews 11:4) – testifying to the hope of a return to Edenic intimacy between God and man as well as the importance of spreading God’s presence, the goal of the dominion mandate, post-Fall. That Abraham (e.g. Genesis 12:8) and his descendants (Isaac, Jacob, etc.) continued to build altars and that they did so in the midst of trees (e.g. 12:6, 13:18) on eastern mountaintops (e.g. 12:8, 22:9-14) plainly strengthens the protological ties. Coinciding with this Edenic recollection, Geerhardus Vos similarly noticed that Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, “…was afterwards the scene of the highest permanent theophany of the Old Testament (i.e. the temple) and therefore typical of the final consummate state of the theocracy” (Eschatology of the Old Testament).

Abraham’s actions remind one that while God’s promise to Abraham wasn’t obligated, He did expect that Abraham would respond to it by obeying His precepts (17:2), including the application of the covenant sign, circumcision, to himself and his offspring (17:9-14). Circumcision, like all covenant signs, signified divine activity and grace to which recipients were called to respond in faith, here on pain of excommunication. There is a sense in which the Abrahamic covenant was bilateral, then, but that God stated as matter of fact that Abraham would inherit the aforementioned promises is an indication of the efficacy of God’s grace upon man’s will (Genesis 15:18, cf. Hebrews 6:13-19).

There are further statements in made in the context of the Abrahamic covenant which are definitely connected with Genesis 1-2 and the new covenant. Abraham was essentially treated as a king (17:6), the role of Adam (intended) and Christ (realized) over creation as covenant heads. Next, in Genesis 12:3, God tells Abram that men will be blessed or cursed depending upon whether or not they bless or curse him, as is the case with Jesus (John 3:18). Yet another correspondence is the bloodiness of circumcision typified in Christ’s coming sacrificial death which, since He is now risen and reigns, was teleologically fulfilled and thusly replaced by baptism, an analogous sign in the covenant of grace (Colossians 2:11-15); also, the significancy of both of these signs is the regenerative work of the Spirit in which the elect individual is made a new creature in the image of Christ. This presages Christ work in fulfilling the dominion mandate, which Fesko addresses in his next chapter, but it also bespeaks of a link Paul makes between protology, eschatology, and God as omnipotent Creator: the God who is able to create ex nihilo by fiat is able to similarly create a father of many nations (Romans 4:17) and create new hearts (Ezekiel 36:26-27) in His people to effect the fulfillment the dominion mandate.

Mosaic Covenant

Briefly reviewing what elements of the Mosaic covenant have already been anticipated: the construction of the cosmic tabernacle in Genesis 1-2 parallels the construction of the tabernacle, temple decor and priestly functions parallel Adam’s intended work within Eden, and the structures of the Adamic and Mosaic covenants are analogous. Also, the Mosaic covenant is rooted in the Abrahamic (Exodus 2:24, 3:6, cf. Genesis 15:13-14), and that the context of this groundwork also mention that God appeared to Abraham and his posterity as well as Moses (Gen 17:1, 26:2, 35:9, cf. Exodus 3:2, 16) shows the special nature of theophanies to patriarchs.

The Mosaic covenant itself is fairly straight-forward. It was bilateral except insofar as God determined the terms (Exodus 19:5). It was given to Moses and Israel soon after their deliverance from Egypt (19:1), and detailed explanation of its stipulations, blessings, curses, &c. can be found in chapters 19-31. More important for the purposes of Fesko’s book is to note that content of the covenant as well as its structure and bilaterality is similar to the covenant of works: “you shall not [eat/murder, steal, &c.]” (Genesis 2:17, Exodus 20:13-17); Leviticus 26:6-12 is a lengthened echo of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28; the blessings and curses of each covenant are also analogous (Genesis 1:28, 2:15-17, Deuteronomy 7:12-13, 8:19).

Further protological types are apparent when one considers the nature of Israel and its promised land (Isaiah 2:2-5). Israel, like Adam, is called God’s son (Exodus 4:22, Luke 3:38). It was a priestly kingdom (Exodus 19:6), an apt description of Adam’s domain and that of believers in Christ (1 Peter 2:5). Canaan itself recalls one to Edenic luxury; it was a land of milk and honey (Exodus 33:1-3, Numbers 13:27, e.g. Ezekiel 47:12). Given the nature of these patterns, it is not surprising to find that the goals of the Mosaic covenant are similar to those of the Adamic covenant: each purports to extend God’s presence to all the ends of the earth (Genesis 1:28, Isaiah 49:6).

