Adam and Christ as Federal Heads

[crhoades]

Does this breakdown?

Adam was federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his wife Eve.

Christ was a federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his bride, the Church/Elect.

We all know the link of Adam/Christ as far as federal head of the human race and Christ as head of the church. Is it wrong to look at Adam's federal headship over Eve as a type of Christ's headship over the church? There is both a general and specific headship that Adam and Christ have...

Is this historical/confessional?

 

[Casey]

Christ was a federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his bride, the Church/Elect.

I don't believe it is correct to posit that Christ is the federal head of the [entire] "human race."

WLC 31:
Q. With whom was the Covenant of Grace made?
A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him [as federal head] with all the elect as his seed.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[crhoades]

Just to preface my next question with: I have not read Witsius yet and am beginning to slog through all things covenant theology. I´m not trying to bait anything. Please be gentle!

If Adam was federal head over the whole human race in the COW, does parallelism break down here? Christ fulfilled that covenant. So does that mean Christ was a part of that covenant but not a head of the COW? If Christ was a head of the COW did he fill it for all but only applied it to some? Or would that be the beginning or half of the way to Amarylidianism?

Thanks for bearing with my muddledness on this"¦

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The CoW was the covenant of communion with God, prelapsarian. Adam was the head of that covenant, and all of mankind since Adam is born into existence as a covenant-breaker of the CoW (cf. Rom 1).

Post-lapsarian, the CoG is the covenant of communion with God, and Christ is the head of that covenant, and of all mankind that, before and since Christ, is born AGAIN into existence as a counted-covenant keeper on the merit of Christ.

 

[Robin]

Chris,

with all due and proper respect....it is best to go with Holy Scripture's well laid-out explanation of the matter (for example, in the entire book of Hebrews.)

Much confusion is avoided if we begin with a sound understanding of what is already clearly taught.

The category God's Word gives us is Christ's office of "Priest" -- of which Adam, also, held. (The other two offices are prophet & king.)

Instead of viewing "Christ through Adam" view Adam through Christ.....



blessings,

Robin

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Robin]

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Robin]

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Robin
Chris,

with all due and proper respect....it is best to go with Holy Scripture's well laid-out explanation of the matter in entire book of Hebrews.

Much confusion is avoided if we begin with a sound understanding of what is already clearly taught.

The category God's Word gives us is Christ's office of "Priest" -- of which Adam, also, held. (The other two offices are prophet & king.)



blessings,

Robin

I know that Christ was prophet, priest, and king. And I also know to look at the confession and scripture. I was looking for answers and help with the given questions above in a back and forth fashion to help clear my thinking. Thanks for the pat on the head though.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The CoW was the covenant of communion with God, prelapsarian. Adam was the head of that covenant, and all of mankind since Adam is born into existence as a covenant-breaker of the CoW (cf. Rom 1).

Post-lapsarian, the CoG is the covenant of communion with God, and Christ is the head of that covenant, and of all mankind that, before and since Christ, is born AGAIN into existence as a counted-covenant keeper on the merit of Christ.

'Just curious: What is the covenantal status now of the non-elect? Out of communion? Condemned in the CoW?

 

[Robin]

Forgive me....I don't mean to sound harsh. I know you're new to CT.

Solid ground holds fast to the rule: watch and take care to never speak where the Text does not speak; nor even speculate. Calvin warns of the "labyrinth" of which there is no return, if we do so.

Meanwhile....

The depiction of Adam as the "Vice-Regent" of God's temple garden unfolds a more useful view of what actually occurs in Genesis.

Dr. Clark's "Israel of God" explains this and more, extraordinarily well:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Israel.htm

r.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by crhoades
Does this breakdown?

Adam was federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his wife Eve.

Christ was a federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his bride, the Church/Elect.

I think any confusion would be dispelled if you define "federal" in each relationship. Adam and Christ are federal as representives of all whom they represent. But in the husband wife relationship, though a husband is federal in the sense that he must act on behalf of the family and govern them, he is not earning salvation or condemnation for his wife and children.

