You wrote alot which on this blog is of course welcomed. However, I will not be able to interact adequately with all you have said.

I have to think more on your connections between the 4 rivers and 4 cherubim. I am not sure about the 4 corners of the camp of Israel. I am pretty sure that the cross has nothing to do with it, considering Jesus may not have died on such a neat cross like we think of.

I think I might understand what you mean by biblical worldview and Christian worldview. It is true the “worldviews” in terms of cosmology may differ from one another; however, the basics of a worldview as we usually think about it (Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going) should be identical to the worldview of the biblical authors. We should understand Creation-Fall-Redemption-new Creation in the same way these authors did. This way of reading the Scripture will essentially shape our worldview. Got to run.

-John M

Hey Paizon, thanks for your comment above. I should not have used the word fulfilled. It’s funny, but I remember thinking at the time that there was a better word to use than that, but I guess I was too tired to think too much more about it. You explained what I meant to say very well, though. NC fulfillment is good. There were many in the OC, though, who understood the promise of the Abrahamic covenant and made huge impacts on pagan nations. Daniel and Ezekiel are just two of these men that I have been reading about lately, and I love how they are examples for Christians today who are to influence the world by being excellent at what we do and making the glory of God the goal of what we do.

I tried to be brief with my post last night, as I was pretty tired, but I probably should have clarified a few points. First, I absolutely agree with you on the issue of the gospel message and missions. I found N.T. Wright to be extremely helpful in defining the gospel as the declaration that Christ is King… His Kingdom has arrived. But I believe that God has always been about the work of establishing His kingdom – from the beginning. I did not intend to mean that had Adam not sinned, his “mission” would still have been to proclaim the kingdom of God to unbelieving nations. God still would have filled the earth, growing His kingdom to the ends of the earth. But because Adam sinned, he was unable to accomplish this task. This goes for each succeeding covenant. (btw, I am comfortable referring to an Adamic covenant that is NOT a covenant of works, because I see elements of a covenant in the narrative. Also, like you, I see Hosea 6:7 referring to a covenant with Adam that is a creation covenant. There is no reference to a covenant of works in this passage, and I also don’t agree with the interpretation that “Adam” only refers to “man”). But God, in His graciousness, has sent His Son to be the second Adam; the Seed of Promise, the True Israel. He has done what God has always intended – established His kingdom.

Also, I think the four rivers have symbolic meaning AND literal meaning. Symbolically, I agree that the rivers represent life and all its benefits, but the benefits are primarily seen in Eden. These benefits are to flow to the four corners of the earth – the expansion of the kingdom. This theme is continued in the symbolism of the four faces of the cherubim (Ez. 1:10), the four sides of the camp of Israel (Num. 2), and even the cross (to name just a few). But, just as the cross not only symbolizes who is to partake of this death (the four corners of the earth), it literally is the power that accomplishes this task (does that make sense? I’m tired and I feel like I’m not finding the right words). Likewise, the four rivers symbolize life that flows from sanctuary with God, these rivers literally supplied the means that enable His people to grow the kingdom.

To agree with Brian on the command to go to the nations has always been with God’s people (regardless of which covenant they were under); think about God’s ‘co-mission’ to Adam, “to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth” (as John said, “Adam’s ‘mission’ or purpose was to take the Kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.”)

Brian, you also said that, “Many tend to think that the Great Commission was the initial fulfillment of God’s covenant that the nations would be blessed through the seed of Abraham.”

To further John’s point (and Brian’s) on the ’spreading of God’s Kingdom,’ we may look at this not as the ‘only’ or ‘initial’ fulfillment of God’s commands to His covenant people; but the NC fulfillment . . . a spirit empowered co-mission, that God will see to its end . . . in the new heavens and new earth.

Good to hear from you!

What do you mean when you say: “I think there is a lot of interesting themes that are introduced in Genesis 1-3 that inform the worldview of the Bible (not to be confused with Christian worldview).”

I am confused because Christians derive their worldview from the Bible. In the Christian worldview, Genesis 1-3 is the beginning of the Christian meta-narrative and so it will become foundational for worldview formation. For this reason, we must make sure that we understand these chapters and their relationship to the whole of Scripture.

Your comments about Genesis are good. You are right about the garden being in Eden (Gen 2:8), “God planted a garden in Eden.”

