Guided through Genesis 1–2: How Tradition Exercises Ministerial Authority in the Exposition of Scripture

This article originated as a theology paper written as part of my studies with Union Theological College in Spring 2026.

Genesis 1–2 is a foundational text for almost every area of Christian theology. Given that it narrates the creation of humanity, it is evidently crucial for anthropology. However, its influence on other loci such as christology, soteriology and hamartiology is far less intuitive. While it has proved historically important for developing these doctrines, it is possible to miss this on a bare reading of the text. As a result, this assignment argues that Genesis 1–2 provides a sophisticated example of how tradition can exercise ministerial authority in guiding the exposition of Scripture. In particular, it shows that approaching Genesis 1–2 presupposing a prelapsarian covenant with Adam helps to highlight important textual insights and reveal its full theological significance. It begins by reflecting on the authority of tradition. This includes considering the recent popularity of the theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS). It then briefly explores the tradition of an Adamic covenant, focusing on how it was first confessionally expressed in the Irish Articles (1615). It goes on to argue that allowing this to exercise ministerial authority over the exposition of Genesis 1–2 helps to: (1) integrate exegetical insights; (2) connect canonical context; and (3) emphasise theological implications. It concludes by highlighting the enduring importance of tradition for biblical exposition today.

The Authority of Tradition

Greg Allison helpfully defines TIS as “a family of interpretive approaches that privileges theological readings of the Bible in due recognition of the theological nature of Scripture, its ultimate theological message, and/or the theological interests of its readers.”[1] Proponents insist it “is not an imposition of a theological system or confessional grid onto the biblical text.”[2] Instead, it is the conviction that the “interpretation of Scripture can only be guided by a correct understanding of what Scripture is, as defined by the doctrine of Scripture.”[3] This conviction about the nature of Scripture has important implications for the nature of tradition. As Kevin Vanhoozer puts it, “The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scriptures speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.” Reflecting on John 16:13, he views tradition as “the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to send his Spirit to guide his followers into all truth.”[4] As “a ministerial authority, it is accountable to God’s Word in Holy Scripture.”[5] Nevertheless, it is still a “true authority”.[6] This means dogmatic tradition should be viewed as “not a moldering scrim of antique prejudice obscuring the Bible, but instead a clarifying agent, an enduring tradition of theological judgments that amplifies the living voice of Scripture.”[7]

Within TIS, this clarifying agent is usually understood as the tradition surrounding the Nicene Creed. D A Carson highlights this as a potential narrowness that sometimes assumes the tradition of the patristic period constitutes “all that is necessary to establish a confessional bond of true Christians today – a stance which, of course, marginalizes the Reformation standards.”[8] There is often more focus on the first few centuries of ‘the Great Tradition’ than on the Reformed tradition.[9] However, it is notable that the Reformed tradition itself helpfully models how tradition can guide exposition. As Richard Muller observes, Reformed theologians had an understanding of analogia fidei that permitted them “to approach Scripture creedally and confessionally on the assumption that the creeds and confessions had arisen out of a churchly meditation on Scripture and were therefore to be understood as biblically standardized norms (norma normata).”[10] The same Reformation that championed the magisterial authority of Scripture also gave birth to a movement that modelled the ministerial authority of tradition.

The Covenant with Adam

As Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley explain, “Covenantal theology has been woven into the Reformed confessional identity since the seventeenth century.”[11] This includes a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. The first confessional document to explicitly describe this was the Irish Articles.[12] In Article 21, James Ussher explains:

Man being at the beginning created according to the image of God (which consisted especially in the Wisdom of his mind and the true Holiness of his free will) had the covenant of the law ingrafted in his heart: whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments, according to that measure of strength wherewith he was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he did not perform the same.

