- - Endorsed
- - Indifferent
- - Contested
|The Nashville Statement
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
| Ten Second Theology -1-
|It was Eve who sinned first, so why do we always credit Adam with the fall of mankind?
Let's answer that question with a question:
The marriage of Adam and Eve, like all marriages, pictures the union of the bride of Christ (the church) and the Groom (Christ). If you, the bride of Christ sinned, why is your sin credited to Christ?
Labels: Ten Second Theology.
posted by Daniel @
Does it have something to do with being one?
What if Adam did not sin, only Eve? What if he said to Eve "You are crazy and get that fruit away from me"
Anonymous, it does have something to do with the union. The marriage union (the two become one) pictures the union of the bride of Christ (the church) and its Savior (Jesus). Our sins are imputed to Christ through this union such that on the cross Christ was held culpable for our sin...
Since God knew that Adam would sin before God ever created Adam, there is no point in speculating about what would have happened if Adam hadn't sinned. God had the option of creating a universe in which Adam wouldn't sin, but God didn't do that. Given God's character, all we can say for sure is that if God had planned for the universe to have a different redemptive history than the one we are in - it would have brought him -less- glory than this one.
What about federal headship?
We didn't die in Eve but rather we died in Adam.
However, I think your picture of the union between the bride and groom really serves to illuminate the truth of Romans 6.
Our justification is found in our union with Christ through baptism into His death and being raised together with Him.
Jim - all good theology comes back to Romans six! ;-)
Bryan - Are you saying our sin is accounted to Christ because of Federal headship? Or are you presuming that federal headship is the preferred solution to the original question?
And there's this interesting verse:
"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
- 1 Corinthians 7:14
I don't quite understand it fully, but it's interesting. I do understand it doesn't say "made saved" because of the spouse, but it does say made holy - because of the union.
I'm not convinced Dan that Eve's sin effected anyone beyond herself. It wasn't until Adam sinned that it was imputed to the whole race because he was our federal head.
Bryan, like yourself I am not convinced (or even remoted suggesting for that matter) that Eve's sin affected anyone beyond herself - though I would say that it no doubt emboldened Adam to follow suit.
As to the theory that Adam's sin was imputed to the whole human race, I certainly agree that this one commonly held, reformed opinion, though I think it is founded more upon historical baggage than sound exegesis. I am not comfortable with the level of presumption and the speculation built upon that presumption myself to embrace it as "solid" - and would classify it as "well respected but still flaky". ;-)
And as to federal headship - well, that is just the icing on that particular theory's cake.
Adam was there with Eve when this all happened. The timeline of his sin was the same as Eve and since he had headship (Eve was his helper), the buck stopped with his sin. Wouldn't that be the same as a boss on a work crew allowing a worker to break a law with full knowledge the act was going to occur?
In short wasn't Adam's sin greater?
What about these verses:
Hos 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
It seems to me that the comparisons most often drawn relate to Adam, since Christ is the "second Adam."
Let's start with Hosea 6:7.
Given that the Hebrew word for "man" is "Adam", and given the peculiar syntax of the verse, the text can be translated in all of the following ways, meaning that the way we choose is not dictated to us by the text, but by whatever theology we read into it:
 But "they" transgressed the covenant;
 But "as at Adam" transgressed the covenant; (there was a place called Adam to, and the syntax allows this).
 But "they, like men" transgressed the covenant.
 But "like Adam" they transgressed the covenant
I personally translate it, "But they like men transgressed the covenant." It fits the text better and doesn't require me to go back into Genesis and inject a covenant where none existed. We see the same sort of usage in Psalm 82:7 - and because there is no theological pressure to invent a covenant, we translate it there as "you will die like men" or "you shall fall as one man" - for some reason no one insists that we translate it as the proper name for Adam here. Which is to say that whatever clout that verse has for some, I am certainly not enamored by it.
Now onto 1Co 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Just one verse prior we read a parallel thought: For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
Whatever "in Adam all die" means, it is the same thing as "as by a man came death" - the only explicit meaning we can draw from this verse (without speculating) is that while Adam introduced death into the world when it was already spiritually alive, Christ introduced life into the world when it was spiritually dead. That is, all we can say for certain is that Adam brought death into the world, and that all men die because of it. It does not prove that Adam's sin is imputed to us - that is just speculation. Adam's sin brought death, and death spread to all of us through sin itself, as opposed to through Adam's sin.
1Ti 2:14 simply shows that Eve was a transgressor. I don't think anyone would really argue that she wasn't. Eve's sin is typically ignored in order to focus on the notion of federal headship. Either way, I don't think you really need me to comment on this.
In Rom 5:14 we read "those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam" - and if we bought into the whole covenant injection into Genesis, we might inject that here too, but if we didn't we would read "like the transgression of Adam" to mean, receiving plain instruction, and rebelling against it in full knowledge that you are doing so. Men can sin ignorantly, and doing so had different sacrifices - but there was also determined rebellion against God - the transgression of Adam.
Nothing in that verse, if taken in this light, demands imputation.
I do not filter these verses through a covenantal system, so maybe that is why I don't see any need for an imputation of Adam's sin. Perhaps I am jaundiced because I read the bible many times through cover to cover and drew my own opinions about what it meant long before I ever knew there were systems of theology - such that when I came to hear of this covenant of works my reaction was, "Huh? Who dreamed that up?"
If Adam's sin is not imputed to us why would Christ's righteousness be imputed to us?
Anonymous - I am not sure I follow your line of thought, as it has an apples and oranges quality to it. I am probably too shallow to pick up your meaning so please elaborate.
In preparing a post for my own blog, I was rereading the creation account and came across thse verses:
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
So since the command was given to the man (and not to Eve, who was not yet even created), it seems reasonable to me that the answer to your question "It was Eve who sinned first, so why do we always credit Adam with the fall of mankind?" is because the command was given to Adam.
The first time I heard that explanation it seemed reasonable to me. I mean, God -did- command Adam before Eve was ever formed, but the reasoning behind it is that Eve wasn't guilty because God didn't tell her "directly" but only indirectly through Adam.
If I bought into the whole federal headship idea, I suppose that I wouldn't give much thought to the possibility that there is no difference whatsoever between having God speak directly into your ear, or having his words repeated later, for how have we heard the word of God?
So while I know that to be a very common answer, yet I go to 1 Timothy 2 and see that Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. I reason on this account that the reason Adam is held guilty is becauce, unlike Eve who was beguiled and deceived by the serpent, and took of the fruit in that state, Adam was not deceived by the serpent but partook in full, undistorted knowledge.
Can I say it another way? Their hearts were different. Eve wasn't rebelling against God in the same way that Adam was. She fell into rebellion being tricked by the serpent, but Adam -chose- rebellion freely and with a clear understanding of exactly what he was doing.
That is how I see it. I am still too busy to really comment much more or post, but let me know if that flies or not.