Adam and Christ a paralleled in Romans 5 only in so far as they federally represent their people in the sight of God for the purpose of justification or condemnation. But it is important to not take the description further than the apostle goes. For instance, Adam is not described as purchasing a bride for himself from humanity. They are legal/covenantal representatives of their respective peoples, for the purpose of inheriting eternal life (or condemnation).

When the marriage picture comes into play, we are now dealing with a different illustration of Christ and His people, and the union and love they enjoy, as exhortations to understand the love of Christ for us, and the pattern for marriage.

We must not confuse the purpose of the pictures given to us but keep them in the context of which Paul is arguing.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by crhoades
Does this breakdown?

Adam was federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his wife Eve.

Christ was a federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his bride, the Church/Elect.

I think any confusion would be dispelled if you define "federal" in each relationship. Adam and Christ are federal as representives of all whom they represent. But in the husband wife relationship, though a husband is federal in the sense that he must act on behalf of the family and govern them, he is not earning salvation or condemnation for his wife and children.

Adam and Christ a paralleled in Romans 5 only in so far as they federally represent their people in the sight of God for the purpose of justification or condemnation. But it is important to not take the description further than the apostle goes. For instance, Adam is not described as purchasing a bride for himself from humanity. They are legal/covenantal representatives of their respective peoples, for the purpose of inheriting eternal life (or condemnation).

When the marriage picture comes into play, we are now dealing with a different illustration of Christ and His people, and the union and love they enjoy, as exhortations to understand the love of Christ for us, and the pattern for marriage.

We must not confuse the purpose of the pictures given to us but keep them in the context of which Paul is arguing.

Helpful. Thanks. This is what makes me nervous with the whole RH hermeneutic of looking for types everywhere. I should probably refine that...uncontrolled RH/typological hermeneutics. I think there is a good hermeneutic to be had but can be applied where scripture doesn't warrant it...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by crhoades
Does this breakdown?

Adam was federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his wife Eve.

Christ was a federal head of the human race as well as federal head of his bride, the Church/Elect.

I think any confusion would be dispelled if you define "federal" in each relationship. Adam and Christ are federal as representives of all whom they represent. But in the husband wife relationship, though a husband is federal in the sense that he must act on behalf of the family and govern them, he is not earning salvation or condemnation for his wife and children.

Adam and Christ a paralleled in Romans 5 only in so far as they federally represent their people in the sight of God for the purpose of justification or condemnation. But it is important to not take the description further than the apostle goes. For instance, Adam is not described as purchasing a bride for himself from humanity. They are legal/covenantal representatives of their respective peoples, for the purpose of inheriting eternal life (or condemnation).

When the marriage picture comes into play, we are now dealing with a different illustration of Christ and His people, and the union and love they enjoy, as exhortations to understand the love of Christ for us, and the pattern for marriage.

We must not confuse the purpose of the pictures given to us but keep them in the context of which Paul is arguing.

Helpful. Thanks. This is what makes me nervous with the whole RH hermeneutic of looking for types everywhere. I should probably refine that...uncontrolled RH/typological hermeneutics. I think there is a good hermeneutic to be had but can be applied where scripture doesn't warrant it...

I love the RH stuff too. But we must remember that redemptive historical hermenuetic is first grounded in the grammatico-historical hermenuenitic. This is much easier to do with Paul because his arguments are usually easier to follow in their historical context. Just try to stick with the immediate context of the picture in question, then you will better know how to plug it into the overall history of redemption.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Robin


Forgive me....I don't mean to sound harsh. I know you're new to CT.

Solid ground holds fast to the rule: watch and take care to never speak where the Text does not speak; nor even speculate. Calvin warns of the "labyrinth" of which there is no return, if we do so.

Meanwhile....

The depiction of Adam as the "Vice-Regent" of God's temple garden unfolds a more useful view of what actually occurs in Genesis.

Dr. Clark's "Israel of God" explains this and more, extraordinarily well:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Israel.htm

r.

Another tour de force by our own rsc! Interesting to me was the picture of Isaac, 'born out of due season', 'not of the will of man'. And likewise we are born, 'not of the will of man.' and 'out of due season'.

I'm relieved the answer to my question is not mentioned in scripture- I thought I was missing something. I could take instruction from the fact that it is not directly addressed.