This position was reiterated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), albeit labelled as a “covenant of works” and “covenant of life”.[13] As Harrison Perkins points out, while terminology continued to differ, the substance of the idea generally did not and it became a crucial part of the “Reformed confessional mainstream”.[14]

            While this concept was made explicit in the Reformed tradition during the seventeenth century, it involved “recalibrations and redeployments of ancient ideas.”[15] As Perkins puts it, “strictly speaking, the covenant of works was not a distinctly Reformed idea. It was certainly a Reformed mode of expression and a Reformed integration of thought, but it was also a renovation and reconstruct of catholic doctrines. The covenant’s various elements all correspond to elements appearing throughout the Christian tradition.”[16] Irenaeus, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine all spoke about a covenant with Adam.[17] J. V. Fesko likewise shows how it was implicitly integrated into the work of Thomas Aquinas, as well as prominent Roman Catholic theologians during the Reformation.[18] It appears the label ‘covenant of works’ first emerged with Dudley Fenner in 1585.[19] William Perkins and Robert Rollock also began to develop this concept explicitly, before it was finally popularised by Usher.[20] In this way, the Adamic covenant is an example of how the Reformed tradition can clarify the Great Tradition. For as Perkins concludes, it “flows from earlier patristic, medieval, and Reformation exegesis and crystalizes in the early modern tradition.”[21]

Despite its historic pedigree, it has been “fashionable to question, discredit, or disavow the covenant of works”.[22] Some have tried to downgrade it to a less formal arrangement. The main argument for this is the lack of a clear Scriptural reference to it as a covenant. As a result, the Reformed theologian John Murray relabelled it the Adamic Administration.[23] Some prominent dispensationalists have even held it to be “unbiblical” and warned “theologically derived covenants imposed on the biblical covenants can alter God’s intended revelation.”[24] Another recent challenge has been a broadening of the concept. In contrast with the historic focus on the probationary prohibition, it has become increasingly common to describe it as ‘the covenant of creation’. This is not only seen as the “least controversial” terminology,[25] but also capturing other creation commands like the Sabbath, marriage and work.[26] This demonstrates there continues to be a lively and mutually informing interaction between the tradition of an Adamic covenant and the exposition of Genesis 1–2.

The Exposition of Genesis 1–2

This assignment now argues that the tradition of an Adamic covenant can exercise ministerial authority in guiding the exposition of Genesis 1–2. It demonstrates that this results in exposition “that is not only more adequate to the text itself but also, especially, more adequate to the ultimate reality to which the text bears witness and more adequate to the text’s ultimate goal.”[27] It will achieve this by discussing how tradition can help to: (1) integrate exegetical insights; (2) connect canonical context; and (3) emphasise theological implications.

(1) Integrate exegetical insights

Scott Swain suggests that tradition can offer “a promising orientation or starting point for the reading of Scripture, an orientation within which our understanding of Scripture can grow.”[28] The most significant way this is true for Genesis 1–2 is how a prelapsarian covenant integrates important exegetical insights into one clear and coherent concept. For example, the declaration that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God (1:26–28) attracts much attention. Indeed, Gordon Wenham highlights at least five plausible interpretations.[29] However, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum demonstrate approaching it from a covenantal perspective both clarifies the meaning and integrates it into the rest of the passage. They show the essence of image and likeness is relationships of sonship and servanthood “characterized by faithfulness and loyal love, obedience and trust – exactly the character of relationships specified by covenants”. They therefore conclude “the divine image entails a covenant relationship between God and humans”.[30] Ussher arrived at a similar conclusion, arguing the traits of personhood bestowed on Adam made him fit for a covenantal relationship with God.[31] In this way, the concept of a covenant integrates the climax of Genesis 1 with the key events of Genesis 2.

