New Hampshire Conference 2001

Message 1
Pastor Kevin Hartley

 Introduction

Fundamental to every theological discussion, formulation, or concoction is a presumed understanding of the Adamic economy. Adam was the immediate goal of God’s creation, the capstone of his creative enterprise, and the consummation of his expressed divine will. It was the first historical event in which God’s will to love an elect people, expressed in his foreknowledge, and his divine council, in his divine determination called predestination. As it is first in scripture it is presupposed in every text of God’s word, and thus, it is presupposed in every theological discussion. A proper understanding of salvation, doctrine, and our triune God, begins with a proper understanding of the Adamic economy. A skewed view will result in a manifest aberration in every discipline. Our view of man’s depravity is derived from our understanding of the fall. Our view of man’s condemnation is based upon our understanding of the judicious nature of Adam’s relationship to God. Our view of Christ and our union with him, including our understanding of the extent of his atonement, each are antecedently determined by our understanding of the Adamic economy. It is first in scripture and first in theology and thusly first in need of clarification.

History has proffered various views of the Adamic economy. That which each orthodox view presupposes is that God created man after his own image and placed him in the Garden of Eden. There God commanded Adam to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, and to have dominion over creation, and added this addendum, that man may eat of every tree in the garden but one, that called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Where theologians have found disagreement is not in the component parts of the creative order, but in the categorical definitions of these components and the liaison between God and men. Consider this as a representative, though not exhaustive catalogue of the divergences among theologians involving the Adamic economy:

First by way of definition, there are disagreements regarding the imago dei, that which is defined as the image of God. The early Patristic fathers included corporeal presence as part of the image. This was denied by Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and others, yet from early on there was a division between the image and likeness of God. This continued up through the scholastics and even had its influence upon the reformers. Luther saw the image and likeness consisting of knowledge, original righteousness and holiness, but Calvin and the Reformed tradition has been inclined to include the issues of character and identity, that of self-consciousness, rational, free, and moral agency. Simply one sees that there exists uncertainty as to the phrase image of God. Second and precursory to one’s understanding of man in the image of God is defining the relationship between God and Adam. Again there are numerous divergences among theologians. Some define it as a mere representative relationship and thus involving all men, some see him acting solely on his own behalf and therefore having no effect upon his progeny. Some see his actions as merely constitutionally determinative, in which there is a degradation of the race, but no metaphysical determination. Others see Adam in covenant with God, merely in a legal relationship, reasonably commanded unto obedience. There has also been an eschatological assumption, where Adam’s time in Eden was probationary, where eschatological life was promised for obedience. The doctrines of predestination, election, imputation, total depravity, and limited atonement are all related to how we understand these categories. The problem is complex, many pious minds have disagreed.

The endeavor of this first message is to redress this matter and offer a reoriented view of the Adamic economy, drawing upon the best of past theological expressions and the text of scripture itself. It is incumbent upon those that would seek to contrive a new theological framework to begin by defining their view of the Adamic economy. Historically new theological expressions have rarely been novel. Often they are mere restatements of past expressions or revisions of existing lexis. ‘Doing theology’ is all about learning from the past, critically evaluating the present, and offering direction for the future. The current emphasis upon a theology that emphasizes the newness of the new covenant is faced with the mandate of answering the question of how one is to understand the Adamic economy from a new covenant perspective. We of this audience and due to the narrow focus of this conference can immediately reject the semi-Pelagian Roman Catholic view and the Pelagian view itself. This leaves us with two historic options (apart from introducing a novel idea) for understanding the relationship between God, Adam, and men; Adam was either the mere representative of men or their covenant head. New covenant theology rejects the view that the Adamic administration was covenantal and adopts the view of representative headship.

Thesis: The Adamic administration is to be understood as merely representative, where representative is to be understood as a rudimentary and demonstrative, as rudimentary is to be understood as a first step in redemptive history, and demonstrative is to be understood as indicative of God’s will to be in union with men. In endeavoring to prove this thesis I shall endeavor to exegete Romans 5: 12 as a proof sufficient to affirm this notion. I shall then follow with the application of this doctrine and the answering of several objections.