The context of the covenant also marks its ties to Genesis 1-3. The [re]creation of Israel out of the Egyptian slavery is, like the Noahic deluge, a type of new creation which finds its antitype in the regeneration of the elect, discussed next chapter. The avian imagery (Exodus 13:21-22, 40:34-38, Deuteronomy 32:10-11, Haggai 2:5), the Holy Spirit’s witness to the construction of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:3) in conjunction that the Hebraic phrase for “spirit of God” is always used in the context of tabernacle construction – unless Genesis 1:2 be the exception, which rather strengthens the typological reference to creation as a cosmological tabernacle in which Eden was the holy of holies – the baptism of Israel (1 Corinthians 10:2), that deliverance typifies God establishing His creation and defeating chaos (Isaiah 51:9, Psalm 89:10), the introduction of Yahweh as Elohim who brings light from darkness (e.g. Exodus 13:21), divides the waters (e.g. 14:21), draws up dry land (e.g. 14:29), and commands observance of the Sabbath (Heb 4:3-10)... if we add to these protologically relevant observations that Israel is said to be the son of God and that goal of God’s covenant with them is, in essentials, the same, the Mosaic covenant coheres remarkably coheres with the Adamic.

All elements were in place, then, for a repetition of the commands of the Adamic covenant, even though it was not a live possibility that Israel could fulfill it. Like the command to Noah in Genesis 9:1-7, Israel disobeyed and were, like Adam, ejected from their respective paradise. Hence, one should rather view the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works insofar as God’s law – “…summarily comprehended in the 10 Commandments” (WCF Shorter Catechism) – is still the set standard which all men must meet in order to be righteous. This standard in the covenant of grace is never changed; the means by which one attains it, however, is, and so in another sense entirely the Mosaic covenant can be said to be an administration of this covenant of grace, especially since the sign of the covenant was the Sabbath (Exodus 31:13).

The Sabbath, the eschatological sign of the covenant (Exodus 31:13), is obviously significant; moreover, since we’ve seen that the Mosaic and Adamic covenants are so similar, it does validate the earlier argument that upon Adam’s completion of his probation, he would have rested from his analogous-creation-extension work as did the archetypal Creator, God. Exodus 31:13 furthermore indicates that the post-Fall Sabbath takes on a soteric function it couldn’t have in the covenant of works: i.e. typifying the completion of salvation by grace alone. As soon as God accomplishes the goal of conforming His elect to His own image (remember that Christology defines anthropology) and thus, in effect, completing the new creation, He and they will rest (Exodus 31:17); the sign of the covenant will pass into reality. The purpose of the Sabbath, then, was to invoke the believer’s reflection on the purposes of God’s work for them and the over-arching goals He had for them. It’s also worth noting that the reproduction of the Sabbatical command at the end of the completion of tabernacles (Exodus 31:12, 35:1-2) as well as at Sinai (20:8-11) indicates a recurring theme between creation, temple construction, and rest. Almost unbelievably, Fesko enters into even more specifics with regard to the Sabbath in last chapter of his book, in which he shows how it functions as the bridge between protology and eschatology.

Davidic Covenant

God’s covenant with David, found in 2 Samuel 7:8-17 (cf. 2 Chronicles 13:5), is both unilateral and signified by salt, which is a feature associated with perpetuity (e.g. Numbers 18:19) and designed to emphasize the irrevocability of God’s oath. As God tells Nathan, His promises – which here consist of rest for His people evermore from all enemies, the establishment of an eternal kingdom, and the blessing of David’s seed who was to build that kingdom – stem from the sovereignty of Him who was able to make David, a shepherd, to be the king of His people; the parallel to Christ as Shepherd and King hardly needs further explanation, but analyzing how these promises relate to protology and eschatology should summarize the high points of Old Testament Christological precursors so that Christ’s work itself can in turn be examined.

