Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants
This is a study of the Old Testament covenants, notable for its defense of a creation covenant. The writing style is a bit obscure, but there is a great deal of valuable information in this volume. I’ve marked references to particular pages throughout my notebooks. This does not necessarily mean I agree with Dumbrell. I affirm an Adamic covenant, but I do not find his argumentation for it to be the most compelling. Nonetheless, this remains an important study of the biblical covenants.
Wade Kuhlewind says
Hi Brian, who do you think has the most convincing arguments for an Adamic covenant? Also, What do you think of Gentry and Wellum’s argumentation?
Brian says
Maybe I’ll do a full post on the Adamic covenant soon. But here are my arguments:
-Most of the elements of a covenant are present: two parties, promises, obligations, and sanctions. The only element(s) missing are a sacrificial ceremony and oath. But these would not be needed in an unfallen world. If someone wants to call this covenant-like instead of a covenant, as Lunde does, fine. But I think we should at least recognize we have something very like a covenant here.
-Some point out that God and man already existed in a natural relation. A covenant relation was not necessary. But in my thinking, the Creator is so exalted above the creature that the promise of a mutual relationship and the grant of dominion over the rest of creation seem to move beyond that natural relationship into a covenant relationship.
-the fact that Adam’s sin made the whole race guilty points toward the existence of a covenant. In natural relations, children are not guilty for the sins of the fathers. But people under the obligations of treaties or covenants or governments are held responsible for the actions of their covenant or legal heads. So I think Romans 5:12ff. points to Adam as a covenant head in parallel to Christ as our covenant head. (Federal headship is just a latinate way of saying covenantal headship.)
-I’m also inclined to follow the ESV/HCSB translation of Hosea 6:7, which I think then points to a covenant with Adam. B. B. Warfield has a good article on this in the first volume of his shorter writings.
With Gentry, I think he places too much emphasis on heqim being a covenant renewal rather than the cutting of a new covenant. I think this fails to make a big enough distinction between the Adamic and Noahic covenants. The two covenants are closely related, but the Noahic covenant is distinct enough in purpose and nature to not simply be a renewal of the Adamic covenant. I think the poin they make about heqim is generally true, but I’m not convinced it is always true. For instance, they have some trouble in making this point in Exodus 6:4 and Ezekiel 16:59-63.
Brian says
Regarding Gentry and Wellum, I should add, that at times Gentry seems simply to be saying that the Noahic covenant is a separate covenant from the renewal of the Adamic covenant but which renews many of its provisions. I would agree with that, but I think his strong position regarding heqim sits uncomfortably with it.