# Does Eve share covenant headship with Adam?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Oct 14, 2008)

Brothers, 

I have a friend who is teaching through the Confession in his Sunday School class, and he has asked me a question pertaining to the Confession's language in chapter 7, paragraph's 2 and 3, which appear to link covenant headship to both Adam and Eve. I suspect that this topic has already been discussed on the PB, but I thought I raise it on behalf of my friend since I myself do not know the intent behind the confession's language. I've pasted my friend's inquiry below. Can anyone offer some commentary? 
I'm trying to understand the language of the confession as it relates to a Reformed view of the fall. My understanding is that Adam as an individual was chosen as the head of the race and our representative in the test in the garden (Rom. 5:12-19, 1 Cor. 15:45). But the confession seems to assign headship to both Adam and Eve:​VII.2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them...​VII.3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin...​Is the confession making the claim that both Adam and Eve were in some sense representing us? Is this at odds with standard Reformed thought on the matter? (I know that hardly seems possible given that this is essentially the same language as the WCF and the Savoy.) Do some people take "Adam" to mean "man as male and female" and therefore see headship in Adam & Eve as a couple rather than in Adam as an individual?

I've never seen much discussion in systematic theologies concerning the temporal priority of Eve's sin and its relationship to headship.​Cordially,


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 14, 2008)

I assume, Bob, by "the Confession" you mean the 1689 LBCF - and by "Chapter VII" you actually mean Chapter VI, since that's the one that has the text you quoted. 

Waldron, interestingly, doesn't comment on the "we in them" language, as far as I can tell from a quick skim of his exposition of the 1689. 

Also, I can't quite agree with your friend that the language of the LBCF is "essentially identical to the WCF" at this point. 

Again, the 1689:



> Chapter 6, 1689 LBCF
> 
> Paragraph 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof,1 yet he did not long abide in this honor; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given to them, in eating the forbidden fruit,2 which God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
> 1 Gen. 2:16,17
> ...


 Here is the relevant portion of the WCF:



> Chapter VI, 1646 WCF
> 
> I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
> 
> ...



Now while it doesn't have the "we in them" language, it doesnt' single out Adam like perhaps we'd like it to. The emphasis of section III seems to be that all those descending from Adam (and Eve) inherit the corruption and have the imputation of original sin - not covenant headship. That seems to be an addition. Look at section III of the LBCF chapter 6 - there the headship thing is even more stark - because it says "THEY, standing in the room of all mankind" - not Adam. Interesting, certainly - but I am not sure I would say it stems from the WCF, since that language is really quite lacking there.

Interestingly the 1644 Baptist Confession does NOT contain this "in them" language. The root seems to be in the Savoy, whose relevant passage is given here:


> Chapter 6, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof, Savoy Declaration
> 
> 1. God having made a covenant of works and life, thereupon, with our first parents and all their posterity in them, they being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan did wilfully transgress the law of their creation, and break the covenant in eating the forbidden fruit.
> 
> ...



Interestingly also, chapter 7 for all three confessions (WCF, Savoy and LBCF 1689) are closer to being identical - and there, the breaking of the covenant is spoken of generically in terms of "Man". 

So - what do we say, then? First, I would agree with your friend that covenant headship is Adam's alone. I don't know why the "in them" language crept in after the WCF, which did not have it. Clearly it was inserted at the time of the Savoy, but I don't have any resources that might address that. Second, Chapter 7 seems to clear up any concerns about improper covenant headship of Eve, as all 3 documents are nearly identical there.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 14, 2008)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter VI
> Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
> 
> ...



Once I again, I see the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar.

Looking at Dr Sproul's commentary on the Westminster Confession, "Truths we Confess," the references seem to be to Adam and Eve jointly except when he references a particular verse in the Genesis account.

I note the Apostle Paul mentions priority in the fall, which I have understood to mean order, not culpability. Beyond that, I shall await the comments of others on this topic. 



> I Timothy 2:13-15
> 
> [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
> [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 14, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Once I again, I see the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar.
> 
> Looking at Dr Sproul's commentary on the Westminster Confession, "Truths we Confess," the references seem to be to Adam and Eve jointly except when he references a particular verse in the Genesis account.



