Our solidarity with Adam in his sin

[Jerusalem Blade]

Our solidarity with Adam in his sin

It was asked of me by a friend, “How can I answer someone who says to me, ‘Why should people bear the guilt and penalty for a sin they did not commit, that is, the sin of Adam? For their own sins I can understand, but for another’s?’ ”

Some thoughts on this; first the Scripture.

Romans 5:12 KJV, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”

Romans 5:15 KJV, “through the offence of one many be dead”

Romans 5:17 KJV, “by one man's offence death reigned by one”

Romans 5:19KJV “…by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV “…in Adam all die” and then Paul continues in the same verse, saying, “even so in Christ shall all be made alive”.

From John Murray’s book, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin:

It is assumed on the basis of earlier study in this series that the only feasible interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 is to the effect that the one trespass of Adam is the sin of all, that when Paul says “one sinned” and “all sinned” he refers to the same sin viewed in its twofold aspect as the sin of Adam, the one man, and the sin of all his posterity. (pp 64-65)​

​

The one explanation of this twofold aspect from which the sin of Adam may be viewed is the solidarity existing between Adam and his posterity. . . . . Verse 19, however, puts the thesis in clearer focus. “Through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners.” When the apostle says, “constituted sinners” he has surely in mind that which is logically first in our becoming or being reckoned sinners. And when we ask: how were men thus constituted? The answer is at hand; it was “through the disobedience of the one man.” In terms of the context it is the one trespass of the one man Adam. . . . And the only consideration left for inference on our part is that they stand in this relationship to each other because there is solidarity of the race in the sin of Adam. Paul leaves no room for any other factor or constitution. (pp 68-69)​

Solidarity with and in Adam, stands against its parallel in Christ, “the last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45 KJV : 1 Cor 15:22 KJV “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. There is a like solidarity with and in Christ:

Romans 5:19 KJV, “For as by one man's disobedience many were made (constituted) sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Moving now toward the end of Murray’s book, he makes the case for what we have been terming, this remarkable solidarity.

(1) The members of posterity cannot be conceived of as existing when Adam trespassed. . . . Yet all the members of the race were contemplated by God as destined to exist; they were foreordained to be and the certainty of their existence was thus guaranteed. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that as thus contemplated by God they were contemplated no otherwise than as members of the race in solidaric union with Adam and therefore as having sinned in him. In other words, they are not conceived of in the mind and purpose of God except as one with Adam; they are not contemplated as potentially but as actually one with Adam in his sin. And this proposition is basic to all further thought on the question.​

​

(2) All the members of the race come to exist actually by the act or process of generation; this is the divinely constituted means whereby God’s foreordained design comes to effect in the course of history. It is a capital mistake to interpose the question: when does each member of the racebecome actually sinful? For the truth is that each person never exists as other than sinful. He is eternally contemplated by God as sinful by reason of the solidarity with Adam, and, whenever the person comes to be actually, he comes to be sinful. Sinfulness is correlative with his beginning to be as an individual in his mother’s womb. If, for the moment, we speak of the soul as the seat of personality, it runs counter to all the implications of our solidarity with Adam to think of the soul as ever existing or as conceived by God to exist as a pure entity undefiled by sin. The soul or, to speak more properly, the person never exists apart from the sin of Adam’s transgression.​

​

(3) If we ask the question: when is the sin of Adam imputed? the answer is apparent. The imputation is correlative with the beginning to be. This is only another way of saying what was stated in the preceding paragraph. Sin is intertwined with our very existence in view of Adamic solidarity. . .​

​

(5) . . . . This is simply to say that when each member of the race comes to exist he exists, from the inception of his being, as depraved with that perversity which his solidaric identification with the sin of Adam involves. (pp 90, 91, 92)​

This is subtle, Murray’s understanding. But it satisfies my understanding. In God’s eyes we who are in solidarity with Adam, who was the sinful man, are sinful in him, yet our sinfulness did not actuate until the moment we began to be.

There was only one innocent child, that holy Person conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. He was always obedient. By the grace of God we have been given to be in solidarity with Christ.

I am thankful that in eternity God elected us to be delivered from our satanically wrought Adamic solidarity, and translated into the heart of God’s dear Son in solidarity with Him (Col 1:12-13 KJV).

A key word, or concept, is this solidarity, meaning an entire union, ontologically and volitionally, with the person referred to, whether it be Adam or Christ (of course with Christ, our union with Him is more nuanced). The nature of this solidaric state is the key.
_______

Can anyone give further understanding to make this clearer and simpler? I am seeking simplicity and clarity, not a lot of intellectuality.

