Interest in covenant theology continues to surge, and with this book John Fesko adds another significant contribution to the conversation. His recent studies include two volumes on the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, one oriented to the historical development of the doctrine and one to more constructive concerns. Similarly, Adam and the Covenant of Works is a more constructive treatment that nicely complements Fesko’s The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020). The first part of the book summarizes many of the findings from that historical study, and the exegetical and doctrinal treatments in parts two and three engage with contemporary questions.

In the opening historical section, Fesko demonstrates that different early modern terms for the original covenant (covenant of works, covenant of nature, covenant of life) were not competing descriptions but referred respectively to the terms, the sequence, or the purpose of the arrangements described. He also observes that a minority of early modern Reformed interpreters read Leviticus 18:5 merely as an expression of evangelical obedience (presenting the moral law of God as a life-giving guide). However, the more common interpretation, which also affirmed the third use of the law but supported it with other passages, was to read Leviticus 18:5 in parallel with Ezekiel 20:11–16 and through the lens of New Testament passages like Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12. This majority view not only interpreted “do this and live” as an ongoing obligation but also affirmed that no fallen sinner could claim such faithfulness.

Subsequent chapters explore the implications of these matters for early modern interpreters. Adam’s legal faith before the fall was different in kind and object from the evangelical faith of God’s people in the Messiah after the fall. Twentieth century interpreters misunderstood post-Reformation texts by reading them through the lens of a modern distinction between covenant and contract alien to the earlier sources. The Reformers and their heirs generally distinguished between post-fall redemptive grace and God’s creational gifts in the Garden of Eden. Though many of these findings are now relatively well settled in the historical literature, Fesko’s study also helps to clarify less settled questions, such as the relationship between the covenant with Moses and the covenants of works and grace.

Turning to exegesis, Fesko defends Hosea 6:7 as a supporting text for the covenant of works, but one of the major themes of the book is that the doctrine draws from a host of other passages as well. Fesko then argues on the one hand that the Mosaic covenant was “undoubtably part of the covenant of grace.” On the other hand, he concludes that it also functioned within the covenant of grace to “drive sinners to Christ” as a “ministry of death,” and that it may be described as an “old covenant” that “becomes obsolete in light of the new covenant.” In this way, “The Mosaic covenant is part of the covenant of grace but serves to highlight the substance of the covenant of grace, namely Christ” (pp. 308–9).

The doctrinal section brings the book to a conclusion by weaving these findings together. Fesko defends the idea that Adam possessed a natural desire to see God; he possessed the knowledge, righteousness, and holiness necessary to please God (p. 324), and he also had a “protological dispensation of the Holy Spirit” (p. 406). As such, the covenant of works coincided with the created order itself, and by it Adam could have merited everlasting reward. This reward would not have been meritorious because of the “intrinsic value of Adam’s obedience” but because of “God’s promise and magnanimity expressed by covenant” (pp. 407–8). Fesko prefers the distinction between prelapsarian goodness/benevolence and postlapsarian grace/mercy to notions of superadded gifts or grace before the fall, or to notions of condign and congruent merit functioning after the fall. Though the Mosaic covenant does “readminister” the covenant of works, it functions within the covenant of grace. Thus, the fall remains the fundamental hinge of redemptive history prior to the incarnation of Jesus. Prior to the fall, sanctification could precede justification, but after the fall, justification is only by faith and precedes sanctification (p. 364).

Fesko unites historical, exegetical, and systematic theology to make a strong case for the covenant of works from the teaching of Scripture. Some readers will not agree that exegesis merely “gathers the materials for constructive doctrinal formulation” (p. 324), because selecting and organizing scriptural passages is already an act of theological system building. Others may point out that the distinction between “gift” and “grace” needs to engage more deeply with recent exegetical theology. Still others will want to delve deeper into the evangelical nature of the Mosaic administration expressed in its sacrifices, ceremonies, and other provisions.

Nevertheless, Fesko offers a strong case that Scripture teaches a covenant of nature/works/life by which Adam could have merited eternal reward before the fall. The promise of Christ is the substance of the covenant of grace after the fall, and this promise finds its fulfillment in the new covenant. The covenant with Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace, but the covenant of works “reappeared” in this old covenant to bring God’s people to Christ. There may be more to say, but John Fesko demonstrates why many theologians past and present have not wanted to say less.