The seed motif found in the protoevangelium and Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are all promises by God borne out in the immediate offspring of each parents’ child as typification of the true fulfillment by God’s own Son, Jesus, in whom all may find eternal rest (John 5:24). Quick examples: Abel’s obedience prompted Cain, his brother, to murder him, just as the innocent Christ’s blood-brethren would murder Him (Genesis 3:15, 4:1-8, Acts 2:22-23, cf. Hebrews 12:24). Isaac, the son of promise, was nearly sacrificed by his father just as Christ was by the Father (Genesis 22, Romans 8:32, cf. Galatians 3:16).

Solomon’s work too is closely tied to Christ’s work: Solomon was to build the house of the Lord – God’s place of dwelling in Israel’s future temple – which would bring glory to God. This temple, which David began to construct, was built on Mount Moriah, where David had experienced a theophany (2 Chronicles 3:1) at which he built an altar (1 Chronicles 21:26). The protological pertinence of mountain, theophany, and altar imagery has already been covered thoroughly. The specifications of the temple are found in 2 Chronicles 3-5 and include the precious metals, cherubim, and other Edenic allusions. Christ has also built His Father’s house by securing the salvation of believers (Hebrews 3:1-6; cf. Hebrews 8-10) – who are themselves temples (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) – and, as importantly, He has brought maximum glory to God (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, 3). Further ecclesiological and eschatological illustrations will be noted in Fesko’s next chapter. Here, it suffices to understand that the Davidic covenant obviously has more protological roots in addition to the covenant of works.

The temple-extension has also been shown to be one aspect of fulfilling the dominion mandate. While this is addressed in the Davidic covenant, man’s duty to subdue the earth as God’s vicegerent receives greater emphasis here than in earlier covenants. David recognizes, however, that God’s “dominion” and “rule” extends over all things, including the covenant heads who He has ordained to bless by grace alone (1 Chronicles 29:11-12, cf. Genesis 1:28). With the covenant of grace comes the increasing revelation that God alone can enable man to make headway in that which he is obligated to do.

In Psalm 110, for instance, David, who was king and priest, acts as prophet when he foretells of Christ’s subjugation of all things to Himself (compare Solomon’s interaction with King Huram and the Queen of Sheba). Christ’s global authority is equally important for Him to fulfill of the covenant of works for us, and he briefly mentions this passage to confute the religious authorities when He asks how David can be referring to Solomon, his son, as his own Lord. While sonship is necessary for messiahship, it is necessary for the son referenced in the Davidic (Abrahamic, &c.) covenant(s) to be perfect, which Solomon (Isaac, &c.) could not have been. This simply exhibits a New Testament use of the Old to establish that Christ is the prime antitype of all Old Testament covenants and shadows. He is King of all creation, yet He is also, unlike all other Adamic figures, an obedient vicegerent who actually can and does bring to fruition the will of His Father.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 6

Introduction

When Adam fell, God declared that one would come to conquer Satan in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15). That Adam renamed his wife Eve and that they were covered with garments when they left Eden imply that they immediately understood, assented to, and looked forward to the promise that her seed would fulfill the conditions of the covenant as well as the day they could reenter Paradise. Throughout the Old Testament, shadows of this person were meant to progressively enlighten God’s people about the person and work of both Adams and evidence – through implicit references to the covenant of works and typification of the new covenant of grace – that only the God-man could tear the cherubim-decorated veil and bring those whom He saves [back] to the holy of holies, new Eden. From the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?

Answer: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

In other words, while the goal of the covenant (the dominion mandate) has remained, the means of attaining it has changed. What was once possible by works is now only possible by grace. While each Old Testament covenant was administered in a different context and, hence, with different analogical referents, each alludes in some way to the covenant of works and each possesses the same archetypal focus: Jesus and His work. Because a proper understanding of Christ’s work is reinforced by a proper understanding of these typical Old Testament covenants, Fesko’s fourth chapter expresses the important Christological, protological, and eschatological elements in the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants:

Noahic Covenant

Genesis 9 contains the Noahic covenant as well as most of the parallels to Genesis 1-3. In the preceding chapters, the postdiluvian emergence of order from disorder (7:18-19, 8:1, 11, 17, 20-21; cf. John 1:32) inclines the reader to be reminded of the cosmological creation account provided in Genesis 1-2 (1:2, 9, 28, 2:2-3); Noah exited the ark, built an altar, and blessed God for his mercy to him and his family (8:20). In response, God smelled the aroma of rest (a Sabbatical insinuation), said to Himself that He would not to curse the earth because of man, and, interestingly, implicitly reestablished His covenant with night and day. The analogies are many: chaos, avian imagery of the Holy Spirit, land emerging from water (order from chaos), image of God, dominion mandate, temple imagery, Sabbatical principle, &c. are evidences of God’s sovereignty in His ability to control the outworking of His coherent plan as well as the intended conveyances of said plan.

