"Second" Adam or "Last" Adam: How Should We View Christ?

I am getting ready to start studying at RPTS this coming Fall. One of the courses that I am taking is titled Spiritual Development. There are many short books that are required reading, and for me, that means I need to read them before the class begins. I learned that lesson the hard way a few years ago, but it also is a suggested way about how to be successful in class.

One of the assigned books is by a pastor in the RP church in Northern Ireland named Edward "Ted" Donnelly. I have heard him preach and have read his book on Heaven and Hell. The assigned book is titled Life in Christ, and is based on a series of messages given at the English Conference in August 2001 hosted by the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

Chapter 1 deals a very important part of Covenant Theology: our union with the first Adam and the last Adam. There are two important New Testament texts that deal with this theme, and they are both written in letters by the Apostle Paul to the church of Rome and Corinth. The first appearance can be found in Romans 5:12-19, and then the second appearance of this theme is considered in 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-47.

In a hymn written by John Henry Newman titled Praise to the Holiest in the height, Newman writes the following in the second stanza:

O loving wisdom of our God!
when all was sin and shame,
a second Adam to the fight
and to the rescue came.

Newman refers to Jesus as the "second" Adam in the part of the stanza that I have italicized. However, even other Christians refer to Christ as the "second" Adam. For example, I have enjoyed reading Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters but on page 153 they write:

We not only need Jesus to restore us to God's favor, but we also need Him (as the Second Adam) to lead us into fulfillment of all God's purposes.

Just doing a simple Google search on "Second Adam" will turn up many results from various theological backgrounds that would suggest that we could either refer to Jesus Christ as the "Second" Adam or the "Last" Adam and still be theologically correct. However, I would like to challenge that idea. While the sense might be understood in the same way, I would suggest that Christ is only the "last" Adam not the "second" Adam and the two terms do carry an implicit substantial difference in their meaning.

On page 20, Donnelly says the following about Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians in light of Newman's hymn:

But the hymn-writer was mistaken. ... For Christ is never referred to in the Scriptures as the second Adam. He is (and it should make us want to shout and sing) the 'last' Adam—the final, the perfect, the ultimate Adam, the supreme representative who has once and for all accomplished salvation.

So where do we get the idea that Christ is the "second Adam?" Who is correct? Well, we get the idea that Christ is the "second" Adam from a logical deduction from Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Christ is called "the second man," and we get the idea of two different Adams from verse 45. However, if we think that the adjectives "second" or "last" are interchangeable we lose the distinctiveness of the last Adam. "Maybe a 'third' Adam will come around and finally be the Savior I want?" Or, "maybe I am the 'third' Adam?" No! Paul is writing very deliberately to communicate that Jesus is both the last Adam, and the second man.

Jesus' Authority as God and Jesus' Authority as Mediator: Symington

For several years I have been trying to understand the history of the doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. One issue that continues to crop of in the literature is how to understand Christ in relation to the Church and Christ in relation to the created order.

This distinction was important during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), the killing times in Scotland (1660-1688), and in the Reformed Presbyterian Church's witness though writers such as William Symington.

I hope in a future post to address this distinction as the Westminster Assembly was confronted with the issue.

More recently, this distinction has appeared, throughout the years, in the debate over Two Kingdom theology. Dr. Darryl Hart and Dr. R. Scott Clark have been redirecting any opposition at Two Kingdom theology to an essay written by Dr. David McKay in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear. I intend to write a future post about how to understand Dr. McKay's essay in the future, but for now I want to highlight a very helpful, modern day explanation of this distinction that Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre give in their book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters on pages 210-212:

Before examining the main content of Symington's work, one important clarification should be made. It is a matter of clarification which Symington sought to establish in the opening pages of his book [ed., Messiah the Prince]. Specifically, we must have clearly fixed in mind a distinction between Jesus' authority as God—an authority which He always enjoyed over all things—and His authority as our Savior. By His very nature, Jesus always was God. To bring about our salvation, however, Jesus had to become a man. It is in Jesus' becoming a man that He took up the responsibilities and prerogatives of a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. We should have it clearly in mind that Symington was writing, in this book, about the royal authority Jesus obtained as our Incarnate Savior. This is an aspect of His authority distinct from that which He always enjoyed as the Creator God.

This might seem a confusing distinction to make, but it is a biblical distinction that needs to be upheld.Just as it is hard to comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man, similarly it is difficult to comprehend how Jesus can be at once both eternally sovereign (as Creator) and yet also to have needed to obtain sovereignty (as Savior). Yet such distinctions are taught to us by Scripture, and are important to have in mind as we approach Symington's book. ...

[T]he same Jesus, who as Creator always held sovereignty over us, now takes on mediatorial kingship as well for the purposes of our salvation.

In the case of Jesus, we might speak of the first kind of authority—His eternal sovereignty as God—as His natural dominion. It was Jesus who made all things, and having made everything, Jesus naturally owns all things. Simply because of who Jesus is (His nature), He has sovereign authority over everything. Paul wrote about this kind of authority held by Jesus in his epistle to the Colossians:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col.1:16-17; cf. Ps. 24:1-2).

As the Creator God, Jesus always had absolute authority over all things. Just as there was never a time when He was not God, there was never a time when Jesus was not King, in this sense. Symington refers to this authority of Jesus the Creator God as His essential, or what we here have termed His natural dominion.