They're similar, but it seems to me that in the chapter in question, there is a *very*distinct difference between the WCF and the others, including the LBCF... it's that troublesome *"and we in them"* in paragraph 2, which is clearly added, as is the even more troublesome *"and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind,"* in paragraph 3. Those words, I think, make all the difference in the world (and if any LBCF or Savoy experts out there can shed light on why it might be they were added, it's appreciated, because I don't think it's a simple matter of restating the WCF language)


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2008)

If Eve is covenant head then Paul's teaching about women being under authority as a creational reality makes no sense, 1 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2.

The Shorter Catechism speaks of covenant headship so as to confine it to Adam -- "the covenant being made with Adam..."


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 14, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> If Eve is covenant head then Paul's teaching about women being under authority as a creational reality makes no sense, 1 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2.
> 
> The Shorter Catechism speaks of covenant headship so as to confine it to Adam -- "the covenant being made with Adam..."



Yes, and the Catechisms are where we should go when trying to understand Chapter 6. 

But as for the LBCF, with which I'm much less familiar, I don't get the additions to paragraphs 2 and especially 3.


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> But as for the LBCF, with which I'm much less familiar, I don't get the additions to paragraphs 2 and especially 3.



I don't understand alot of revisions to the WCF. They make me wonder if the revisers knew what the Confession was saying in the first place.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 14, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > But as for the LBCF, with which I'm much less familiar, I don't get the additions to paragraphs 2 and especially 3.
> ...



preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecisely.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 14, 2008)

Would this work?

Adam and Eve were all of humanity: all human nature fell in them. But Adam was the covenant head. So it is the guilt of Adam's sin that is imputed. But corruption descends to us from both.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 14, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Would this work?
> 
> Adam and Eve were all of humanity: all human nature fell in them. But Adam was the covenant head. So it is the guilt of Adam's sin that is imputed. But corruption descends to us from both.



The problem, though, is paragraph 3:



> They being the root, *and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind,* the guilt of the sin was imputed,



This seems to imply both of them standing in stead of all mankind... and I don't quite get that. Without the added "and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind", I'd have no issue (and without those things, it would match the WCF).


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 14, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> If Eve is covenant head then Paul's teaching about women being under authority as a creational reality makes no sense, 1 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2.
> 
> The Shorter Catechism speaks of covenant headship so as to confine it to Adam -- "the covenant being made with Adam..."



Matthew,
Do you think that because the two are made one flesh by the marraige union, that the headship still was Adam's, yet Eve was not without fault.


> 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
> 
> 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
> 
> 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


 The fall was Adam's as he did not maintain his headship despite Eve's being utterly deceived. 1 Tim.2:11-14 Death passed to all in Adam,yet Eve was not faultless
In the same way, our Covenant Head , The last Adam brings life by being obedient even to the death of the cross. In Adam all die, In Christ all live 1Cor15;22


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2008)

Anthony, I don't think anyone suggests Eve was without fault. It is an interesting scenario as to what may have happened if Adam did not eat; perhaps he could have redeemed Eve in some way -- but this is mere speculation. In the state of marriage, the man cleaves to the wife so as to make them one flesh. Hence the second Adam became flesh of our flesh in order to sanctify the church. This illustrates the headship of the first Adam.

I think Ruben is onto the answer by distinguishing between the fall as actual and legal. Conveying actual corruption requires natural generation whereas imputed guilt requires federal headship. The problem is that the revision, as Todd points out, does not allow for this distinction.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 14, 2008)

I actually think this is a weakness on the part of the WCF, and is an example of an area that should be revised to be more precise. The drafters of the Confession were not faced with the rampant feminism and egalitarianism that we are today. Each of the first three paragraphs of WCF 7 is unhelpfully plural:



> I. *Our first parents*, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This *their sin *God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
> II. By this sin *they fell *from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
> III. *They being the root of mankind*, the guilt of *this sin *was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.



The language I have highlighted in Green is especially troubling. Ordinary grammar links the sin that was *imputed* to "they" of 7.3 and back to the "they fell" of 7.2. I actually had a good friend take exception to the WCF at this point.

I can't think of a good Biblical reason to insist on the plural language, and can think of several - it is confusing, it is incorrect - that would argue its amending.