The [re]creation is not the only reason to believe that the Adamic and Noahic covenants are linked. Genesis 9:1-7 is a fairly obvious parallel to the dominion mandate to mankind, who are in the image of God; obviously, the command doesn’t indicate Noah was actually capable of fulfilling it in light of the Fall, and the Noahic covenant was not predicated on this command in any case. Still, the command and the way in which Noah sinned (9:20-23) seem to demonstrate that the author’s overt desire to parallel Noah to Adam: Noah – even though he was a righteous man – got drunk from fruit in a garden-setting, was ashamed of his nakedness and was covered by another, and prompted blessing and curse to the seed (Shemites vs. Canaanites; cf. Cainites vs. Sethites). It is most sensible to understand this mandate and failure to fulfill the mandate as evidence that a new, indefectible Adam was needed.

Given that God was “establishing” a covenant with Noah and not “making” one per se (see part 4), it is not surprising that the Noahic covenant was with all creation or that the author made repeated contextual allusions to Genesis 1-2. The author’s observations, designed to prove that the root of the postdiluvian creation is in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2, functions as a simple example that the Noahic covenant was not anachronistically constituted in a vacuum. As the Noahic covenant was unilateral (i.e. the promises were unconditional), there are certainly facets of it which are meant to look forward to the New Adam – by whose death and resurrection common grace is made possible – rather than backward to the covenant of works. But this merely proves the point made earlier: the goal of the Noahic covenant in the context of Genesis 9 is the same, but the means of accomplishing it are different. Noah could not himself hope to fulfill the means, let alone the goal, of the Adamic covenant. But if one compares the sign of the covenant, a rainbow, to Ezekiel 1:28 and Revelation 10:1, the Noahic covenant seems to anticipate that a new Adam will restore creation in purity, purchase common grace for all, and fulfill of the covenant of works on behalf of those who bear His image. Also, in the same way the promise has protological significance to creation, so too it has eschatalogical significance, viz. that the elect - new creations - will no more have to occasionally endure God's wrath and judgment upon unbelievers, having been saved in the ark (Christ) through baptismal waters (1 Peter 3:20-21).

Further thoughts: given that the Noahic covenant was established subsequent to the baptismal deluge on which occasion Noah and his family were saved, God’s covenant with His new creation may signify an eschatological promise; that is, it could, in addition to what elements of Christology it foreshadowed, be intended to convey the idea that God’s judgment of men after death will indeed be final. The unilaterality of the covenant, those with whom God covenanted (those who were saved and the renewed creation), the fact that it was the product of the first type of God’s wrath on reprobates, and the correlation which exists between the sign of the covenant – a rainbow – and apocalyptic literature (e.g. Ezekiel 1:28, Revelation 10:1) would support this argument.

[Note: this, like chapter 3, will also be a two-part post on one chapter; I didn't want to try to lump in all 4 major OT covenants into one post.]

Fesko's "Last Things First" 5

Having established that God and Adam associated with one another within the bounds of a covenant, Fesko proceeds to explain the nature of this covenant before considering several scholarly criticisms of it. Much of the content has already been anticipated at this point: the bilaterality of the covenant, the priestly work of Adam in the priestly context of Eden, the Christological parallels, &c., so at this point, Fesko is primarily concerned with explaining the way in which these elements cohere.

The stipulations of the Adamic covenant, expressed most cogently in Genesis 1:28, were for Adam and his helpmate to multiply, subdue the earth, and exercise dominion over it and its inhabitants. Those who recognize the biblicality of an Adamic covenant are in general agreement as to Adam’s actual duties. The goal of these labors, however, is disputed. Some believe that the purpose was merely an occupation. Others had argued that the tilling of the land and reproduction were commanded as an imitation of God’s own creation. These and other interpretations, however, seem to consider Adam’s work as a teleological end in itself. If one recalls that Adam was a priest within Eden, the holy of holies within God's cosmic temple, it is hard to imagine that in this design there is no more meaningful – if underlying – objective than farming for farming’s sake.

