Issues to Consider about the Second/Third Commandment

One hard text to understand is the following part of the Second/Third Commandment in Exodus 20:5-6:

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Roderick Lawson of Maybole (1863-1897) reprinted the Westminster Shorter Catechism along with his own explanatory notes and review questions for each Shorter Catechism question. Lawson's comment on question and answer 56 is very helpful:

Comment: The special warning here held out to us is, that although men may permit us to break this commandment with impunity, yet God will assuredly not do so. He will not fail to judge us.

Lawson makes this commandment very personal. Both the Larger and Shorter Catechism do not deal directly with verses 5-6.

In Martin Luther's Large Catechism he explained the words of the third Commandment in his concluding section about the Ten Commandments. Luther numbered the third commandment the second commandment. The following quote are marked as paragraphs 319-326:

In conclusion, however, we must repeat the text which belongs here, of which we have treated already in the First Commandment, in order that we may learn what pains God requires to the end we may learn to inculcate and practise the Ten Commandments: For I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments. Although (as we have heard above) this appendix was primarily attached to the First Commandment, it was nevertheless [we cannot deny that it was] laid down for the sake of all the commandments, as all of them are to be referred and directed to it. Therefore I have said that this, too, should be presented to and inculcated upon the young, that they may learn and remember it, in order to see what is to urge and compel us to keep these Ten Commandments. And it is to be regarded as though this part were specially added to each, so that it inheres in, and pervades, them all. Now, there is comprehended in these words (as said before) both an angry word of threatening and a friendly promise to terrify and warn us, and, moreover, to induce and encourage us to receive and highly esteem His Word as a matter of divine earnestness, because He Himself declares how much He is concerned about it, and how rigidly He will enforce it, namely, that He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments; and again, how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good. Just this is also the meaning and true interpretation of the first and chief commandment, from which all the others must flow and proceed, so that this word: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, in its simplest meaning states nothing else than this demand: Thou shalt fear, love, and trust in Me as thine only true God. For where there is a heart thus disposed towards God, the same has fulfilled this and all the other commandments. On the other hand, whoever fears and loves anything else in heaven and upon earth will keep neither this nor any. 325] Thus the entire Scriptures have everywhere preached and inculcated this commandment, aiming always at these two things: fear of God and trust in Him. And especially the prophet David throughout the Psalms, as when he says [Ps. 147:11]: The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy. As if the entire commandment were explained by one verse, as much as to say: The Lord taketh pleasure in those who have no other gods. Thus the First Commandment is to shine and impart its splendor to all the others. Therefore you must let this declaration run through all the commandments, like a hoop in a wreath, joining the end to the beginning and holding them all together, that it be continually repeated and not forgotten; as, namely, in the Second Commandment, that we fear God and do not take His name in vain for cursing, lying, deceiving, and other modes of leading men astray, or rascality, but make proper and good use of it by calling upon Him in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, derived from love and trust according to the First Commandment. In like manner such fear, love, and trust is to urge and force us not to despise His Word, but gladly to learn, hear, and esteem it holy, and honor it.

Since we are talking about trying to understand a particular command of the moral law another good resource to look at is the Prophetic books of the Old Testament. The Prophets gave the word of the Lord to the nation of Israel during a long time of disobedience towards God, and so much of their prophesies are targeted towards how the covenant nation of Judah and the uncovenanted nation of Samaria (Willson, 64-67) were in an active state of breaking and twisting God's moral law. The tasks of the Prophets were to correctly interpret God's ten words given on Sinai so that the people's comfortable lifestyles were correctly understood as actually being uncomfortable to God. Their lives were a mess, because they have lowered God's standard so that "It's not their fault."

Three specific passages can help us understand Luther's appendix to every commandment. Jeremiah 16:10-13, Ezekiel 18, and 33:7-20. The most helpful passage is spoken through Jeremiah and says:

And when you tell this people all these words, and they say to you, "Why has the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity? What is the sin that we have committed against the Lord our God?" then you shall say to them: "Because your fathers have forsaken me, declares the Lord, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn, evil will, refusing to listen to me. Therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor."

According to Jeremiah the people were correct to say that God was not judging them based on the actions of their fathers, but Jeremiah's message went further to say that the present generation of the nation of Israel had exceeded their fathers in their sinful acts.