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2008)

The only problem can be with section 3, but it is only the guilt of the sin that is imputed, and no mention is made of headship. They being the root of mankind is a necessary precondition to imputation even though it is only Adam's guilt which is imputed. Hence the Catechism: "the covenant being made with Adam ... all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation." One does not have ordinary generation with only one parent.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The only problem can be with section 3, but it is only the guilt of the sin that is imputed, and no mention is made of headship. They being the root of mankind is a necessary precondition to imputation even though it is only Adam's guilt which is imputed. Hence the Catechism: "the covenant being made with Adam ... all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation." One does not have ordinary generation with only one parent.



So, are we saying the Westminster Larger (?) Catechism is clear, both Adam and Eve sinned, corrupted the human race, but by virtue of (covenant) headship, it is necessary to view Adam as the one "by whom" sin is imputed to (all)?

Do you have the Catechism question number of this?


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > But as for the LBCF, with which I'm much less familiar, I don't get the additions to paragraphs 2 and especially 3.
> ...



Aren't the "revisions" to the Confession we are speaking of here to the London Baptist Confession or are we talking about revisions to the Westminster Confession?


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Anthony, I don't think anyone suggests Eve was without fault. It is an interesting scenario as to what may have happened if Adam did not eat; perhaps he could have redeemed Eve in some way -- but this is mere speculation. In the state of marriage, the man cleaves to the wife so as to make them one flesh. Hence the second Adam became flesh of our flesh in order to sanctify the church. This illustrates the headship of the first Adam.
> 
> I think Ruben is onto the answer by distinguishing between the fall as actual and legal. Conveying actual corruption requires natural generation whereas imputed guilt requires federal headship. The problem is that the revision, as Todd points out, does not allow for this distinction.



Your last sentence surprises me as I thought OLCF makes that distinction very clarly in the first half of ch 6. pp. 3. when it distinguishes between sin imputed to Adam and Eve and the corrupt nature conveyed by ordinary generation.



> Paragraph 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin,



The WCF VI iii has "they [both Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind" 

The difference would seem to be that the OLCF expands on how Adam and Eve's stood in relation to the rest of mankind. The WCF here puts both parents in the position of being the root for all mankind not just Adam so the two confessions are essentially identical in what they say.

Neither confession directly teaches that Adam was the covenant head although we may infer that Adam the same from WCF III VI



> Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ



a statement exactly paralleled by OLCF

from VII ii.



> The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.



OLCF omits discussing the covenant of works in 7.2

and from XIX i



> God gave to Adam



OLCF exact parallel

I think that although the WCF has one more statement from which we could infer Adamic headship neither confession really states it. So when we are talking about the first and last Adams, it is better to go to the Scriptures especially Rom 5:12 ff. I also agree with Rev. Greco that the WCF's plural language (now read in the context of rampant feminism) is unhelpful at ch. VI


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> Your last sentence surprises me as I thought OLCF makes that distinction very clarly in the first half of ch 6. pp. 3. when it distinguishes between sin imputed to Adam and Eve and the corrupt nature conveyed by ordinary generation.
> 
> 
> 
> > Paragraph 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin,



The conjunction "and" means that "by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of mankind," can only refer to "they." Hence the Baptist revision is teaching that Adam and Eve stand in the place of all mankind, so that "the guilt of the sin" can only refer to their sin together. In the original Confession, "they being the root of all mankind" does not constitute them representatives of all mankind.


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Aren't the "revisions" to the Confession we are speaking of here to the London Baptist Confession or are we talking about revisions to the Westminster Confession?



The Independent "Savoy" and the Baptist 1689 confessions are both reworkings of the Westminster Confession adapted to the use of those sections of the Christian church.


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Do you have the Catechism question number of this?



Shorter Catechism, 16; Larger Catechism, 22, brings out the fact that the covenant was made with Adam "as a publick person."


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Your last sentence surprises me as I thought OLCF makes that distinction very clarly in the first half of ch 6. pp. 3. when it distinguishes between sin imputed to Adam and Eve and the corrupt nature conveyed by ordinary generation.
> ...



Matthew, you are correct, in my opinion with respect to the LBCF. But it seems equally grammatically clear that when the WCF states:



> They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed



it seems that the only way to take "this sin" is in conjunction with "they being the root of all mankind." At best, I think it is confusing, and should be corrected.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't the "revisions" to the Confession we are speaking of here to the London Baptist Confession or are we talking about revisions to the Westminster Confession?
> ...



