The Covenant of Creation and the Tree of Good and Evil
Christ of the Covenants, pp 81-86
O Palmer Robertson
​In considering the prohibition of Genesis 2:17 it is essential to appreciate the organic unity between this commandment and the total responsibility of man as created. The requirement concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must not be conceived of as a somewhat arbitrary stipulation without integral relation to the total life of man. Instead, this particular prohibition must be seen as the focal point of man’s testing.
Lacking this awareness of the total unity of man’s responsibilities under the covenant of creation, an extremely dangerous dualism will develop between man’s ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ responsibilities and his cultural or ‘work a day’ responsibilities. Adam under the covenant of creation did not have one set of duties relating to the crated world, and another more specific duty of an entirely different nature which could be designated as ‘spiritual.’ All that Adam did had direct bearing on his relation to the covenant God of creation. The creational ordinances of marriage, labor and Sabbath did not have a distinctive existence separated from Adam’s responsibility to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His life as a covenant creature must be viewed as a unified whole.
If the covenant of creation is thought not to exceed Adam’s probation-test, a curious brand of Christianity ultimately emerges. It is a brand of Christianity greatly at odds with that in which the probation-test is understood as the focal point of a total life-embracing covenantal relationship. The difference between the two views is the difference between ‘fundamentalism’ narrowly conceived and the broader ‘covenantal theology’ of Scripture.
The ’fundamentalist’ may conceive of the significance of Christianity more narrowly in terms of the salvation of the ‘soul.’ Too often he may fail to consider adequately the effect of redemption on the total life-style of man in the context of an all-embracive covenant. That view results frequently in a by-passing of the responsibility of redeemed man to carry forward the implications of his salvation into the world of economics, politics, business and culture.
The total life involvement of the covenant relationship provides the framework for considering the connection bet6ween the ‘great commission’ and the ‘cultural mandate.’ Entrance into God’s kingdom may occur only by repentance and faith, which requires the preaching of the gospel. This ‘gospel,’ however, must not be conceived of in the narrowest possible terms. It is the gospel of the ‘kingdom.’ It involves discipling men to Jesus Christ. Integral to that discipling process is the awakening of an awareness of the obligations of man to the totality of God’s creation. Redeemed man, remade in God’s image, must fulfill—even surpass—the role originally determined for the first man.
In a somewhat similar fashion, the prohibition concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the more general demands on man must be seen to relate to one another. It is not that man had fulfilled all his obligations under the covenant of creation by refusing to eat of the tree. He has larger demands on his life as well. Yet the response to the particular prohibition concerning the tree was crucially determinative. The focal point of the covenant rested specifically on this single test. If Adam succeeded in submitting to God at this point, his blessing under the larger provisions of the covenant of creation was assured.
As the test concerning the tree is examined, the radicalness of the obedience demanded stands out boldly. Contrary to the normal order which pervaded the garden scene, man was not to eat of this single tree.
Man had been given the privilege of eating from every tree of the garden. As God’s vice-regent, all was his. Yet now, one
marked exception is introduced. One tree stands in the midst of the garden as symbolic reminder that man is not God. All has been given to him graciously, but the one exception reminds him that he must not confuse his bountiful blessedness with the state of the creator, He is creature; God is creator.
In this particular situation, man had nothing to indicate the exceptional nature of this one tree other than the word of God. This point emphasizes the radical nature of the obedience required. Acting as a free agent, endued with natural powers beyond all of God’s creation, man nonetheless must humble himself beneath the word once spoken by his sovereign creator.
As has been indicated, man was required to do many things under the provisions of the covenant of creation. The probationary test concerning the tree established a focal point at which man’s submission to the creator could be scrutinized. Now the point of testing reduces itself to man’s willingness to choose obedience for the sake of obedience alone. The raw word of God in itself must become the basis of man’s action.
When this focal character of the probationary test is appreciated, something of the reality of the entire scene becomes apparent. The narrative does not recount a silly story about a stolen apple. Instead a most radical test of the original man’s willingness to submit to the specific word of the creator is involved.
Furthermore, it should be clear that the narrative does not intend to depict the experience of “Everyman.” No one but the original ‘Adam’ had the choice described in these verses. He faced a decision concerning willingness to submit to God’s word that was absolutely unique. Additional insight into this crucial point of man’s testing may be found in the parallel experience of God’s people under the covenant of redemption. Israel, the prophetic shadow of the second Adam, underwent testing regarding eating during its wandering in the wilderness. The purpose of this testing was to teach man that he does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut 8:3). Even the providential ordering of God which deprives of bread may become a source of life if Israel will learn that existence does not depend primarily on the consumption of the material substance of the creation. It depends instead on fellowship with the creator, which arises from an acceptance in joyful trust of all that he orders for life.
Similarly, Christ the second Adam experienced deprivation of material sustenance in the wilderness (Matt 4:1ff). Satan tempted him to exercise his rightful powers in order to alleviate his discomfort arising from God’s providential orderings. Christ repulsed this temptation by reaffirming the principle indicated in Deuteronomy. Man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceeds from the creator’s mouth. Even the divine word that deprives will be a source of life, since it awakens the creature to full awareness that life depends always on the creator.
Radical obedience therefore provides the key to blessing under the covenant of creation. If man will acknowledge fully the lordship of the creator by obeying his word purely for the sake of obedience, he shall experience the consummate blessing of the covenant: life in perpetuity shall be his.
Appropriately, a comparable emphasis on the role of obedience is found in association with the covenant of redemption. Restoration of fallen man hinges on the one act of obedience of Christ, the second Adam (Rom 5:18,19).
Only radical obedience may provide a proper basis for restoration of men guilty of radical disobedience. Herein lies the significance of the ultra-drama enacted in Gethsemane. Christ, the second Adam, genuinely grappled with the demand for radical obedience. Three times in great agony Christ struggled with this ultimate of decisions. In evident progress of obedience he moves from, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me,’ to “the cup which the Father has given me shall I not drink it?’ Though he was a son, he learned obedience through the things which he suffered (Heb 5:8). And obedient unto death, he is able to save all that come to God by him.
The ultimate alternatives of the covenant of creation are spelled out quite explicitly. Clearly this relationship between man and his creator may be described as a ‘bond of life and death sovereignly administered.’ Cursing and blessing, life and death—these are the alternatives faced by man under the covenant of creation. The outcome focuses on the probation test.
In the day that man eats of the forbidden fruit he shall surely die (Gen 2:17). Violations of the stipulations of the covenant of creation cannot but result in death.
The alternative of blessing is related inherently to the presence of the tree of life in the garden (Gen 2:9). The precise role of this tree in the probation experience of man is difficult to determine. But when it is noted that man is denied the privilege of eating from this tree as a consequence of his fall it would seem that the tree of life represented the power to sustain in a particular condition (Gen 3:22).
Apparently the tree of life symbolized the possibility of being sustained in the condition of covenantal blessing and life. If man would pass the test of probation he would live forever. This sign of perpetual blessing reappears in the biblical imagery of consummation. The tree of life appears once more. This time 12 different varieties of fruit appear, providing freshness of life according to each month of the year (Rev. 22:2).