Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

4. THE PARALLEL BETWEEN ADAM AND CHRIST. The parallel which Paul draws
between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12-21, in connection with the doctrine of
justification, can only be explained on the assumption that Adam, like Christ, was the
head of a covenant. According to Paul the essential element in justification consists in
this, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, without any personal work on
our part to merit it. And he regards this as a perfect parallel to the manner in which the
guilt of Adam is imputed to us. This naturally leads to the conclusion that Adam also
stood in covenant relationship to his descendants.
5. THE PASSAGE IN HOS. 6:7. In Hos. 6:7 we read: “But they like Adam have
transgressed the covenant.” Attempts have been made to discredit this reading. Some
have suggested the reading “at Adam,” which would imply that some well-known
transgression occurred at a place called Adam. But the preposition forbids this
rendering. Moreover, the Bible makes no mention whatever of such a well-known
historical transgression at Adam. The Authorized Version renders “like men,” which
would then mean, in human fashion. To this it may be objected that there is no plural in
the original, and that such a statement would be rather inane, since man could hardly
transgress in any other way. The rendering “like Adam” is after all the best. It is favored
by the parallel passage in Job 31:33; and is adopted by the American Revised Version.
C. ELEMENTS OF THE COVENANT OF WORKS.
The following elements must be distinguished:
1. THE CONTRACTING PARTIES. On the one hand there was the triune God, the Creator
and Lord, and on the other hand, Adam as His dependent creature. A twofold
relationship between the two should be distinguished:
a. The natural relationship. When God created man, He by that very fact established a
natural relationship between Himself and man. It was a relationship like that between
the potter and the clay, between an absolute sovereign and a subject devoid of any
claim. In fact, the distance between the two was so great that these figures are not even
an adequate expression of it. It was such that a life in communion with each other
seemed to be out of the question. As the creature of God man was naturally under the
law, and was in duty bound to keep it. And while transgression of the law would render
him liable to punishment, the keeping of it would not constitute an inherent claim to a
reward. Even if he did all that was required of him, he would still have to say, I am but
an unprofitable servant, for I have merely done that which it was my duty to do. Under
this purely natural relationship man could not have merited anything. But though the
234