My pastor, Dave Long, helpfully pointed out the Jeremiah passage many years ago while preaching on the Westminster Larger Catechism.

Does the Bible Say How Much the Old Testament Saints Understood?

Recently I had a conversation with a very dear Brother in Christ about a book review that he wrote. Amongst the subjects he covered in his review was the issue of the extent of knowledge that the Saints in the time before Christ about how their prophesies would actually come to fulfillment. It was his belief that the book's author was wrong when the author wrote that the believers in the Old Testament (and particularly the Prophets) simply did not have a full knowledge of how their prophesies would be fulfilled. Furthermore, this Brother, made the additional assertion that we cannot know, based on the Bible, that the Old Testament writers did not fully understand how their writings would be fulfilled. In other words, Old Testament believers might have had better knowledge of Christ being the fulfillment of their prophesies than just the types and shadows would suggest.

However, I had a problem with both of his ideas, because the New Testament says that the Gospel going beyond the nation of Israel was "... the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people" (Colossians 1:26). A few days after this conversation, I was continuing to read Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry for my upcoming Interpretation of the Bible class at RPTS. Dr. Terry's chapter 9 of Part 2 considers rules for how we should interpret Biblical typology and symbols. On the printed page number 250, Dr. Terry begins to consider how we should understand types by saying:

The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories.  Nevertheless, in view of the peculiar nature and purpose of the scriptural types, we should be careful in the application of the following principles:

On printed page 254 Terry writes the following:

3. The Old Testament types are susceptible of complete interpretation only by the light of the Gospel.  It has too often been hastily assumed that the ancient prophets and holy men were possessed of a full knowledge of the mysteries of Christ, and vividly apprehended the profound significance of all sacred types and symbols.  That they at times had some idea that certain acts and institutions foreshadowed better things to come may be admitted, but according to Heb. ix, 7-12, the meaning of the holiest mysteries of the ancient worship was not manifest while the outward tabernacle was yet standing.  And not only did the ancient worshippers fail to understand those mysteries, but the mysteries themselves the forms of worship, "the meats, and drinks, and divers washings, ordinances of flesh,imposed until a time of rectification" (διοϱθώσεωϛ, straightening up), were unable to make the worshippers perfect.  In short, the entire Mosaic cultus was, in its nature and purpose, preparatory and pedagogic (Gal. iii, 25), and any interpreter who assumes that the ancients apprehended clearly what the Gospel reveals in the Old Testament types, will be likely to run into extravagance, and involve himself in untenable conclusions.

Hebrews 9:7-12 says:

... but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Finally, let's consider the life of Abraham from the perspective of a man who is given a very specific promise in Genesis 12:7 about having offspring then how he and his family understand God's promise.

In Genesis 11:30, we are told that Sarai (later renamed Sarah) was not able to given birth to children. Genesis 12:4 says that Abram (later also renamed Abraham), Sarai, and Lot left Haran when Abram was 75 years old. In Genesis 15:1-6, God talks with Abram in a vision and in verse 4 God corrects Abram's fear that his extended family will inherit his house by telling Abram that the offspring God spoke of in 12:7 is Abram's "very own son" and not a relative of Abram. In Genesis 16:1-4 we read of Sarai's attempt to provide a fulfillment of God's promise by means of her servant Hagar. We read in verse 16 that Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born. In Genesis 17 and 18:1-15 we read of God's promise in 12:7 being given to Abram for a third time with far greater detail than the previous promises when Abram is 99 year old and Sarah's unbelief that she could actually give birth to a child. Finally, in Genesis 21:1-7, we read of the birth of Isaac and God's promise, in 12:7, being fulfilled through the means that God actually intended. By this time Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is 90 years old!

Therefore, we have seen in the life of Abraham that Abraham was given a promise by God, undoubtedly shared that promise with his wife, and then both of them try two different ways of fulfilling God's promise according to their own ways. How much simpler would it have been if they just knew how God was going to bring about the birth of Issac from Sarah? However, they were only given the promise. The only reason why Abraham and Sarah tried to bring about God's promises through the two other means that they did in Genesis 15:1-6 and Genesis 16:1-4 is because they didn't know the 'how' and the 'when' of God's fulfillment to their family.