 

[No Other Name]

•“Federal headship” is a term which has almost entirely disappeared from current religious literature—so much the worse for our moderns. It is true that the expression itself does not verbally occur in Scripture; yet like the words Trinity and the divine incarnation, it is a necessity in theological parlance and doctrinal exposition. The principle or fact which is embodied in the term “federal headship” is that of representation.

There have been but two federal heads: Adam and Christ, with each of whom God entered into a covenant. Each of them acted on behalf of others, each legally represented as definite people, so much so that all whom they represented were regarded by God as being in them. Adam represented the whole human race; Christ represented all those whom the Father had, in His eternal counsels, given to Him.

•When Adam stood in Eden as a responsible being before God, he stood there as a federal head, as the legal representative of all his posterity.

Hence,

•when Adam sinned, all for whom he was standing are accounted as having sinned;
•when he fell, all whom he represented fell;
•when he died, they died.

So too was it with Christ.
•When He came to this earth, He, too, stood in a federal relationship to His own people; and
•when He became obedient unto death, all for whom He was acting were accounted righteous;
•when He rose again from the dead, all whom He represented rose with Him;
•when He ascended on high, they were regarded as ascending with Him. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).


•Let us borrow a simple illustration.

God did not deal with mankind as with a field of corn, where each stalk stands upon its own individual root; but He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk.

If you strike with an axe at the root of a tree, the whole tree falls—not only the trunk, but also the branches: all wither and die. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him. At one fatal stroke Adam was severed from communion with his maker, and as the result “death passed upon all men.”

- Pink, AW The Divine Covenants (Bolded and italics added for emphasis)

 

[MW]

Can anyone give further understanding to make this clearer and simpler? I am seeking simplicity and clarity, not a lot of intellectuality.

There are two points to bear in mind when it comes to being sinners. First, guilt; second, corruption. It is the guilt of Adam's sin that is imputed to his posterity. Then it is the corruption of nature which is passed down. For there to be guilt the natural posterity of Adam were viewed as being in him when he sinned. Then, when they are given a being by God, they are judicially conceived and born in sinful corruption.

Solidarity is a slippery word. It is indicative of some kind of union between Adam and his natural posterity but it doesn't really express what that union is. Murray himself was unclear on this point. The old theology found the union in the covenant of works. The solidarity is therefore federal in nature. It is because of the broken covenant of works that each man is considered guilty. Murray tries to get to the same point by a different route. I do not think that he succeeds.

 

[Knight]

Our solidarity with Adam in his sin

It was asked of me by a friend, “How can I answer someone who says to me, ‘Why should people bear the guilt and penalty for a sin they did not commit, that is, the sin of Adam? For their own sins I can understand, but for another’s?’ ”

Some thoughts on this; first the Scripture.

Romans 5:12 KJV, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”

Romans 5:15 KJV, “through the offence of one many be dead”

Romans 5:17 KJV, “by one man's offence death reigned by one”

Romans 5:19KJV “…by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV “…in Adam all die” and then Paul continues in the same verse, saying, “even so in Christ shall all be made alive”.

From John Murray’s book, The Imputation of Adams’ Sin:

It is assumed on the basis of earlier study in this series that the only feasible interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 is to the effect that the one trespass of Adam is the sin of all, that when Paul says “one sinned” and “all sinned” he refers to the same sin viewed in its twofold aspect as the sin of Adam, the one man, and the sin of all his posterity. (pp 64-65)​

​

The one explanation of this twofold aspect from which the sin of Adam may be viewed is the solidarity existing between Adam and his posterity. . . . . Verse 19, however, puts the thesis in clearer focus. “Through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners.” When the apostle says, “constituted sinners” he has surely in mind that which is logically first in our becoming or being reckoned sinners. And when we ask: how were men thus constituted? The answer is at hand; it was “through the disobedience of the one man.” In terms of the context it is the one trespass of the one man Adam. . . . And the only consideration left for inference on our part is that they stand in this relationship to each other because there is solidarity of the race in the sin of Adam. Paul leaves no room for any other factor or constitution. (pp 68-69)​

Solidarity with and in Adam, stands against its parallel in Christ, “the last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45 KJV : 1 Cor 15:22 KJV “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. There is a like solidarity with and in Christ:

Romans 5:19 KJV, “For as by one man's disobedience many were made (constituted) sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Moving now toward the end of Murray’s book, he makes the case for what we have been terming, this remarkable solidarity.