I begin then with this brief introduction to the text in question. Romans is historically known as a paramount doctrinal treatise, often to the expense of its clearest design, the practice of practical religion. Romans is an epistle written to a church, with the design of the utility of doctrine in Christian living. The fifth chapter of Romans is set within the division of the letter that is detailing the bounty of justification. The principal benefit of our justification is assurance. Thus in a lengthy expose the apostle Paul records an astounding inventory of the benefits that flow from our justification. This inventory is most useful in Christian living, as it serves as a lasting reminder of our newness; new relationship with God, new union with him in Christ, new constitution of the soul, new sense of the soul, new affections, new heart, new mind, new realm of existence, new liberty, new legal status, new perspective on life and death and eternity, and a unique existence in Christ.

Set in the midst of this inventory is our text, which involves the declaration of our new relationship to God by way of a man. This declaration is made by way of a comparison between Adam, the first man, and Christ, the second man, yet the design of the comparison is not a one-to-one parallel, but to show us our excelling benefits of being under the representative headship of Jesus Christ and not Adam. In order for Paul to demonstrate to incomparable benefits of being in union with Christ, he compares it with the lesser and even injurious disadvantages of being in union with Adam. Absent from the text is any notation of covenant, in fact, the word is only found in chapter eleven of the book and then in reference to God’s promise to Israel. This would have been the ideal time to introduce a comparison between the old and new covenants, if indeed, the Adamic administration were a covenantal design. The silence of the text then stands immediately as an argument against our adoption of any covenantal scheme of understanding God’s relationship to Adam. Also consider that whenever a broken covenant is referred to by God in scripture it is always referenced as that covenant that men broke. God always gives reason for his covenantal judgement by way of association and consequence. Never do the scriptures say, because they broke my covenant, in Adam, therefore they are cast out of Eden and union with me.

This aside, we note then from our text that we have here the most exhaustive commentary in the new testament upon the Adamic economy. Even though it is not Paul’s primary aim to define that environment, still it is one of the few new testament texts that speaks of Adam, and in fact, it is the only text outside of 1 Corinthians 15 that deals with Adam in this manner; the other text is 1 Timothy 2, which is simply a reference to Adam and Eve and is not doctrinally important. We know the Genesis narrative is brief. We know that God alone speaks and not Adam. We know that God commands in brief. And this alone we know. Those who argue for the use of Hosea do a disservice to the text, as it is agreed upon by Calvin, Murray, Hodge, and all reasonable theologians to be referring to the Mosaic covenant and not the Adamic economy. Therefore we are left with 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 as the commentaries that can give us insight into the Adamic economy. We chose Romans, since the Corinthians text is situation specific to the hope of resurrection. It is only here that the new testament gives us a view of the Adamic economy and God’s relationship to the first man.

Text: 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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Romans 5: 12 - 15

Observations:

  1. The connect being a proof in the words therefore as, viz. that Paul introduces a proof certain to assure us of our peace with God and indubitable salvation this lengthy section serves to shore up doubt that any might have of their union with Christ. Thus the prevailing notion of this text, implicitly brought forward by way of comparative conjunction is simple union.
  2. The person introduced in the words one man, viz. that one man being Adam the first man. This is proven in the parenthesis of verse fourteen. He is introduced as 1) human, in constitution he was a man. 2) Historical, in that he existed. 3). Unique, in being the first man. The idea of union is here extended to likeness, in that we are identified with Adam in racial solidarity. Murray writes, "The principle of representation underlies all the basic institutions of God in the world – the family, the church, and the state. In other words, solidarity and corporate relationship is a feature of God’s government. We should expect the prototype to reside in racial solidarity…All we know is that God constituted Adam the head." Thus the words one man tell us nothing more nor nothing less than that all men are in union with Adam as he is their representative, ancestral head. We might consider Adam the first patriarch, since the word in the Greek means ruling father. The whole sense of tribal union, of generation, and familial fraternity has been downgraded in importance due to the prevailing individuality of our day.
  3. The notoriety of this man, viz. that sin and death entered the world through this one man. Adam’s contravention is introduced as significant in its introduction of malady into the world, this present realm. By this he stands as unique, being the one man that brought this result. Paul goes on in the parenthesis to list the crime of Adam that brought this consequence calling it the transgression of Adam. Notice first that it is in the singular, and thus Adam’s notoriety is based upon one act. Second note that the act is called a transgression, a going aside, a breaking of a command or law. The law or command Adam transgressed is simply not to take and eat from the tree. Some would have us believe this transgression is a violation of the whole moral law of God, those Ten Commandments. Yet notice that in our text there is a clear separation between Adam’s transgression and the law that was not yet in the world. All we can draw from this text is that Adam violated a known commandment and that commandment was: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gn. 2.16-17. Paul no where here associates Adam’s transgression with a violation of the law given at Mt. Sinai. True, they may be similar in their nature, in that both are disobedience to known commands, both result in God’s just condemnation, and both are qualitatively acts of pride, idolatry, harlotry, etc…, yet there is no clear leap from one command of prohibition to eat and the covenant document given at Mt. Sinai. Consider how far reason must take us from this text to arrive at this statement in the Isish Articles of Religion (1615), a precursor to the WCF, that states in Article 21: "Man being at the beginning created according to the image of God…had the covenant of the law ingrafted in his heart, whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments, according to that measure of strength wherewith he was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he did not perform the same." We have the plain and simple reading of scripture that tells us that Adam broke a single command and that transgression resulted in the world’s affliction.
  4. The collaboration of the man with other men, viz. that all men in Adam sinned in Adam and are guilty of his transgression. The phrase in that all sinned does not refer to our sins in this life, but our union with Adam in his transgression. Yet me know that we were not present with that man Adam, thus we need explanation of the manner in which we are held accountable for that man’s action. The answer lies in the nature of our union with Adam and the comparison Paul draws between Adam and Christ. While not corresponding in nature or effect, they are correspondent in representative union. Adam was the head of a race, Christ is the head of a race. Adam had a specific relationship with God, his creator, and he transgressed God’s one command, thus resulting in separation. Christ has a specific relationship with God, being his Son and even god, and has by his own obedience and righteousness brought a consequent union with those that he unites himself with. Thus you see they are similar but also dissimilar. Attempting to resolve the bitter response we have to this teaching of Paul, Murray wrote, "the only solution is that there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the ‘one’ and ‘the all’ with the result that the sin of the one may at the same time and with equal relevance be regarded as the sin of all…We must not tone down either the singularity or the universality." The imputation of Adam’s sin to his progeny is not without biblical precedent. We see a like instance in the case of Noah cursing Canaan rather than Ham directly. The transgression of a father, of a representative of a people, of a tribal head, of a patriarch, is imputed to his posterity. This is also like the case in Hebrews were the argument is built that Melchizedek paid tribute to Christ, because by paying tribute to Abraham, whose loins were to bring forth Christ, Melchizedek was paying tithe to Christ.

It can be argued then that in Reformed theology covenant has taken the place of familial union. That the tribal oneness and genealogical association of a race is more prominent and important an institution than a covenant. We might say that they have simply replaced this principal characteristic of biblical relationship with the covenant motif. John Murray made significant steps in his abandonment of the covenant of works. His union with Calvin went a long way in allowing open dialogue today regarding the validity of a covenant of nature, or a covenant of life, or a covenant of works, and has done much to reestablish the emphasis that I believe new covenant theology should adopt.

Doctrines. The Adamic economy was established upon the solidaric tribal relationship of humanity, in which God established a relationship with men, in one man, as their creator, to whom was reasonably anticipated union and obedience. Having demonstrated the reasonableness of this proposition, and affirming the first proposition of my thesis, I shall then endeavor to demonstrate this that the representative kinship of Adam is to be understood as demonstrative and rudimentary, where rudimentary is to be understood as a first step in redemptive history, and demonstrative is to be understood as indicative of God’s will to be in union with men.