This conclusion should not scare us. This conclusion should cause us to pray and wait on the faithful God to bring us to the places we should be in our lives. This should also lead us into action. We have a God who is in control of opening and closing doors as we live our lives. Part of our waiting is being patient but it also involves us trying out different possibilities according to God's moral law. We can do this because we have full assurance that God will lead us to where he wants us to go.

While I still respect this dear Brother in Christ, because of the above mentioned reasons I must disagree with him on this matter, by saying that the Old Testament Saints were not more aware about how God's purposes would come to His fulfillment. The Scriptures, furthermore, are not silent on this issue. Yes, Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day and was glad (John 8:56-59) and the author of Hebrews said Abraham was looking forward to the city built by God (Hebrews 11:8-10). However, all of this was done by faith towards the faithful God who would bring about His promises in His way, not the way of what believers perceive as God's ways. It's okay for Christians, both in the Old and New Testament, to be surprised by God.

Is Christ as the 'last Adam' a Theological Peccadillo?

Even though it's not apparent on the comments section of my previous post about Jesus Christ being the 'last Adam' as opposed to the 'second Adam' my Google+ post has generated some comments that basically ask if the distinction is so obscure that it really has little or no actual meaning.

While I'm not going to post that entire discussion in the current post, I though that a few additional comments that came out of that discussion would be helpful on this matter.

First, Professor Donnelly's statement that I quoted in the previous post is a conclusion to Donnelly writing about Paul's use of the term 'one man' in Romans 5:12-21. The statement I quoted from is on page 20, and the actual topic begins on page 17 and ends on page 20. It maybe helpful to highlight some of Donnelly's teaching up to his concluding statements.

Donnelly writes on page 20, explaining Romans 5:

Everything that Adam, the 'one man', did is counted as having been done also by everyone he represents. His relationship with God is counted, or 'reckoned', as being their relationship. In the same way, everything that Christ, the 'one man', did is counted to the credit of those he represents, and all that was in his obedience and purity is regarded as theirs.

In the above quote, Donnelly is setting up the idea of two covenantal heads (representatives) for all of humanity. A few good questions are, where does the Bible teach this idea? In addition, is it an explicit teaching of the Bible, or an implicit teaching of the Bible? If it is an implicit teaching that doesn't necessarily disqualify it, because all Christians who subscribe to the Westminster Standards ought to confess, in the words of the Confession I.6:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: ...

Doctrines like the Trinity, infant baptism, and even Jesus' example to the Sadducees of the bodily  resurrection being taught in the Old Testament (Matt. 22:32) are just three examples of implicit teaching that are recognized by the Confession as part of "[t]he whole counsel of God ...". It might be worth having a separate post about "by good and necessary consequence" because while all Christians believe in the Trinity and bodily resurrection, many Christians don't believe that infants should be baptized. Regardless of that point, right now, the fact is that the Bible uses logical consequences to inform what we believe, and not merely direct statements.

The idea of two covenantal heads, however, is not a implicit teaching, but is an explicit teaching of Paul in Romans 5. Here's a sampling of Paul's teaching in eight verses where our relationship to the first Adam is explicitly made seven times:

sin came into the world through one man . . . many died through one man's trespass . . . the result of that one man's sin . . . the judgment following one trespass . . . because of one man's trespass, death reigned . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.
              (verses 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

It is because of Paul's teaching in Romans 5 that the Shorter Catechism question and answer 16 says:

all mankind, descending from him [Adam] by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Donnelly concludes, writing about the first Adam and us, in the following words on page 18:

Sin is the universal human condition because of our union with Adam.

What is the solution that Paul goes on to explain in his letter to us losing favor with God on account of our covenantal head? We gain God's favor through another covenant head—'through one man'.  Paul's words in verse 14 are very important to understanding Donnelly's conclusion:

Adam . . . was a type of the one who was to come.