The second king of authority Jesus held, however, is something which He had to obtain as part of His work of salvation. It is what Symington calls His mediatorial dominion. As a man, Jesus took "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). In respect to His humanity, Jesus was not (at first) revealed as a king, but a servant. Nevertheless, from that position of servanthood, Jesus went on to be exalted to a throne: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9).

Peter also preached about this authority Jesus received as our incarnate Savior in Acts 2. Using one of David's Psalms (Ps. 110) as a preaching text, Peter proclaimed,

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne...David...saith himself [of Jesus], The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:30-36; cf., Isa. 9:6).

Jesus was exalted to a throne and endowed with titles of sovereignty. Peter is clear to indicate these privileges as being "new" acquisitions—authority ascribed to Jesus at a specific point in time and in specific connection with His work as our Savior. This is a second kind of authority obtained by Jesus in specific connection with His work of salvation. [A]lthough Jesus already held natural authority over the creation, in His love He went further to obtain for Himself mediatorial authority for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of our redemption.

Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's reference to Symington's establishment of this distinction in the opening pages of Messiah the Prince must be a reference to pages 4-5:

The sovereign authority of Christ may be viewed either as necessary, or as official. Viewing him as God, it is necessary, inherent, and underived: viewing him as Mediator, it is official and delegated. It is the latter of these we are now to contemplate. The subject of our present inquiry is, the MEDIATORIAL DOMINION of the Son; not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which, by the authoritative act of the Father, he has been officially invested as the Messiah. It is that government, in short, which was laid upon his shoulders—that power which was given unto him in heaven and in earth.

It is also helpful, when addressing this distinction, to note that Symington had to defend Christ's mediatorial authority (as Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre use "authority" instead of Symington older term "dominion") over the Nations against contemporaries in Symington's time who contended that Christ only had natural dominion over the Nations. Symington's lengthy defense of his position can be found on pages 192-230 of the edition of Messiah the Prince that I have linked to earlier in this post.

The Importance Of Reading William Symington in Order

Around the years 2008-2010 Dr. Roy Blackwood began and completed teaching his final church history classes at Second RPC in Indianapolis, Indiana. I did not participate in all those final classes, but I did attend most of them and I had family members and friends who completed the entire course work.

Dr. Blackwood was/is a pastor who earned his Ph.D. by studying an important man in the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church named William Symington (1795-1862). I have occasionally quoted Symington's works in older posts, and am working on some posts in the future that will be about bringing Dr. Symington's teachings in the 19th century into debates going on currently in the Reformed church in the 21st century.

Occasionally Dr. Blackwood would bring Symington's writings into his earlier lectures. Dr. Symington wrote two books: On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (1834); and Messiah the Prince, or On the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ (1839). One of the observations that Dr. Blackwood would made during class was that if people had heard of William Symington and read anything by Symington it was typically Messiah the Prince and then they would not read anymore. The reason why they read Messiah the Prince is to understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over Nations, which is still the teaching of the Reformed Presbyterian Church all over the world.

However, Dr. Blackwood made attempts in his class to help students understand that people should also read Symington's earlier work in order to understand Symington's later work. While Dr. Blackwood was teaching a book came out by him and Dr. Michael LeFebvre in 2009 titled William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters. This book is based on Dr. Blackwood's thesis paper for his Ph.D. One half of the book is a biography of Symington's life and ministry and the second half is a modern summary of Symington's two books.

On pages 153-156, an argument is presented for reading both works, which is what Dr. Blackwood would present in his classes.I would like to quote two sections of Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre argument to help those who might try to read only Symington's second book consider reading Symington's first book. The first quote is from page 153:

    Jesus by His blood, resttores us to God's favor. He makes us "at one" again with the Father. He washes away the sins that placed us outside of divine blessing. In a sense, His atonement restores us to the status of Adam before his fall. The positive task incumbent upon us remains, nonetheless. We not only need Jesus to restore us to God's favor, but we also need Him (as the Second Adam) to lead us into fulfillment of all God's purposes for us. It is in Jesus' obedience to the law, as our new Head, that this further need is also accomplished.

    Why is this distinction important? Because it is central to granting Christ full esteem as both our Priest and our King. In making the distinction, Symington is preparing the way for his later work on the kingship of Christ. It is as our Priest that Jesus offered the atoning sacrifice that reconciles men to God. We rightly ascribe the atonement to His labors for us as our sacrificing Priest. It is as our King, moreover, that Jesus fulfills the righteousness of the law for us. When we fail to carefully ascribe the sufferings alone to Jesus' priestly atonement, and suppose that His obedience also belongs to this priestly work, we are in danger of diminishing the kingly work of Jesus.

As a concluding remark, on page 156, Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre conclude by saying:

    It was in the so-called "Second Reformation" in Scotland that Christ's mediatorial reign came to be more fully explored .... In Symington's handling of the "Substance of Christ's Atonement," we find one of his particular contributions as penman of the Scottish Covenanters. By restricting the atonement to that which was accomplished by Christ's sufferings, Symington is opening the way for a full appreciation of His law-fulfilling, kingdom-building work as Messiah the Prince.

I have omitted the content in-between these two quotes, which shows that this distinction is from the Bible. I would recommend the book as a good companion guide to reading Symington's two works. My point, in this post, is to urge Christians who should be interested in William Symington to recognize that both of Symington's works were written to be read together.

If both books seem intimating I would suggest reading a chapter a week starting with the 1934 book and then moving on to the second volume. Depending on your reading speed, you will finish both books within a year.