  1. As the Adamic economy is a representative economy we understand it to be demonstrative of God’s expressed will to be in union with men. Knowing that God created man we know that he is neither a capricious or malicious God. We know from Romans 8: 28, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. We know that his purpose is expressed in his divine foreknowledge, or love for a people he has chosen. We know that God’s divine council that has issued forth in a decretal will is his predestination, which is his sovereign design to create, redeem, and glorify a people with himself. If we inquire into the secret counsel of God, as to his primary motive, it is union in glory. He seeks to set his love upon a people and his wrath upon another and in so doing to be glorified as a just and merciful God. Thus we agree with the Westminster divines when they write that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. We find in Adam God’s expressed will to be in union with men. That which is demonstrated in the Edenic relationship between God and men is that God relates to men both condescendingly and judiciously.
  2. By condescendinglywe see that God chooses to relate to men. Adam was created, he was placed in the Garden, and God did breathe life into the dust of his formed body. Adam was given a habitation, he was given union with God, he was granted dominion and bounty. All which Adam partook of came about by way of the sheer kindness of God. Adam, being nothing, until God made him something, was only something because of what God made him. Thus it was reasonable to expect on the part of his creator due recompense of thanksgiving and gratitude. If we seek the immediate purpose for God’s expressed will in Eden it was to create a man in union with him. If we seek the intermediary purpose of God’s expressed will in Eden it was to embark upon a design of redemption. If we seek the consummate purpose of God’s expressed will in Eden it was his own good pleasure. The summary of this point is that we understand union with God to be an act of his own expressed condescending will.

Yet maintaining our place in Romans the matter of God’s condescension as taught in Eden is no match for the sheer matter of grace in Christ that we are taught in Christ. Adam’s clothing, flaming swords, and the promise of a seed to a woman can be compared to investing a dollar and in one hundred years having a million. There is no comparison between the Adamic administration and the administration of the new covenant. What we learn of God’s kind condescension as a creator to a man, is nothing in comparison to what we learn, when we hear of the death of his own Holy Son, or when we hear that he accomplished union with foul, wretched, sinners, who are at enmity with him. God’s condescension in Eden is trivial when compared to the glory of his condescension, free grace, and mercy in Christ. Here is where I believe the gospel becomes most skewed, when we elevate the place of Eden to the place of the new covenant. When we set anyone or anything on par with Christ. The reason we need discontinuity is that we might appreciate the much more here taught by the apostle Paul.

  1. By judiciouslywe see that God does only relate to men in a judicious manner. Once Adam had sinned he necessarily was cast out of God’s presence. God is holy and just and these attributes of God are immutable and eternal. Thus we can only assume that union with God is in a judicious manner. If men are to dwell with God it must be in holiness. Thus in Eden we have demonstrated the nature of god, the nature of man, and the need for fidelity. Yet we learn this lesson only by way of its statement; Adam was God’s created man, he disobeyed a direct command of God, and the result was that God judged that disobedience with death. Separation was a result of disobedience.

Yet once again it is only in Christ and the new covenant that we see the greatest manifest effulgence of God’s holy justice. For God to punish a man, take from him paradise, and curse him and leave him to fend in a desolate place, is nothing in comparison to a God that for that lost man to take his own Son and send him to the cross for that man. God’s justice is not best known in Eden, the demands of holiness as expressed first in one command, and then raised at Sinai to an even more stringent command, cannot even draw near to the law Christ reveals on the mount. We do not know God’s justice aright until we, as sinners, are like that Centurion, below the cross, as the ground quakes and the heavens are rent, and the Son of God cries out, ‘It is finished,’ and are heard to say ‘truly this was the Son of God.’ Only then can we say that we say that we have a right theology of Eden. We do not understand Adam until we size him up next to Christ. We do not understand law until we hear Christ speak to unwavering holiness. We do not know mercy and condescension until we see that it pleased God to bruise his own holy Son. Thus our theology must keep Eden merely demonstrative of these truths and be cautious to never allow Adam and his relationship with God to dictate, subordinate, or eclipse our greater appreciation of union with Christ in this our new covenant.