Before he clarifies exactly how the dominion mandate identifies with Adam’s priestly typification, Fesko notes the contrast between the Edenic paradise in which Adam was placed and the surrounding chaos which he was to cultivate (2:5-6, 15). Though the land vegetated and it rained both inside and outside the garden (cf. Job 36:27, Psalm 135:7), order only existed inside the garden. There is, then, certainly something to the idea Adam was to rule as vicegerent over creation analogously to God’s rule over the universe (cf. Psalm 8) by organizing disorder, but Fesko presses this point to further include the idea that the dominion mandate was an extension of the garden-temple itself. Fruit-bearing trees, rivers which proceeded from Eden to the four corners of the earth, and precious materials (Genesis 2:9-14) which would have been available to them as they subdued the rest of the earth would have ensured that Adam, Eve, and their offspring could spread “God’s glory to the ends of the earth” without having to leave the confines of their Paradise, after which they would have – as God did – rested (entered into a real Sabbath), their covenantal activity fulfilled.

This function of the covenant of works is also substantiated by the republications of this [old] covenant to other Old Testament foreshadows of Christ, not to mention the archetypes of the new covenant, and Fesko expounds on this in his next few chapters. In the remainder of his third chapter, however, Fesko addresses various criticisms of the covenant of works, using John Murray as the opposing interlocutor.

There are three fundamental arguments against the [Adamic] covenant of works, viz. nowhere in Scripture is the word “covenant” found in conjunction with Adam, covenants are always redemptive and unilateral, and “works” would be an improper adjectival denotation for whatever else one might wish to label God’s relationship with Adam. While the first two arguments are question-begging, as Fesko has already demonstrated that a covenant need not be explicitly identified as such within the immediate context of a given passage (Jeremiah 33:19-20, Malachi 2:14) and Murray offers no other possible interpretation of Hosea 6:7, the third argument is worth special consideration. The argument is essentially as follows:

“From the promise of the Adamic administration we must disassociate all notions of meritorious award. The promise of confirmed integrity and blessedness was one annexed to an obedience that Adam owed and, therefore, was a promise of grace. All that Adam could have claimed on the basis of equity was justification and life as long as he perfectly obeyed, but not confirmation so as to insure indefectibility. Adam could claim the fulfillment of the promise if he stood the probation, but only on the basis of God’s faithfulness, not on the basis of justice.” (Collected Writings of John Murray)

The first problem with this assessment is that if Adam’s obedience was the condition for life as Murray does admit, then grace cannot have been the basis of God’s reward (Romans 11:6). The second problem is that Murray assumes, without further ado, that a reward of eternal life would not have constituted an equitable reward for obedience to the stipulations of the covenant on the basis justice alone, which is why he is led to believe that Adam’s status was actually grounded on grace. But by this argument, it would seem Murray should consider that the fact Adam disobeyed should neither have merited eternal condemnation. What Murray misunderstands is that God is not treating Adam as an equal; rather, He treated Adam within the bounds of the very covenant which He established as Suzerain. A final problem is that Murray fails to parallel the work of the first Adam with the work of the last Adam. If the first could not merit eternal life, how can the last? And if the last cannot, then there is obviously no justificatory foundation for believers. Interestingly, Calvin believed Christ’s merit depends on God’s good pleasure and grace alone, which, if true, would mean that the means of redemption is arbitrary (not to mention Romans 11:6 is here too ignored). In fact, Christ’s obedience is the reason believers are made righteous (Romans 5:19), as He was able to and did procure that which was necessary in order to fulfill the covenant of works, thus establishing a new covenant of grace for those who believe in Him.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 4

Having laid some typological groundwork, Fesko turns his focus towards explicating the covenant between God and Adam, expressed in the WCF as follows: “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.”

The word “covenant” (בְּרִית) denotes a special kind of treaty between two or more parties. There are a variety of covenantal agreements found in Scripture: friendship (e.g. David and Jonathan), marriage (e.g. Adam and Eve), parity (e.g. Abram and Abimelech), and Suzerain-Vassal (God and man).