Samuel Waldron argues that it is more correct to say that the 1689 is a reworking of the Savoy, and thus only indirectly a reworking of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 15, 2008)

py3ak said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



Was there an intention by the divines who wrote the 1689 Confession or Savoy Declaration to have different doctrine about this?


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Samuel Waldron argues that it is more correct to say that the 1689 is a reworking of the Savoy, and thus only indirectly a reworking of the Westminster Confession.



True; but it's like the PCUSA revising an already revised confession.


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> it seems that the only way to take "this sin" is in conjunction with "they being the root of all mankind." At best, I think it is confusing, and should be corrected.



"Correction" implies error, which hasn't been demonstrated. Lack of clarity is usually remedied by a declaratory statement. I'm content that the statement is simply preconditional and makes no logical tie of the clauses.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Samuel Waldron argues that it is more correct to say that the 1689 is a reworking of the Savoy, and thus only indirectly a reworking of the Westminster Confession.
> ...



And the American Baptist Publication Society said (Henry C. Vedder, _A History of the Baptists in the Middle States_ (1898), p. 91): "This [the 1742 Philadelphia Confession] is substantially identical with the Confession put forth in 1689 by the English Baptists, which in turn was little more than a revision of the Westminster Confession."


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > it seems that the only way to take "this sin" is in conjunction with "they being the root of all mankind." At best, I think it is confusing, and should be corrected.
> ...



Correction does not require error. We correct statements, legal documents and otehr things all the time to make them clearer, more obvious and stronger.

You may be content that the statement is preconditional, but I am not. It makes no sense unless it is taken as a causal statement.


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> You may be content that the statement is preconditional, but I am not. It makes no sense unless it is taken as a causal statement.



How do you establish that grammatically?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 15, 2008)

It flows from the whole of 7.1 - 7.3:



> I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
> 
> II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
> 
> III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.



Note first: Adam is never spoken of in the singular, in this chapter on original sin

Note second: "their sin" (7.1) is what God permitted

Note third: "By this sin" (7.2) has as its only antecedent the sin of 7.1, which is that of Adam and Eve ("their").

Note fourth: it is this sin (namely "their sin") that "they fell" (plural again) and became dead in sin (judicial language) and defiled (corruption language).

So all of the language about sin in this whole chapter is plural ("they" "their" "parents"). None of it is singular.

Then fifth: 7.3 begins with the plural again "they being..." leading into the guilt of the sin. Why was the sin "imputed"? Because "*they *were the root of mankind." It was conveyed to "their posterity."

I agree that WSC is clearer and correct:



> [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]*Q:*[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif] Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
> [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif] *A:* [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif] The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


Notice here the deliberate use of the singular:

"Adam" "himself" "his posterity" "descending from *him* by ordinary generation."

In order to make the introductory clause immaterial, and make the secondary clause non-causal, you must import an antecedent that does not exist, and in fact in which the opposite exists in the previous two paragraphs. The closest (and logical) antecedent for "this sin" is "their sin" (Adam and Eve's) not "Adam's sin" which does not appear anywhere in the text. The demonstrative pronoun cannot, grammatically, have an antecedent which does not exist.

I am not arguing for egalitarianism, nor that the divines intended to make Eve into some sort of federal head. I am merely arguing that they, as men, and uninspired, are capable of error, or lack of clarity, _just as you have argued for the drafters of the LBCF._


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> So all of the language about sin in this whole chapter is plural ("they" "their" "parents"). None of it is singular.



How is this relevant, when the text says the *guilt* of the sin was imputed? No one I have read ever suggested that God charges all mankind with eating the forbidden fruit.



fredtgreco said:


> I am not arguing for egalitarianism, nor that the divines intended to make Eve into some sort of federal head. I am merely arguing that they, as men, and uninspired, are capable of error, or lack of clarity, _just as you have argued for the drafters of the LBCF._



I accept the fallibility of the WCF, but I don't accept that it errs in this instance; and it is only being made unclear by reading something into it that is not there.


----------



## KMK (Oct 15, 2008)

Is there anything in the writings of the Divines that would indicate that any of them misunderstood this rather 'clear' doctrine?


----------