Beginning in verse 15, Paul, stresses the same truth about 'one man' that was applied to Adam, but now applies it towards Jesus Christ:

the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many . . . reign in life through the one man . . . one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men . . . by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
               (verses 15, 17, 18, 19)

Donnelly concludes his exegesis on Romans 5 in the following words on page 19:

We are saved in the same way as we were lost. Our redemption, though infinitely greater than our ruin, is in this respect parallel to it. In Adam we sinned. In Adam we fell. In Adam we were condemned. In Adam we died. And then in Christ we obeyed. In Christ we lived a perfect life. In Christ we paid for sin. In Christ we have been raised. In Christ we live for ever. All that he is is counted as ours. All that he suffered is counted as ours. All that he achieved is counted as ours.

Donnelly, then, moves on to 1 Corinthians 15:22 and draws the conclusion that we die or live depending on our representative head before God. As a result, when Paul calls the Saviour 'the last Adam . . . the second man' Paul is writing that Jesus is the head [last Adam] of a new humanity [second man]. This new species of men and women are in a new relationship with God and are being dealt with on an entirely new basis. All Christians are joined to 'the second man'. Jesus is 'second' because there are many more new men and women to come—millions of them, 'a great multitude that no one could number' (Rev. 7:9).

Therefore, on the basis of this teaching, Professor Donnelly then briefly addresses why calling Christ the second Adam is a category mistake. I've already posted Donnelly's argument before, revisit that post if want to see what Donnelly says.

Secondly, the reason that the phrase 'second Adam' is an example of category confusion is because Paul uses 'Adam' to mean both the literal first man that God created, and to teaches that Adam is our representative between every person who is a physical descendant of Adam and our Creator God. Adam broke the covenant of works, and therefore, we, because Adam was our representative have inherited the curse of our head breaking the covenant of works. In the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 7.2, we, as the RPCNA, say:

By this principle of covenant headship the guilt and penalty of sin come upon all men by Adam’s one sin; and by the obedience of Christ, the second covenant head, righteousness and life come upon all men who believe.
Rom. 5:12-21.

Furthermore, in 7.3, we confess that

The Covenant of Works has not been revoked. All men remain under its requirement of perfect obedience and will have to give account according to it at the last judgment. In the Covenant of Grace Jesus Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Covenant of Works for His people. By His death Christ secured the delay of the full penalty of death for sin (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15) for all men. They therefore may enjoy the creation and have some fruitful toil in it for God’s glory, even though they be rebellious against Him. This is usually called common grace.
Heb. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10, 21; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gen. 4:20-24; Ps. 76:10.

Paul, by saying that Adam was a type (Romans 5:15), is teaching that 'the first man' (1 Corinthians 15:45) is/was our representative. Jesus as 'the last Adam' was 'the one who was to come' (Romans 5:14). Paul, by using this typology is addressing the representative roles that both Adam and Christ uniquely had in human history. Noah and David could have also have been understood as Adams in their own day, because even though they were sinners they occupied unique positions in redemptive history in their own times, but Jesus is the last Adam who has accomplished salvation.

In addition, to the representative nature of Adam and Christ, however, Paul calls Jesus 'the second man'. Does Paul mean the same thing as he meant when he called Christ the 'last Adam'? I don't believe so. I believe that Paul is calling Jesus 'the second man' because unlike 'the first man', Noah, or David when this second covenant representative is joined to men and women these other men and women become new men and women of the last Adam.

Finally, I want to address the matter of why this issue is important under two issues. The first issue is simply, and most importantly, a matter of using biblical words according to how the Bible uses them, and then my second issue is to recognize that we have seen examples in church history of groups denying either our representation "in Adam" before God, or the completeness of Jesus work on our behalf before God.

Under the first issue about trying to use biblical words/phrases as close as possible to the ways the biblical authors use them, assuming a faithful translation is being used. Professor John Murray, in a 1953 address delivered in Selwyn College, Cambridge, as the Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture spoke about how Biblical covenants should be understood throughout the entire Bible. This lecture was then published in 1954 as the booklet The Covenant of Grace, which is also available online to read.

Early on in the lecture (pg. 8), Professor Murray, after explaining how Reformed Theologians have used the term 'covenant', considers how the term is used in the Bible by using the following criteria:

As we study the biblical evidence bearing upon the nature of divine covenant we shall discover that the emphasis in these theologians upon God’s grace and promise is one thoroughly in accord with the relevant biblical data. ... The question is simply whether biblico-theological study will disclose that, in the usage of Scripture, covenant (berith in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek) may properly be interpreted in terms of a mutual pact or agreement.