(1) The members of posterity cannot be conceived of as existing when Adam trespassed. . . . Yet all the members of the race were contemplated by God as destined to exist; they were foreordained to be and the certainty of their existence was thus guaranteed. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that as thus contemplated by God they were contemplated no otherwise than as members of the race in solidaric union with Adam and therefore as having sinned in him. In other words, they are not conceived of in the mind and purpose of God except as one with Adam; they are not contemplated as potentially but as actually one with Adam in his sin. And this proposition is basic to all further thought on the question.​

​

(2) All the members of the race come to exist actually by the act or process of generation; this is the divinely constituted means whereby God’s foreordained design comes to effect in the course of history. It is a capital mistake to interpose the question: when does each member of the racebecome actually sinful? For the truth is that each person never exists as other than sinful. He is eternally contemplated by God as sinful by reason of the solidarity with Adam, and, whenever the person comes to be actually, he comes to be sinful. Sinfulness is correlative with his beginning to be as an individual in his mother’s womb. If, for the moment, we speak of the soul as the seat of personality, it runs counter to all the implications of our solidarity with Adam to think of the soul as ever existing or as conceived by God to exist as a pure entity undefiled by sin. The soul or, to speak more properly, the person never exists apart from the sin of Adam’s transgression.​

​

(3) If we ask the question: when is the sin of Adam imputed? the answer is apparent. The imputation is correlative with the beginning to be. This is only another way of saying what was stated in the preceding paragraph. Sin is intertwined with our very existence in view of Adamic solidarity. . .​

​

(5) . . . . This is simply to say that when each member of the race comes to exist he exists, from the inception of his being, as depraved with that perversity which his solidaric identification with the sin of Adam involves. (pp 90, 91, 92)​

This is subtle, Murray’s understanding. But it satisfies my understanding. In God’s eyes we who are in solidarity with Adam, who was the sinful man, are sinful in him, yet our sinfulness did not actuate until the moment we began to be.

There was only one innocent child, that holy Person conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. He was always obedient. By the grace of God we have been given to be in solidarity with Christ.

I am thankful that in eternity God elected us to be delivered from our satanically wrought Adamic solidarity, and translated into the heart of God’s dear Son in solidarity with Him (Col 1:12-13 KJV).

A key word, or concept, is this solidarity, meaning an entire union, ontologically and volitionally, with the person referred to, whether it be Adam or Christ (of course with Christ, our union with Him is more nuanced). The nature of this solidaric state is the key.
_______

Can anyone give further understanding to make this clearer and simpler? I am seeking simplicity and clarity, not a lot of intellectuality.

You might find this article's engagement with Murray helpful.

 

[MW]

You might find this article's engagement with Murray helpful.

"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." The article's philosophy of the concrete denies the basic fact of penal substitutionary atonement, and in so doing denies the gospel.

 

[Knight]

"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." The article's philosophy of the concrete denies the basic fact of penal substitutionary atonement, and in so doing denies the gospel.

The article is about original sin, not our redemption. Therefore, I can only find relevancy in your comment if you have presupposed the author thinks that the relationship between the first and second Adam[ic covenants] is strictly rather than inversely parallel, as if the author thinks our participation in Adam's sin as grounds for a reckoning of sin implies our participation in Christ's work as grounds for a reckoning of righteousness. But that is not the case. The author (and I) would reject your presupposition.

 

[MW]

The article is about original sin, not our redemption. Therefore, I can only find relevancy in your comment if you have presupposed the author thinks that the relationship between the first and second Adam[ic covenants] is strictly rather than inversely parallel, as if the author thinks our participation in Adam's sin as grounds for a reckoning of sin implies our participation in Christ's work as grounds for a reckoning of righteousness. But that is not the case. The author (and I) would reject your presupposition.

He makes statements about original sin which exclude the possibility of our sin being imputed to Christ. E.g., "So tell me how people who do not actually exist but currently only potentially exist can be contemplated by God as actually one with Adam and not merely potentially one with him?" So tell me how people who do not actually exist but currently (at the time of Jesus' death) only potentially exist can be contemplated by God as actually one with Jesus and not merely potentially one with him? The man is speaking of theological realities based on metaphysical assumptions. What is denied as a metaphysical assumption to one is equally applicable to the other.

 

[Knight]

He makes statements about original sin which exclude the possibility of our sin being imputed to Christ. E.g., "So tell me how people who do not actually exist but currently only potentially exist can be contemplated by God as actually one with Adam and not merely potentially one with him?" So tell me how people who do not actually exist but currently (at the time of Jesus' death) only potentially exist can be contemplated by God as actually one with Jesus and not merely potentially one with him? The man is speaking of theological realities based on metaphysical assumptions. What is denied as a metaphysical assumption to one is equally applicable to the other.

On your view, the crucified Christ was contemplated by God as actually one with those who only potentially exist (viz. future elect persons)? If so, when those persons actually come to exist, how is it that they are contemplated as children of wrath, enemies of God, etc. until they are converted?