Obviously, the covenant of works would fall under the purview of this last kind of covenant. The major covenants between God and fallen man in the Old Testament are each, to greater or lesser extents, in some sense unilateral. The Mosaic covenant most explicitly contains bilateral elements, denoting human responsibility (not synergism per se). As one would, for obvious reasons, expect a covenant of works to be bilateral, an outline of the nature of a Suzerain-Vassal treaty – within the Mosaic context especially – would, should one find that Genesis 1-3 is similarly structured, certainly strengthen the argument that God covenanted with Adam:

1. The introduction of the Suzerain (God) and Vassal (man).

2. Historical comments about the God’s relation to man.

3. The stipulations of the treaty.

4. A clause requiring both periodic reading of the treaty and its preservation in the temple.

5. The articulation of the blessings and curses of God depending upon man’s response to the stipulations of the treaty. 

6. The ratification of the treaty by witnesses.

So, for instance, when one compares this outline to the Mosaic covenant, he finds the parallels are striking. Exodus 20:2 lists the Suzerain, Vassal, and their relation (God has protected Moses and Israel). The stipulations are, of course, the 10 Commandments, covered throughout verses 3-17. These verses also outline the blessings or curses one can expect to receive depending upon the adherence to the stipulations in the covenant – prolonged days and loving kindness from the Lord as blessings, and punishment and the visiting of “iniquities of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Him” as curses (verses 5-7, 12). Exodus 25:16 invokes the document clause and 24:4 entails the witnesses.

Obviously, there was as yet no historical relation between God and man except insofar as God explained the purpose of that which He prepared for man (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:15, 19-20). 1:28-30 and 2:3, 15-17 express the dominion mandate, command against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (cf. Exodus 20:13-15), and the blessings (permanent Sabbath and fellowship) and curses (death, alienation) which would be bestowed on Adam depending upon the result of his actions during the probative period. Moreover, the tree of life and tree of knowledge, like signs in other Suzerain-Vassal treaties, “function sacramentally by serving as visual reminders of God’s stated blessing and curse, the promise of life or death,” which would in turn serve as the constant reminders of the covenant. Finally, the aerial imagery used to describe the presence of Holy Spirit in God’s (re)creative activity (Genesis 1:2, cf. Genesis 8:1-8, Exodus 13:21-22, Matthew 3:16, Revelation 10:1) should not be overlooked, as He is the witness to God’s covenantal exercise (cf. Jeremiah 33:19-20).

Even if the rest of Scripture were silent on the nature of God’s fellowship with Adam, then, the fact that a covenant does not need to be explicitly identified as such within the immediate context of a passage – note that, in addition to Jeremiah 33:19-20, a marriage ceremony is never explicitly mentioned, although Genesis 1-2 certainly implies such – and the fact that Genesis 1-2 follows the covenantal standard is sufficient to show that the essentials of such a relationship were extant. Fesko proceeds to note that extra-contextual evidence supports the interpretation that God covenanted with Adam.

Firstly, the fact that God said he would “establish” rather than “cut” or “make” a covenant with Noah – the first time בְּרִית appears in Genesis (6:18) – implies the republication of an extant covenant rather than a formulation of a new covenant. That the command in Genesis 1:28 is repeated in 9:7, the context in which God did establish the Noahic covenant, certainly points toward the idea that the covenant which God was re-establishing with Noah was one which He had originally “made” with Adam.

Secondly, Hosea 6:7 – “Like Adam,  they have broken the covenant…” – is proof God established a covenant with Adam. No less than Calvin argued that “Adam” means “men,” and yet this substitution lacks the specificity necessary in order for the analogy Hosea draws to be intelligible; on the other hand, it would make sense if Hosea was observing Adam and Israel – both the sons of God (Exodus 22-23, Luke 3:38) – were both unfaithful to the covenant (cf. Job 31:33).

A final passage Fesko cites in conjunction with his argument is Romans 5:12-19, as explicit a typological explanation as can be found within Scripture. Given all the ways in which Adam is said to prefigure Christ, it would be improbable that one would have lived within a covenantal context if the other did not. Regardless, the preceding arguments the nature of this covenant (explanation forthcoming in the next post) suggest that it is untenable to regard Adam’s relationship with God as anything if not covenantal.

Fesko's "Last Things First" 3

Knowing what it means to be in the image of God and one way in which Jesus fulfills or represents that which Adam ought not have corrupted, to examine further similarities and differences, Fesko reasons it is necessary to examine the setting in which the first things took place: the garden.