            This tradition continues to provide clarity at the start of Genesis 2. It is commonly noted that a second creation account begins in 2:4, and various suggestions are made about how this relates to the first.[32] One important and exegetically noteworthy difference between them is the introduction of a new divine name. Although Yahweh Elohim appears 20 times in 2:4–3:24, it only reappears 17 times in the rest of the Old Testament.[33] Given it incorporates the covenantal name later disclosed to Moses (Exodus 3), we can conclude “the divine person speaking to Adam is identified with a name of covenantal lordship.”[34] The significance of this insight is clarified in light of the underlying covenant with Adam. For as Gentry and Wellum suggest, “it should be obvious that the author’s purpose is to show that the transcendent Creator of the first account is also the God in covenant relationship with his people in the second account.”[35]

            The tradition of the Adamic covenant continues to answer exegetical questions throughout the rest of Genesis 2 as well. For example, what was the purpose behind the prohibition (2:16–17)? Why was the sentence of death only assigned to one tree (2:17)? What would have happened if Adam obeyed? Paul Williamson points out “the vast majority of contemporary Old Testament scholars totally dismiss any idea of an Adamic covenant” and argues that “prior to Genesis 6:18 there is not even a hint of any covenant being established.”[36] Nevertheless, as Murray admits, answers to the above questions “cannot be construed in terms simply of creation in the divine image and the demands of awards belonging to that relationship.”[37]Instead, they all find coherent answers in the tradition of an Adamic covenant. In this way, it provides a conceptual centre that is able to integrate the most important exegetical insights from the passage.

(2) Connecting the canonical context

The tradition of an Adamic covenant also creates connections between Genesis 1–2 and its canonical context. As Fesko concludes, we must avoid any temptation to approach the text “as if the rest of the Pentateuch did not exist... bypass the literary context of the first three chapters and read it in chronological succession as if the reader was not supposed to peer over the wall of the third chapter to see what follows.”[38]When we move beyond the opening chapters, we find that the Adamic covenant captures important conclusions from the rest of Genesis. For example, Adam’s representative role explains the cascade of consequences for both creation (3:17–18) and mankind (4–5) after his sin. Similarly, an Adamic covenant is foundational for understanding the covenant with Noah (6–9). While there are some exceptions, to “establish” a covenant (9:9) usually means renewing a previously initiated one.[39] Victor Hamilton suggests that this simply refers to the promise first made to Noah (6:18).[40] However, the close literary connection between the two accounts (1:26–28; 9:1–7) means it is more exegetically satisfying to understand the Noahic covenant as a renewal of the Adamic covenant.

            These connections continue beyond Genesis throughout the rest of the Old Testament. For example, reading the creation narrative with an eye on the Adamic covenant reflects the “convergence of creation and covenant” in the Psalter (147:18–19; 148:5–6).[41] It also mirrors the perspective of the prophets. While the “everlasting covenant” in Isaiah 24:5–6 could refer to Noah, it is better to understand it as the more foundational covenant with Adam.[42] Similarly, while the reference to a covenant with Adam in Hosea 6:7 is “difficult and disputed”, it is nevertheless still the best interpretative option given the limited evidence for any alternatives.[43] Allowing this tradition of an Adamic covenant to guide the exposition of Genesis 1–2 ensures that interpretation does not take place in isolation from the rest of the canon.

(3) Emphasising the theological implications

Finally, paying attention to the Adamic covenant emphasises the theological implications of Genesis 1–2. In short, it transforms an historical narrative into theologically charged discourse. This is not “a movement away from Scripture toward some distant logical synthesis.”[44] Instead, “more than they erect a superstructure upon Scripture, dogmatic judgments discern just the reverse: a substructure. Rather than climbing out of the text, dogmatic judgments, as it were, plunge beneath the surface of the text’s discrete assertions.”[45] This is certainly true of the tradition of a prelapsarian covenant, which draws readers beneath the surface of Genesis 1–2 to reflect on its theological substructure. Recognising this underlying concept of the covenant is crucial because it is foundational for so much of systematic and biblical theology. As Gentry and Wellum explain, “The significance of starting with the creation covenant for understanding the Bible’s storyline and how the covenants relation to each other cannot be overstated. The creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since all subsequent covenants unpack Adam’s representative role in the world.”[46]