 

[MW]

On your view, the crucified Christ was contemplated by God as actually one with those who only potentially exist (viz. future elect persons)? If so, when those persons actually come to exist, how is it that they are contemplated as children of wrath, enemies of God, etc. until they are converted?

This is a red herring. Answer the question I asked you and still maintain penal substitutionary atonement. The metaphysics deny the gospel, as I said.

But to answer your question lest you claim I am somehow being evasive -- they are not future elect persons. They are elect in the decree of God; just as the covenant of grace is made with the elect in Christ; just as the covenant of works is made with the posterity of Adam. You are creating metaphysical difficulties with your philosophy of the concrete which deny basic theological truths.

We all accept that such persons are loved for the sake of election even while they are by nature children of wrath. There is no difficulty here.

 

[Knight]

This is a red herring. Answer the question I asked you and still maintain penal substitutionary atonement. The metaphysics deny the gospel, as I said.

I asked my question because I don't agree that "people who do not actually exist but currently (at the time of Jesus' death) only potentially exist can be contemplated by God as actually one with Jesus." I honestly also don't see how that rejection poses a problem regarding penal substitution.

Redemption accomplished grounds redemption applied. I don't think that Christ (at the time of the cross) had to be united to anyone (actually or contemplatively) to suffer the wrath of God by which He is able to function as substitute for sinners who, in uniting to Him, no longer bear the penalty for their sin.

But to answer your question lest you claim I am somehow being evasive -- they are not future elect persons. They are elect in the decree of God; just as the covenant of grace is made with the elect in Christ; just as the covenant of works is made with the posterity of Adam. You are creating metaphysical difficulties with your philosophy of the concrete which deny basic theological truths.

We all accept that such persons are loved for the sake of election even while they are by nature children of wrath. There is no difficulty here.

I mean elect persons who will be actual in the future. So then, on your view, was the crucified Christ contemplated by God as actually one with those who didn't actually [yet] exist? If so, when they did or do come to actually exist, how does your answer avoid double punishment?

 

[MW]

Redemption accomplished grounds redemption applied. I don't think that Christ (at the time of the cross) had to be united to anyone (actually or contemplatively) to suffer the wrath of God by which He is able to function as substitute for sinners who, in uniting to Him, no longer bear the penalty for their sin.

Why, then, did He suffer? It wasn't for Himself. It wasn't because God was making an example out of Him. Peter says He bare our sins in His own body on the tree. He certainly thought that there was a contemplation of union in His sufferings. It is impossible to conceive what was happening if our sins were not imputed to Him.

I mean elect persons who will be actual in the future. So then, on your view, was the crucified Christ contemplated by God as actually one with those who didn't actually [yet] exist? If so, when they did or do come to actually exist, how does your answer avoid double punishment?

I told you the answer: in the decree of God. The answer that avoids double punishment is simply (1) the elect were virtually punished in Him, and (2) they are actually declared righteous when they believe in Him. These are your run of the mill answers to these questions. They do not pose any problem to the doctrine of imputation.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Matthew, what do you think of this formulation:

When it is written, "[God] has chosen us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4 KJV), and "[our] names are ... written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV), these posit our actual existence in God's heart — and in His decree — in eternity before ever there was a creation.

If we existed in Christ — even our very names — before the creation, is there not a correlative to existence of persons — even an entire posterity — in Adam?

And may these respective existences — in both the first Adam and in the last Adam (our Christ) — not show the substantiality, the very nature, of the solidarity of each? In the former we had his sin and death, and in the latter we have His obedience and life.

 

[MW]

If we existed in Christ — even our very names — before the creation, is there not a correlative to existence of persons — even an entire posterity — in Adam?

Steve, I think your formulation has covered one half of it. The eternal decree gives us virtual existence since we exist in the mind of God and He "calleth those things which be not as though they were."

The other half is the covenant. This provides a legal constitution to a collective body under a single representative through time. We might think of the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham. David, who was born much later, was circumcised under that constitution and called JEHOVAH his God because of it.

What makes the blood of Christ FOR US is the fact it is the blood of the covenant. When we are personally instated in that covenant we ourselves come under that blood for the remission of our sins. This is the everlasting covenant of grace.

Likewise, when Adam sinned in the garden there was a constitution in place which we call the covenant of works, and this established him as the head of his natural posterity. This is why he was called ADAM, as the representative MAN. Hence all who spring from him in a natural way are reckoned to be IN HIM as a covenant-breaker. This constitutes them sinners; and as a consequence they are conceived and born in sin with a corrupt human nature, or what the Bible calls FLESH.