Some commentators regard Adam’s duty to tend and guard the garden as a work-ethic or merely something to keep him occupied. Fesko, on the other hand, in line with his claim that Adam was the first priest, believes that Genesis 1-3 typological richness includes the idea Eden should be viewed as the first temple. To substantiate this, Fesko separates Edenic comparisons to the temple into two categories: Eden’s features and the activity of its inhabitants. Collectively taken, the argument that Eden was a primeval temple is convincing:

Features

- Eden’s eastern location (Genesis 2:8) correlates with God’s special presence as shown elsewhere (Ezekiel 11:1, 23, 43:1-4, 44:1-2, Luke 1:78-79).

- Eden rested on a mountain top from which the river flowed (Genesis 2:10-14, Ezekiel 28:14, 16), and God’s presence is again indicated elsewhere as special among mountains such like Horeb, Sinai, and Zion (Exodus 3:1, 18:5, 24:13, Psalm 48:1-2, Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 14:1, 21:10). Moreover, there is a close connection between the temple and mountains (Ezekiel 43:12).

- The river of Eden also identifies with temple imagery (Psalm 46:4, Ezekiel 47:1, 8). “River” is symbolic in Ezekiel as well as it is when used in reference to God’s word conjoined with the washing of the Spirit (Isaiah 8, John 7:38-39) in regenerating one’s body to become a temple for the Holy Spirit.

- The trees in the garden bear ecclesiastical significance. Firstly, the tree of knowledge is like the law of God (Genesis 3:6, Psalm 19:8-9). A copy of the law – the Decalogue – was kept inside the ark in the holy of holies with the book of the law beside it (Exodus 25:16, Deuteronomy 31:26). Touching the ark brought certain death as did eating of the tree of knowledge (Numbers 4:20, 2 Samuel 6:7). The law of God is always present in the temple, whether in the ark or a visual representation of God’s command. Secondly, the tree of life may be related to the temple menorah (Exodus 25:31-39), as both are said to be in proximity to God’s throne (cf. Revelation 22:1). Thirdly, there were many different kinds of trees in the garden (Ezekiel 31:8-9), reflecting the different decorations of the temple (1 Kings 6:18, 29, 32, 7:18). Trees are present in Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the temple and appear in similar form in John’s vision as well (Ezekiel 41:18-26, 47:12, Revelation 22:2, 14). This in turn links to the river imagery (Ezekiel 47:12, Revelation 22:1-2) and has special association, as was referenced, to the tree of life. Finally, the connection between the temple and the church is also noteworthy. The church seems to be regarded by the apostles as the eschatological temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19, Ephesians 2:21, 1 Peter 2:5). If the garden typifies the temple, it would seem that trees correlatively typify the church (Psalm 1:3, Matthew 3:10, 7:17-20, John 15:1, Galatians 5:22). Just as Adam stood in the midst of fruit bearing trees, then, so too will the second Adam when He stands with His brethren.

- The precious stones and metals in the garden (Genesis 2:10-14) is argued in rabbinic literature to have been created for use in the temple. Ezekiel’s prophecy against the kind of Tyre reveals more types (Ezekiel 28:13), and while the bulk of tabernacle furniture was indeed made or covered by pure gold (Exodus 25:11, 17, 24, 29, 36), some precious metals reappear in the high priest’s vestments (Exodus 28:17-20). The breastplate was supposed to be a small replica of the earthly tabernacle modeled  on the heavenly tabernacle (Beale, Revelation, 1080), and that these items also appear in the foundation of the eschatological temple should, at this point, be unsurprising (Revelation 21:20, 18-20).

- The cherubim were posted to guard the entrance of the garden upon man’s exit (Genesis 3:24) and were likewise guardians of the inner sanctuary of the temple (1 Kings 6:23-28), the ark itself (Exodus 25:18-22). and were decorated on various parts of the tabernacle and temple (Exodus 26:31, 1 Kings 6:29). Ezekiel too mentions the cherub, to which he compares the king against whom he is prophesying (Ezekiel 28:14); this is similar to the function described by John (Revelation 4:6-8). Of significance is the fact that they guard the eastern entrance (the place of God’s presence) and that Moses was instructed to hang the curtain between the inner sanctuary and the holy of holies (Exodus 26:33). Such implies Eden itself was the holy of holies in which man had direct access to God’s presence. Any who tried to enter the garden after the fall would be struck down like those who attempted to enter the holy of holies. Only the high priest could safely enter and only on the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:2). The Christological connections are clear: Christ tore the veil (Matthew 27:51) – which, given the cherubim were decorated on the veil, typified our separation from God’s direct presence – and moved the cherubim back before God’s throne. Man may, through Christ, come to God in the holy of holies (Hebrews 9:24-25).