            This tradition emphasises two key theological implications in Genesis 1–2, relating to the doctrines of Christ and sin. As Wilhelmus à Brakel famously declared with respect to Christ, “Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus.”[47] Similarly, Fesko puts it eloquently when he argues, “There is no redemption apart from creation, no last Adam without the first. There is no God-man without the first man. Every brush stroke, color, and hue in Adam’s portrait points forward to God’s saving love in Christ, excepting, of course, Adam’s sin.”[48] Long before we reach Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15, it is possible to perceive Paul’s theological reasoning if we read Genesis 1–2 in light of the Adamic covenant. Likewise on sin, this same tradition allows us to see “death is the lot of mankind, not through a repetition of the temptation and fall of Eden, but by solidarity with Adam.”[49] This covenantal solidarity is foundational for the doctrine of original sin and guilt. As Beeke and Smalley observe, “Reformed orthodox theologians understood that the covenant of works with Adam holds a crucial place in their polemic against theologies tending toward Pelagianism.”[50] In these ways, the tradition of a prelapsarian covenant transforms the historical narrative of Genesis 1–2 into a living text that has clear theological implications for its readers.

Conclusion

As D. Blair Smith summarises, “creeds, confessions, and catechisms are sturdy guardrails. Their integrity has been tried and tested by the buffeting winds of the centuries, and, as a result, they lead the church to a faithful understanding of Scripture.”[51] This assignment has shown that this is certainly true for Genesis 1–2. Allowing the tradition of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam to exercise ministerial authority over its exposition helps to: (1) integrate exegetical insights; (2) connect canonical context; and (3) emphasise theological implications. In short, it facilitates a “thick reading of the text”.[52] Given the profit of such an approach, we must not “allow theological language to be relegated to mere background status”.[53] Instead, we should continue to uphold the ministerial authority of tradition for the task of biblical exposition today.

Bibliography

Allen, Michael and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 2015).

Allison, Gregg R., ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation’, SBJT, 14, no. 2 (2010), 28–36.

Barcellos, Richard C., Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in light of Christ (Cape Coral, 2017).

Bavinck, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt and trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, 2004). 

Beeke, Joel and Paul Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Man and Christ, vol 2 (Wheaton, 2020).

Brakel, Wilhelmus à, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: God, Man, and Christ, vol 1, ed. Joel Beeke and trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids, 1992).

Carson, D.A., ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, But...’ in R. Michael Allen (ed.), Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives (London, 2011), 187–207.

Carter, Craig, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (Grand Rapids, 2018).

Fesko, J. V., The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine (Oxford, 2020).

_________, Adam and the Covenant of Works (Ross-shire, 2021).

Gentry, Peter J. and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd edition (Wheaton, 2018).

Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Gensis: 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, 1990)

Hoekema, Anthony A., Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, 1986).

Horton, Michael, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, 2006).

Jamieson, R.B. and Tyler R. Whittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, 2022).

Letham, Robert, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, 2019).

MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, 2017).

Mayhue, Richard, ‘New Covenant Theology and Futuristic Premillennialism’, The Master’s Seminary Journal, 18.1 (2007), 221–232.

Muller, Richard A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, vol 2 (Grand Rapids, 1993).

Murray, John, Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol 2 (Edinburgh, 1977).

Perkins, Harrison, Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition (Oxford, 2020).

_______________, ‘Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works: A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory’, Calvin Theological Journal, 53.2 (2018), 289–317.

Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., vol 4 (Grand Rapids, 2010).

Reno, R. R., ‘Series Preface’, in Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, 2019).

Robertson, O. Palmer, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids, 1980).

Schreiner, Thomas, Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World (Wheaton, 2017).

Smith, D. Blair, Reformed Confessionalism (Philipsburg, 2025).

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, 2016).

Treier, Daniel J., ‘Recovering the Past: Imitating Precritical Interpretation’, in Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Leicester, 2008), 39–55.

______________, ‘What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 12, no. 2 (2010), 144–61.

Treier, Daniel J., and Uche Anizor, ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture and Evangelical Systematic Theology: Iron Sharpening Iron?’, SBJT, 14, no. 2 (2010), 4–17.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ‘What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible,’ in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids, 2008), 15–28.

