InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
The following quote is from Robert A. Morey's "The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?" (Chapter Four, The Radical Fall of Men Into Sin and Guilt, p. 101).
QUOTE
Three Essential Concepts
There are three essential concepts that form the basis of the doctrines of original sin, vicarious atonement, and forensic justification:
#1 Solidarity
The Bible teaches a concept of solidarity in which an individual is viewed and treated in terms of his relationship to a group, whether it is a tribe, a nation or mankind as a whole, while the "group" is viewed and treated in terms of its relationship to its original head.
Man as Image Bearer
This is why the Bible can speak of each individual human being as having dignity and worth by virtue of his or her participation in the solidarity of the human race. Each individual person is important because mankind as a whole is important. We can view each person we meet as being in the image of God by virtue of mankind's relationship to Adam who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9).
Corporate and Individual Election
An individual Jew was viewed as "chosen" by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the "chosen" nation. Yet, at the same time, the nation was viewed as "chosen" because of its relationship to Abraham who was individually chosen by God (Gen. 12:1-7)
The Levitical Priesthood
An individual could be blessed by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of his tribe. For example, an individual Levite could be a priest by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the Tribe of Levi while the Tribe of Levi was viewed as the priesthood by virtue of its relationship to Levi who was individually chosen to be the high priest (Num. 18:6-24).
The Ninevites
Each individual Ninevite was delivered from judgment by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the nation of Nineveh whose King repented before God (Jonah 3, 4:11). He could just as easily have been punished for the corporate guilt he bore. But the nation as a whole was delivered on a corporate basis when its head repented in sackcloth and ashes. It did not matter if he, as an individual, had sinned or repented. The destiny of his nation was his destiny.
Corporate Guilt and Punishment
The suffering experienced by individual Egyptians during the plagues; by individual Canaanites, Philistines, Amorites, Hittites, etc., during the Conquest; by individual Jews in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities; and all the other judgments sent against nations, were justified by God on the basis of their participation in the solidarity of their nation.
For example, even though a certain individual Egyptian may not have harmed or mistreated the Jews in any way, yet, because he was an Egyptian, he suffered under the ten plagues. His individual actions did not negate his corporate guilt which arose out of his participation in the solidarity of the nation of Egypt.
Even the Righteous
A righteous man can view himself guilty in a corporate sense by virtue of the solidarity of his tribe’s or nation’s sin. Thus Nehemiah confessed the corporate sins of his nation (Neh. 1:5-11).
In the passage above, it is clear that an individual can be viewed and treated by God as being guilty of sins for which his nation was guilty. The fact that he himself had not committed the particular sins in question did not negate the corporate guilt he bore.
It is on this basis that punishment for certain sins was visited on entire cities like Sodom or entire nations such as Egypt. Because of the solidarity of the family unit, the punishment for certain sins could rest on several generations (Exo. 20:5; Josh. 7:24-26; Jer. 22:28-30; 36:31).
God’s corporate blessing or judgment on tribes, cities, nations, and mankind as a whole are possible only on the basis of the concept of solidarity. Such judgments as the Flood or the Conquest can only be understood and justified in this way.
In Our Secular Life
The concept of solidarity is also an essential aspect of politics as well as a Biblical principle. When the leadership of a nation declares war on another nation, each individual citizen is at war whether he knows or agrees with it. He can be killed or his goods seized simply on the basis of being a part of his nation. He must bear corporate guilt and punishment due to the sins of his nation. Thus, human government itself is based on the concept of solidarity. If we condemn the biblical principle of solidarity, then human government must be rejected as well.
/QUOTE
Next Dr. Morey would have examined the representation of Adam and Christ, and the three great acts of imputation (Adam's sin to us, our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us). Suprisingly to myself, he does not mention any other imputation that would have taken place in history. I must wonder, then, why is imputation not applied to solidarity, since, according to Morey, in solidarity the guilt of one person becomes the guilt of everyone. I've always understood that the flood, for example, is explained by the fact that everyone is sinful and guilty of God's wrath, not because someone represented others. What difference is there between solidarity and the representation of Adam and Christ (other than the federal nature of their representation)?