However, I am not sure of your conclusions on the four rivers. Who was Adam to trade with? I think the rivers were historically there, but they serve almost a symbolic function in the narrative. The point is Eden, where God and man dwell together, where man lives as man should with his God. The rivers that flow from Eden are ambiguous from the Genesis account itself. However, I think Revelation 22:1 offers some help here. The rivers (divided from the one river) represent “life” in the garden. Every where these rivers flow, life and good things are sure to accompany them. Hence the reference to gold and precious stones. Moses is painting a picture for us. This garden was lush and full of life. Most importantly, the king and his God are living together.

I think that the “missions” theme is present, but we need to rethink how we talk about missions in light of Genesis 1-3 and consequently all of Scripture. In the NT, the Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God being at hand. The Kingdom of God has been the theme since the beginning. Adam’s “mission” or purpose was to take the Kingdom of God to the ends of the earth. Where the Kingdom of God goes, the glory of God accompanies it. So I think that “missions” is the theme, but we need to think about it in terms of God’s kingdom being spread. This conclusion has far reaching implications. Now, it is not simply the gospel, but it is the whole way and rule of God, which is going to the ends of the earth. So salvation from sins will be a reality, but now in conjunction with this, the “new man” (adam; the church) is being matured and completed in Christ, the New Man par excellance (Eph 2:14, 4:13).

Thanks for the comments Brian, let’s continue to discuss these issues.

-John M

Hey, long time no see. I’m enjoying the blog… good stuff. It’s funny, I went to church and school with you for 3 years or so, but it took a buddy of mine (Guiseppi) to turn me onto your blog. Anyways, I think there is a lot of interesting themes that are introduced in Genesis 1-3 that inform the worldview of the Bible (not to be confused with Christian worldview). In regards to the above comments, another “proof” can be seen in this: God created Eden, then created a garden sanctuary, if you will, where he placed Adam. This garden is Adam’s place of worship/ God’s dwelling place, and Adam was to leave his sanctuary, “work the land,” and return home. Adam’s work involved working the ground – essentially he was a farmer/gardener. God made luscious plants grow in this enviroment. We then read about four rivers that flow from one river, which flowed out of Eden. The first river is the Pishon, which flowed to Havilah, which is already described as being filled with gold and precious stones. God, from the very start, has created a world that must interact with one another, i.e. trade. As humanity multiplied, they were to interact with one another, and make the world more glorious. Many tend to think that the Great Commission was the initial fulfillment of God’s covenant that the nations would be blessed through the seed of Abraham, and while this certainly was a greater fulfillment, God’s people have always been required go unto the nations – and when they did not obey this command, God was faithful to His promise and used events like famines and the exile to cause His people to mingle with/influence the lives of unbelievers. Had Adam not sinned, I believe that it would have still been his duty to “go to the ends of the earth/follow the rivers” and make a glorious world that worshipped and reflected the One God.

Thanks for the comment. You are exactly right. The language of “filling” and “multiplying” combined with subduing in Gen 1:26-28, I think, is developed in the rest of the Bible’s storyline. The texts that you cite are very apropos to this discussion, and later on down the series, I will be citing them in support. The kingdom (rule and reign) of God is tied to the glory or presence of God. As we continue to read Scripture together, we must continue to read the Bible with kingdom and creation and covenant and glory or presence of God along with other themes in mind. Thanks for the comment, and I will try to keep posting on this subject, but my time is very limited right now. Thanks for your interest.

- John M

Another thought to supoort this theme of God’s desire for harmony with both creation and people (covenant with creation?) is that His ultimate goal for creation is that “the earth will be filled with the knowledge and the glory of God as the waters cover the sea” (Hab. 2:14, cf. Isa. 43:7, 21; Num. 14:21). Thus creations goal is to bring Glory to God alone. This is an eschatology of hope. A hope for the kingdom of Christ on earth that will bring God’s glory.

SBTS has professors that hold to various perspectives on these issues. There is one prof from whom I learned most of what has been written in these posts (I say most because the errors remain with me, and I have tweeked a couple of points). There is another OT prof who denies any sort of covenant in Gen 1-3. He is not NCT, but his arguments for this point are similar: the word “covenant” does not occur within these verses.

Most hold to the covenant of works as traditionally conceived.

I hope this helps.

-John

The creation account is very ambiguous, yet the elements of a covenant are there. Yet, the traditional view of CT would have us see a probation period, etc. I find no warrant for that . . . but that is a subject for another blog. CT has written on a covenant of creation in Eden, yet they come at it from a different perspective.

At any rate I like your thoughts . . . looking forward to your response . . .

Oh, how does this ‘kingdom, covenant’ theme revealed in Genesis, square up to the teaching at SBTS?