Professor Murray is starting with a definition of 'covenant' and asking if that definition matches the results of a biblico-theological study which is a valid starting question when investigating a topic.

While I do prefer Murray's starting principle, I don't agree, by the way, with Murray on his particular application of this principle to 'covenant' because one of his main points about a biblical covenant is that it is always "a dispensation of grace to men" (pg. 15). My objection to this point is that it does not account for the pre-fall relationship between Adam and God being a covenant (Hos. 6:7) that promised an eternal life of confirmed holiness to Adam, on the condition of obedience. The obedience Adam owed to God was not special, but, the reward for obedience was special because God was/is Adam's Creator and therefore God was not obligated to give Adam a reward for what Adam ought to do. Murray wanted to call the arrangement before the Fall 'the Adamic Administration', but didn't adequately explain how this 'administration' was actually different than a 'covenant'.

For more information about this teaching of Professor Murray's read T. David Gordon's essay "Reflections on Auburn Theology" in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification on especially pages 118-124, and Dr. Robert B. Strimple's syllabus for his second systematic theology class titled, Christ our Savior pages 13-14, and 77-78. For a few helpful resources on more generally understanding the pre-Fall state of Adam as a covenant see Richard C. Barcellos's "A Typical Objection to the Covenant of Works", and Edward Fisher's work The Marrow of Modern Divinity along with Thomas Boston's notes in Chapter 1, Section 1. If you are looking at the edition published in 2009 by the Christian Heritage imprint the discussion on page 53 is addressing this issue of terminology.

The second issue is what can we learn from church history about groups that deny either our federal relationship to Adam 'the first man' or Christ 'the last Adam'. On the heretical side of historical theology it is important to note that both Mormons and Muslims deny our relationship to the first man. The Mormons have a document by Joseph Smith that describe their fundamental beliefs in 13 statements. Article two, states:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

While the Muslims do not have as clear a statement in the Qur'an as the Mormons about their denial of Adam's sin and its relation to us, I have found some very clear teaching about original sin on Islamcan, and IslamBasics. Here's a little bit of the conclusion from the article on IslamBasics, which tries to argue from the Bible that Adam's representative role is in contradiction with the entire Bible:

    Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth. Sin, it says, is not inherited, but it is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should not do and not doing what he should do.
    Rationally considered also, it would be the height of injustice to condemn the entire human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents. Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie only on the person who has committed it, and not on his children.
    Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.
    It is the height of misanthropy and cynicism to consider children to be sinful at birth. How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are doomed to burn eternally in the fire of Hell. Till recently, the unbaptised infants were not buried in consecrated grounds in Christendom, because they were believed to have died in the Original Sin.

However, it's not only present day heretical groups, who deny our relationship to Adam, but this was the main issue between an African Bishop named Augustine and a British monk name Pelagius that began around A.D. 411 or A.D. 412. For a brief overview. read Dr. R.C. Sproul's short article Augustine and Pelagius, and/or B.B. Warfield's longer treatment Augustine and Pelagian Controversy. It is my belief that it is quite appropriate to make the connection between Islamic teaching, Mormon teaching, and Pelagius' teaching. Therefore, any possible sharing of the Gospel with a person either in one of these three religions, or with a background in these circles, must deal with correctly explaining the doctrine of Original Sin to help the person understand Jesus' work. Even a Presbyterian minister, Charles Finney, denied any kind of connection between us and Adam in his Lectures on Systematic Theology, pages 296-297 in the following words:

    Sin or disobedience to moral law does not imply in any instance a sinful nature; or a constitution in itself sinful.  Adam and Eve sinned.  Holy angels sinned.  Certainly in their case sin or disobedience did not imply a sinful nature or constitution.  Adam and Eve, certainly, and holy angels also, must have sinned by yielding to temptation. The constitutional desire being excited by the perception of their correlated objects, they consented to prefer their own gratification to obedience to God, in other words, to make their gratification an end.  This was their sin.  But in this there was no sin in their constitutions, and no other tendency to sin than this, that these desires, when strongly excited, are a temptation to unlawful indulgence.
    It has been strangely and absurdly assumed that sin in action implies a sinful nature. But this is contrary to fact and to sound philosophy, as well as contrary to the Bible, which we shall see in its proper place.
    As it was with Adam and Eve, so it is with every sinner.  There is not, there can not be sin in the nature or the constitution.  But there are constitutional appetites and passions, and when these are strongly excited, they are a strong temptation or inducement to the will to seek their gratification as an ultimate end.  This, as I have said, is sin, and nothing else is or can be sin.  It is selfishness.  Under its appropriate head, I shall show that the nature or constitution of sinners has become physically depraved or diseased, and that as a consequence, the appetites and passions are more easily excited, and are more clamorous and despotic in their demands; and that, therefore, the constitution of man in its present state, tends more strongly than it otherwise would, to sin.  But to affirm that the constitution is in itself sinful, is to talk mere nonsense.

The implications of what the Mormons, Muslims, Pelagius, and Finney taught and/or teach are quite simply that Christ was not the last Adam, because nothing changed when Adam sinned. Likewise, all of these different shades of heresy also teach a different view of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't really die for sins completely, if he even died on the cross. He did his part, and the debate between these different groups is how we should do our part.

In conclusion, while I am under no illusion that the use of the phrase "second Adam" will fade into the dustbin of historical theology anytime soon, as current theological books/journals demonstrate, I hope that I have shown from the Bible that the terms "second man" and "last Adam" have two distinctly different meanings about the person and work of Christ and that this mixing adjectives in front of different nouns is not faithful to the Scriptures. I have furthermore endeavored to demonstrate from church history some possible outcomes of believing that this issue can be a matter of indifference, or is an obscure point of theology. While I would not question the orthodoxy of Brothers and Sisters in Christ on this issue alone, I would encourage those Brothers and Sisters to consider the Apostle Paul's teaching and use of words in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Unlike the term "trinity", Paul has, through the Holy Spirit, given us these terms to make to teach us two different lessons about Jesus. All that is needed to be done, on this matter, is to follow Paul's exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13, which would have been written after the letters to the churches in Rome and Corinth:

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

A Few Additional Thoughts About the Threefold Division of the Law

Dr. C.J. Williams, Old Testament Professor at RPTS, demonstrates the Threefold Division of the Law in the Old Testament by pointing to Leviticus 19. For example, let's look at verses 4-10:

4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God. 5 “When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted. 6 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it or on the day after, and anything left over until the third day shall be burned up with fire. 7 If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is tainted; it will not be accepted, 8 and everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned what is holy to the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from his people. 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God."

In verse 4, we have a restatement of the second commandment of the moral law. In verses 5-10, we then see the commandment applied to the state of Israel in two slightly different ways. Verses 5-8, instruct the people how to apply the second commandment through the ceremonial system that God gave His people to show them Christ. Verses 9-10, then, show how the second commandment applies to the civil society of Israel before Christ's coming (Genesis 49:10).

----------------

 Here's a brief original restatement of the three categories of law that makeup the Threefold Division:

Moral—God's standard for all the people of the world at all times which is written on every person's heart as a part of the image of God (Genesis 1:26; 9:6; Romans 2:15-16).

Ceremonial—God's requirement for sin to be dealt with that pictures Christ's satisfaction for our sins before Christ came, died, and rose again.

Civil—God's application of the moral law to a special people before Christ's first coming.

I think this is a helpful short summary for the following three reasons:

1. Both the ceremonial and civil laws had different purposes in God's redemptive history when they were revealed
2. They were both instituted at different times: the ceremonial law was given to Adam and Eve in the Garden after they sinned to prefigure Christ; the civil laws were given to Israel through Moses after the Ten Commandments were republished to the entire nation of Israel in Exodus 21:1-22:29
3. Different events in redemptive history marked the end of these two different laws: the ceremonial law was abrogated upon Christ's death as demonstrated by the temple veil being torn in two (Matthew 27:51); the civil law ended when Christ came (Genesis 49:10). Jesus is the Shiloh that Jacob was prophesying to Judah about. Christ took the scepter from Judah and now has it with Him in heaven

----------------

For more information about the Threefold Division start with part one of Phillip Ross' lecture about the Division.

"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.