QUOTE
Three Essential Concepts
There are three essential concepts that form the basis of the doctrines of original sin, vicarious atonement, and forensic justification:
#1 Solidarity
The Bible teaches a concept of solidarity in which an individual is viewed and treated in terms of his relationship to a group, whether it is a tribe, a nation or mankind as a whole, while the "group" is viewed and treated in terms of its relationship to its original head.
Man as Image Bearer
This is why the Bible can speak of each individual human being as having dignity and worth by virtue of his or her participation in the solidarity of the human race. Each individual person is important because mankind as a whole is important. We can view each person we meet as being in the image of God by virtue of mankind's relationship to Adam who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9).
Corporate and Individual Election
An individual Jew was viewed as "chosen" by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the "chosen" nation. Yet, at the same time, the nation was viewed as "chosen" because of its relationship to Abraham who was individually chosen by God (Gen. 12:1-7)
The Levitical Priesthood
An individual could be blessed by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of his tribe. For example, an individual Levite could be a priest by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the Tribe of Levi while the Tribe of Levi was viewed as the priesthood by virtue of its relationship to Levi who was individually chosen to be the high priest (Num. 18:6-24).
The Ninevites
Each individual Ninevite was delivered from judgment by virtue of his participation in the solidarity of the nation of Nineveh whose King repented before God (Jonah 3, 4:11). He could just as easily have been punished for the corporate guilt he bore. But the nation as a whole was delivered on a corporate basis when its head repented in sackcloth and ashes. It did not matter if he, as an individual, had sinned or repented. The destiny of his nation was his destiny.
Corporate Guilt and Punishment
The suffering experienced by individual Egyptians during the plagues; by individual Canaanites, Philistines, Amorites, Hittites, etc., during the Conquest; by individual Jews in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities; and all the other judgments sent against nations, were justified by God on the basis of their participation in the solidarity of their nation.
For example, even though a certain individual Egyptian may not have harmed or mistreated the Jews in any way, yet, because he was an Egyptian, he suffered under the ten plagues. His individual actions did not negate his corporate guilt which arose out of his participation in the solidarity of the nation of Egypt.
Even the Righteous
A righteous man can view himself guilty in a corporate sense by virtue of the solidarity of his tribe’s or nation’s sin. Thus Nehemiah confessed the corporate sins of his nation (Neh. 1:5-11).
In the passage above, it is clear that an individual can be viewed and treated by God as being guilty of sins for which his nation was guilty. The fact that he himself had not committed the particular sins in question did not negate the corporate guilt he bore.
It is on this basis that punishment for certain sins was visited on entire cities like Sodom or entire nations such as Egypt. Because of the solidarity of the family unit, the punishment for certain sins could rest on several generations (Exo. 20:5; Josh. 7:24-26; Jer. 22:28-30; 36:31).
God’s corporate blessing or judgment on tribes, cities, nations, and mankind as a whole are possible only on the basis of the concept of solidarity. Such judgments as the Flood or the Conquest can only be understood and justified in this way.
In Our Secular Life
The concept of solidarity is also an essential aspect of politics as well as a Biblical principle. When the leadership of a nation declares war on another nation, each individual citizen is at war whether he knows or agrees with it. He can be killed or his goods seized simply on the basis of being a part of his nation. He must bear corporate guilt and punishment due to the sins of his nation. Thus, human government itself is based on the concept of solidarity. If we condemn the biblical principle of solidarity, then human government must be rejected as well.
/QUOTE
Next Dr. Morey would have examined the representation of Adam and Christ, and the three great acts of imputation (Adam's sin to us, our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us). Suprisingly to myself, he does not mention any other imputation that would have taken place in history. I must wonder, then, why is imputation not applied to solidarity, since, according to Morey, in solidarity the guilt of one person becomes the guilt of everyone. I've always understood that the flood, for example, is explained by the fact that everyone is sinful and guilty of God's wrath, not because someone represented others. What difference is there between solidarity and the representation of Adam and Christ (other than the federal nature of their representation)?