I have some friends at SBTS who would agree and others who would disagree . . .

Thanks for your comments. I must confess that I have not thought long enough on the greater implications of the covenant and kingdom themes in Genesis and all of Scripture for theology proper. I will have to process all that you have said.

You asked two questions,
“My questions are: is this covenant revealed in a vacuum or does it have a foundation, deriving from God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:11)?

Also could this covenant be more fully revealed in the Noahatic Covenant?”

Your first question, I think, answers itself. I believe that God does have an eternal purpose or decree, and all of his works conform to it, and nothing that happens is a departure from it. So in this way, Kingdom and Covenant certainly accomplish the eternal purpose of God, which is rooted in the nature of God. However, we are not on absolutely solid biblical footing here, so I will not say too much about it. On the biblical level, the book of Genesis is entirely concerned with giving historical Israel a worldview. It would be this book above all that would establish their history and purpose. I believe that they would (should?) have seen themselves as the next “first-born son” of God (Ex 4:22; Gen 1:26, 5:3; Luke 3:38). Israel was the next “son” that would bring in the Kingdom of God. This is the ultimate purspose of Genesis according to Gen 1-3. The Abrahamic promises are subservient to these chapters in that God is now establishing his kingdom through Abraham “and his seed.” Does this touch on your question at all?

Your second question touches on the main issue. Yes, the covenant with creation is more fully revealed in Noah. For one, it is explicitely called a covenant in Gen 6:18, whereas before it was implicit. Most importantly, the Noahic covenant shows God’s pattern. The new creation language in Gen 8-9 is important. God is making “all things new,” but of course this work will not last beyond Noah, for sin remains in the world. The themes of covenant and kingdom continue through Noah to Abraham, from whom God would cause KINGS to come (Gen 17:6, 16).

I hope these answers interact with your questions. I will try to think more about your other thoughts, but I must sign for now.

-John M

You have obviously your homework on this subject.

Your take here on a ‘covenant with creation’ is very interested, you have explained it very well . . . I have gone back skimmed over your previous two posts in this series.

I also like your theme for Genesis 1-3: kingdom and covenant

Kingdom: the kingdom of Christ expressed

Covenant . . . this is interesting, while I agree that there is not an overarching ‘covenant of works,’ your take on elements of covenant with creation being present is intriguing.

My questions are: is this covenant revealed in a vacuum or does it have a foundation, deriving from God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:11)? Also could this covenant be more fully revealed in the Noahatic Covenant?

I’m intrigued by this because it is similar to my understanding of the ‘eternal purpose’ and its unfolding within space and time. Check out this and see if it is similar to where you are (from a paper I wrote on the ‘eternal purpose,’ I have removed my footnotes):

“I believe that God’s “purpose” or “mission” (misseo Dei) before history is “realized in Christ.” That is, His purpose / mission is the establishment of the kingdom of Christ (or in the new and better covenant; Hebrews 7:22).

Or to put it another way, this purpose (or mission) is God’s ultimate goal for creation (namely humanity). It is to free creation (nature and people) from sin and death and deliver creation (nature and people) into life; and to reign as Lord of creation – a Kingdom that will ultimately bring Him glory.

This mission confesses that God loves His creation and His intention is to one day rescue the whole created order (Rom. 8:21); affirming the unity between the spiritual and material (nature and people) – the salvation of humanity and the re-creation of the heavens and earth.

This mission is revealed both in nature (i.e. to Adam in an undefined state) and through the unfolding of biblical covenants, namely the Abrahamic Covenant culminating in the new covenant (that fulfills all others).

Consequently, this eternal purpose is thrust of God’s revelation to date (i.e. Scripture). So, it perfectly agreeable in Scripture to see this eternal purpose as God’s everlasting covenant, revealed to Abraham and fulfilled in the New Covenant, “the blood of the everlasting covenant.” Therefore, the everlasting covenant (new covenant) is His mission, if you will . . . a mission that will not be thwarted, made sure by the work of Christ.

This was previously a mystery (Eph. 3:3-6) to those who lived before Christ, those who were, “strangers to the covenants of promise” (Eph. 2:12, ESV).

So, He glorifies His Son in history by “establishing community” – a Kingdom that will ultimately bring Him glory:

(1) a “redeemed community” who will reflect His glory – praising, glorifying and enjoying the presence of the Triune God;
(2) dwelling in a renewed creation – the New Heavens and New Earth, for all eternity (re-created or consummated kingdom).