  1. As the Adamic economy is a representative economy we understand it then to be a rudimentary expression of God’s union with men. The rudiment of Eden speaks to first that it is primitive and second that it is inferior.
    1. That it is primitive refers to its place in biblical history. It is a unique economy and one that is never to be known again. Its elements were fundamentally an immature of God’s expression of his will. One command in Eden, a brazen but nagging conscience until Sinai, tablets of stone and countless regulations that laid a heavy burden upon the backs of a nation, and then a law that is exacting, unwavering, and even piercing to the intent of the heart as revealed by Christ, and a demand of men to obtain union with God found in this expression, ‘be ye perfect as my father in heaven is perfect.’ John Murray wrote, "Empirically, knowledge is knowledge of good and evil as co-related and contrasted realities." Adam was created in innocence. We know that his love for God was deficient in some manner, otherwise he would not have prostituted himself. Though we cannot fully estimate that place, we do know that if God works all things together for good to those who love him, and we are those who love him, then that fall of Adam was worked of God for our good. And since we are not remade in the likeness of God as Adam, but as it says, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified (Rm. 8. 29.30), we are in the image of Christ, we thus know that what we have is far better than what Adam had. Thus his was a primal day, his was a first step in the display of God’s glory, of union between God and men, and Christ coming and mediating that glory, and the Holy Spirit being poured out in this day of our new covenant, we know then that the church is the effulgence of his design. That primitive place has been replaced by our modern place, our modern habitation, our paradise, our Eden, Christ our Lord.
    2. That it is inferior refers to its station in biblical history. I believe it proper to assert that God never intended us to comprise the heart of our theology in Eden. He did not intend us to become scholars of Adam, but of Christ. He did not intend us to explore and delve into the secret things of that union, but to seek out those things in Christ that still escape us. When we have mastered Christology I believe then we shall have due warrant to master Adamology. The union we have in Christ far surpasses an supposed eschatological benefit we may have gained in Adam. Paul does not raise up Adam, except to lift up Christ. He does not what to answer all the question we have about the imago dei, about the nature of God’s relationship with Adam, rather he wants us to see how much more we have in Christ. I can image, if Paul were at a conference where men were hashing out all the intricacies of the Edenic economy, seeking to construct covenants, laws, and concepts, he would stand and call for a pause, and say to the crowd, ‘let me tell you of another man.’This we know the relationship between God and man in Eden is far inferior to our union with God in Christ. The image of God that Adam bore is nothing in comparison to the image of God that we bear in the image of Christ. The relationship Adam had with God in Eden is nothing in comparison to the relationship we have with Christ. The purity Adam possessed in innocence is nothing in comparison with the righteousness which is ours in Christ. The peace Adam knew in Eden is but a whisper compared to the shout of the Spirit to our souls that testifies to us that we are the children of God. This theology of which I speak today is all about a proper place for Adam in our reflection. We need merely glance at him and find that we are brought to gaze long upon Christ.

By way of summation then allow me to restate the thesis: The Adamic administration is to be understood as merely representative, where representative is to be understood as a rudimentary and demonstrative, as rudimentary is to be understood as a first step in redemptive history, and demonstrative is to be understood as indicative of God’s will to be in union with men. Now by way of application:

  1. This should first excite in us a due regard for new covenant. We should be thankful for our day. We do not have decaying skins to remind us God love us. We have no mere bow set in the clouds as a reminder that his wrath is removed from us. We do not have the stars of the sky solely as a promise of his faithfulness. We do not have a dying lawgiver to remind us of our foul ways. We need no prophet to encourage us for tomorrow. We need no king on earth to fight against our foes. For this is our promise:

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rm. 8. 32ff

  1. This should second exhort us to guard against any imposition upon the glory of Christ in our theology. Such imposition can come in two forms; from within or from without. We are our own worst enemies in that we are quick to lose the sense of our especial day in Christ. We need to read the book of our covenant and to know our mediator and king. We need to know the government of this our kingdom and we need to be exhorted, encouraged, and reproved along the way. When need the grace of God in His Spirit and Word towards us in Christ to drive out our love affairs with sin, with Moses, and with this world. We need a right and proper estimation of our life in Christ. We begin by understanding our relationship to God in Christ.
  2. This should last encourage us to know that in Christ we have a lasting habitation. We shall never be cast out from him, as Adam was from Eden. The day is coming when we shall never again be excited towards disobedience. The day is coming of glory when we shall see the final consummation of what today we already partake of in Christ. One step remains, to put of this body and put on another and there me made complete in his glory.

eMail Kevin Hartley
Return to Kevin's Sermon Index
Return to Index of New Covenant Theology Articles and Sermons
Go to the Sound of Grace Home Page

Copyright 2001 Kevin Hartley