_________________, ‘Ten Theses on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture’ (1 July 2010), Modern Reformation,https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/ten-theses-on-the-theological-interpretation-of-scripture [accessed 1 May 2026]

Watson, Francis, ‘Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scripture: Why They Need Each Other’, IJST, 12 (2010), 118–43.

Webster, John, ‘Biblical Reasoning’, Anglican Theological Review, 90, no. 4 (2008), 733–51.

___________, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (London, 2016).

Wenham, Gordon, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1987).

Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove, 2007).

[1] Gregg R. Allison, ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation’, SBJT, 14.2 (2010), 29.

[2] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible,’ in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids, 2008), 19.

[3] Francis Watson, ‘Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scripture: Why They Need Each Other’, IJST, 12 (2010), 118.

[4] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘Ten Theses on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture’ (1 July 2010), Modern Reformation, https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/ten-theses-on-the-theological-interpretation-of-scripture [accessed 1 May 2026].

[5] Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 2015), 103.

[6] Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, 103.

[7] R. R. Reno, ‘Series Preface’, in Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, 2019), xii.

[8] D.A. Carson, ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, But...’ in R. Michael Allen (ed.), Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives(London, 2011), 197.

[9] Craig Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (Grand Rapids, 2018), xi.

[10] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Scripture, vol 2 (Grand Rapids, 1993), 503.

[11] Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Man and Christ, vol 2 (Wheaton, 2020), 284.

[12] Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., vol 4 (Grand Rapids, 2010), 88–107.

[13] Chapter VII.II and Question 12. Reformed Confessions, 242, 355.

[14] Harrison Perkins, ‘Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works: A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory’, CTJ, 53.2 (2018), 289. Harrison Perkins, Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition (Oxford, 2020), 9.

[15] Perkins, Catholicity, 81.

[16] Perkins, Catholicity, 81.

[17] See the helpful historic overview in Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, 286.

[18] J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine (Oxford, 2020), 12–17.

[19] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, 288.

[20] Perkins, ‘Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works’, 294.

[21] Fesko, The Covenant of Works, 6.

[22] J. V. Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works (Ross-shire, 2021), xiii.

[23] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol 2 (Edinburgh, 1977), 47–59. Also Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, 1986), 117–121.

[24] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, 2017), 871. Richard Mayhue, ‘New Covenant Theology and Futuristic Premillennialism’, TMSJ, 18.1 (2007), 225.

[25] Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, 2006), 83.

[26] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids, 1980), 67, 81.

[27] R.B. Jamieson, and Tyler R. Whittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, 2022), xvii.

[28] Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, 115.

[29] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1987), 29–32.

[30] Gentry, Peter J. and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed (Wheaton, 2018), 230.

[31] Perkins, Catholicity, 49.

[32] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 56.

[33] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 215.

[34] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, 274.

[35] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 216.

[36] Paul R Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove, 2007), 71.

[37] Murray, Collected Writings, 48.

[38] Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, 197.

[39] Thomas Schreiner, Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World (Wheaton, 2017), 23.

[40] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Gensis: 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, 1990), 316.

[41] Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, 187.

[42] Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in light of Christ (Cape Coral, 2017), 61.

[43] Gentry and Wellum, 257.

[44] Jamieson and Whittman, Biblical Reasoning, xviii.

[45] Jamieson and Whittman, Biblical Reasoning, xx.

[46] Gentry and Wellum, 672.

[47] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: God, Man, and Christ, vol 1, ed. Joel Beeke and trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids, 1992), 355.

[48] Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, xxvii.

[49] Murray, Collected Writings, 50.

[50] Beeke and Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, 297.

[51] D. Blair Smith, Reformed Confessionalism (Philipsburg, 2025), 19.

[52] Fesko, Adam and the Covenant of Works, 194.

[53] John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (London, 2016), 52.