Adam, Noah, and the Kingdom:
The Covenants of Genesis and Consistent Eschatology

by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith

Eschatology is not merely the doctrine of "last things," as the etymology of the word might suggest. Rather, as Anthony Hoekema states, "Properly to understand biblical eschatology, we must see it as an integral aspect of all biblical revelation. Eschatology must not be thought of as something which is found in, say, such Bible books as Daniel and Revelation, but as dominating and permeating the entire message of the Bible." With this assertion, we heartily agree.

It is disappointing, therefore, to note that Hoekema fails to fulfill the promise of this fundamental insight. Having annunciated the principle, he promptly transgressed it. For if biblical eschatology is an eschatology that dominates the entire message of the Bible, it must be eschatology grounded in the theology of creation. An eschatology that focuses on redemption, without being grounded in creation, utterly fails to be the kind of dominating truth that Hoekema has proclaimed Biblical eschatology to be. It also fails to be a truly redemptive eschatology, because the restoration of what was lost is an essential component of the Biblical notion of redemption. The doctrine of redemption must be built on the foundational truths of the theology of creation.

This means that Biblical eschatology finds its roots in the original creation order, rather than beginning, as Hoekema's exposition suggests, with Genesis 3:15. Obviously, this is not to deny that biblical eschatology concerns the coming of the Messiah to defeat Satan and save His people. The point is that the Messiah comes as a second Adam. He comes, as Paul explained, to fulfill a work that Adam could not fulfill because of his sin. But the creation covenant and the original commission that God gave to man in Adam is omitted from Hoekema's eschatology, undermining his ability and contradicting his claim to give a fully Biblical account.[1] The problem is not, in my opinion, incidental nor is it peculiar to Hoekema. Both amillennialism and premillennialism are characteristically eschatologies not rooted in the creation covenant.

[1] Though Hoekema mentions Genesis 1:28 when he discusses the new earth, the importance of God's covenant word to Adam is entirely missed.

Table of Contents

• Adam, Noah, and the Kingdom: The Covenants of Genesis and Consistent Eschatology
• The Edenic World and Biblical Eschatology
• Creation As Paradigmatic Work
• The Commission to Adam
• The Fulfillment of the Commission to Adam in the Old Testament
• The Noahic Covenant
• The Abrahamic Covenant
• The Mosaic Covenant
• The Davidic Covenant
• The New Covenant
• Conclusion
• Amillennial and Premillennial Interpretation of the Adamic Covenant
• The New Testament Fulfillment of the Covenants
• Conclusion