Activity of inhabitants

- God’s presence is referenced in the garden (Genesis 3:8) in same manner as in the tabernacle (Leviticus 26:11-12, Deuteronomy 23:14, 2 Samuel 67:6).

- Many parallels exist with respect to the days of creation. The seven days of creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3) correlates with the seven speeches given to Moses for the construction of the tabernacle (Exodus 25:1-27:19). After the seventh speech, Moses was told to rest upon completion of his construction just as God rested (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 31:17, 40:35). Moses had to wait six days before ascending Mount Sinai to receive these instructions (Exodus 24:15), and, interestingly, Christ ascended the mount of transfiguration after six days (Matthew 17:1, Mark 9:2). The relation between creation and the tabernacle is striking in rabbinic interpretation of the meaning of the temple, as shown in Fesko’s charting:  

Day/(Creation/Tabernacle)

One/Creation: Heavens stretched curtain (Psalm 104:2)                    

One/Tabernacle: Tent (Exodus 26:7)

Two/Creation: Firmament (Genesis 1:6)

Two/Tabernacle: Temple veil (Exodus 26:33)

Three/Creation: Waters below (Genesis 1:9)                            

Three/Tabernacle: Laver or bronze sea (Exodus 30:18)

Four/Creation: Lights (Genesis 1:14)

Four/Tabernacle: Light stand (Exodus 25:31)

Five/Creation: Birds (Genesis 1:20)                                       

Five/Tabernacle: Winged cherubim (Exodus 25:20)

Six/Creation: Man (Genesis 1:27)     

Six/Tabernacle: Aaron the high priest (Exodus 28:1)

Seven: Cessation, completion, blessing (Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 39:32, 43, Numbers 7:1)

- If creation is a part of God’s cosmic temple, then Eden was the first holy of holies and Adam its first priest, further corroborated by his responsibilities.

- The duty of Adam to “work” and “keep” the garden (Genesis 2:15) uses verbs which, when mentioned together, are only otherwise used to describe the duties of a Levitical priest (Numbers 3:7-8, 4:23-26, 8:26, 18:5-6). Adam seems to have typified Levitical priests as well as Christ (who also represented the fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood).

- Specific terminology used to describe Adam’s post-Fall vestments (Genesis 3:21) is the same as that which was used to denote the garb of Levitical priests (Genesis 41:42, Exodus 28:41, 29:8, 40:13, Leviticus 8:13, 1 Samuel 17:38).While the clothing certainly anticipates our clothed righteousness, one should not miss that priests were required to clothe themselves in the presence of God (Exodus 20:26, 28:42).

Conclusion

These sum of these considerations can be traced back to pre-incarnate literature (e.g. book of Jubilees) and even theologians as recently as Karl Barth have, in passing noted the Eden-temple typology. The new earth which Christ will bring to fulfillment is not a generic city-farm but a city-temple. The last things show what the first ought have been. Adam, like Samuel, was taken to the temple to dwell in the Lord’s presence (1 Samuel 1:22) and minister (1 Samuel 3:1):

“God produced in Eden a microcosmic version of his cosmic sanctuary.  The garden planted there was holy ground with guardianship of its sanctity committed in turn to men and to cherubim. It was the temple-garden of God, the place chosen by the Glory-Spirit who hovered over creation from the beginning to be the focal site of his throne-presence among men... By virtue of the presence of this theophanic cloud-canopy over it, Eden had the character of a holy tabernacle, a microcosmic house of God.  And since it was God himself who, present in his theophanic Glory, constituted the Edenic temple, man in the Garden of God could quite literally confess that Yahweh was his refuge and the Most High was his habitation.” (Meredith Kline, “Images of the Spirit,” pgs. 35-37)

[As a personal note, this is one of my favorite chapters in the book. Fesko's argumentation and bibliographical references are nothing if not thorough.]