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.

"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 Ground of the Universality of the Gospel Offer

I have been reading through the works of William Symington and have found it to be a very helpful study. Most people who have heard of Symington skip his first book, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, to read his second book, Messiah the Prince or the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ. However, there is a lot of good content in Symington's first book that would be missed if readers just assume that William is repeating and expanding his prior work.

In fact, Symington was probably on his way to write a trilogy of books on the Three Offices of Jesus Christ: Prophet, Priest, and King. Dr. Symington, however, was first and foremost a pastor to himself, his family, and his church. Therefore, in the memoir written by his son, Alexander Symington, we learn that the only way he was able to write these two books was because his whole family was bedridden - On the Atonement - and he was sick - Messiah the Prince. Therefore, we should be glad with what he was able to write during quite a bit of duress in his life.

I was reading through section 11 - about the 'Extent of Christ's Atonement' - when I came to a part where Symington writes about one objection to a definite atonement being that the universal offer made of Christ in the Gospel. Symington writes about this objection on pages 209 - 214. I found a great few summary sentences that I really thought were well put on page 213:

The ground on which the universality of the Gospel offer proceeds, is the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement.  This the universal Gospel message supposes and affirms.  It is not said in the Gospel, that Christ died with the intention that all should be saved, but that his atonement is a sufficient ground of salvation to all, and that all who rest on this ground of salvation shall be saved.

I think this is a wonderful summary of the Gospel Offer. I will probably have more on Symington as I continue to read. Let it never be said that the Reformed Presbyterian Church has a problem with the Free, or Universal, Offer of the Gospel. Furthermore, let us always remember the reason for that offer: the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement not the duty of all men to believe in Christ for salvation (page 211).

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 6 - Conclusion

In part five, we finished looking at the changes that took place to the law after the temple veil was torn in two pieces when Jesus died by surveying the letters that the Apostles wrote to the churches about how to understand and apply the Old Testament (OT) writings to their new situation of living in between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ.

We saw, where in the New Testament (NT) the category of ceremonial law is demonstrated, and we saw why the Westminster Divines conclude that this part of God's law is abrogated. Furthermore, we saw that the civil laws entail the laws that God gave are neither ceremonial or moral; these laws had a temporal standing for the Jewish nation that still speak even though they and their penalties have expired with the nation of Israel being the exclusive theater of God's redemptive work. Lastly, we saw, that in spite of some older and more recent attempts to explain the Ten Commandments as not being an ever binding rule in this present age that the moral law is ineffably inscribed on human hearts and binding on all people everywhere regardless of time or place.

The following notes are from a March 2010 address delivered by Philip S. Ross. He also published a book on the same topic.

As with my other posts, here's the bird's eye view on all the posts in this series:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

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

Ross wants to conclude by considering the most prominent example of a single commandment cited in the context of a ethical exhortation: Ephesians 6:1 - 3. (pg. 341)

Ephesians 6:1 - 3, in Ross' opinion which he seeks to prove, is difficult to interpret in any other way than as an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment. (pg, 341)

It is interesting to how two contributors to From Sabbath to Lord's Day deal with Ephesians 6:1 - 3 because From Sabbath to Lord's Day is an anti-Sabbatarian manifesto. (pg, 341)

De Lacey, for example, is at pains to distance the call for children to obey their parents as coming from the Decalogue. (pg. 341)

His fellow contributor, Andrew Lincoln, is equally keen to disentangle Paul from the ten words claiming that the Apostles appeal is to a 'general sense of what was fitting and right.' (pg. 341)

When it comes to the promise in the commandment 'it is more likely to have been penned by a Jewish Christian follower.' (pg.342)

What choice does he (Lincoln) have? If the Sabbath is dismissed on the basis that Christ has fulfilled the concept of rites tied up with the Sabbath, if the Sabbath is more already than not yet then the promise in Ephesians 6 should not by there. (pg.344)

Even assuming a high degree of typology in the fourth commandment it is the same basic theme that is explicit in the fifth [commandment]. (pg. 344)

This promise (of the fifth commandment) is there (in Ephesians), because Paul sees its fulfillment as sufficiently not yet. That the promise and the moral law that accompanies it is still binding. (pg. 345)

In an article on penal substitution, Don Carson says that recent works on the subject have shown 'that historic Christian confessionalism will not roll over and play dead.' [Apparently, the Gospel Coalition's web site no longer hosts Carson's original post; however, there are number of blogs that do, so I have chosen to link to one of those blogs] (pg. 353)

If Hugh Martin's link between a person's view of the distinctiveness of the moral law and the view of how to understand the Atonement is correct then the threefold division of the law does not, and should not, roll over and die either if the source of Christian confessionalism is Scripture. (pgs. 352 - 353)

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

That's it, the end of Ross' case for the Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. Many members of the Westminster Assembly around the 1630s and 40s made similar defenses of the Threefold Division in there day, here's a list of some of the ones that I thought were the most helpful in understanding the proof texts and the wording of the Confession of Faith. However, I am not entirely done with Ross' book, or the lecture. I have purposefully left out Ross' two specific defenses in his speech about the the doctrine of the Sabbath and chosen to put those in the next post in this series. I'll explain my reasoning in that post. Ross also has a few comments in his book that are very interesting in light of the controversy around the doctrine of the Two Kingdom's that I want to share and comment upon.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 3 - Jesus and the Gospels

In part 2, we sketched out five presuppositions that run throughout the entire Old Testament (OT) that point the law given through Moses as not being an uniform united body of law. Ross concluded the second section by contending that if we don't see these distinctions that we will not, and cannot, make proper sense of the teachings of Christ in the four Gospels, in the Apostolic events in the Book of Acts and the Epistles written by the Apostles when they write about the law.

In this part we will focus on the words of Jesus as found in the four Gospel writings and try to understand how what Jesus says about the law and does during His first coming further develops the five observations made about the OT law.

These notes are based on an address that Phil Ross delivered to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales in March 2010.

Here's where we are in this series of posts relative to where we have been and where we are going:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

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

Ross wants to look at the teaching of Christ and the Apostles concerning the law in two parts divided chronologically by the veil of the temple that was torn in two (pg. 187):

1. What may we conclude from the Gospels? - From the words and deeds of Jesus up to the point where the veil was torn.
2. What, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil? - What do the Apostles and their Epistles have to say to all this?

We will in this post address the first question and then over the course of following two posts Ross will address his second question.

Jesus' subjecting himself to the law was basic to his humiliation.

One passage matters above all others when it comes to discussing Jesus' attitude to the law, namely Matthew 5.

Some say we should take the word commonly translated 'abolish' in a absolute sense. (pgs. 195 - 197)

Others use the word commonly translated 'fulfill' to determine that 'abolish' means anything but abolish. (pgs. 197 - 199)

When translators/interpreters focus on the lexical definition of 'fulfill' it generally leads them to seeing Jesus' fulfillment of the law and the prophets in the following three ways (pgs. 201 - 202):

1. Eschatological - He fulfills the law by his teaching.
2. Soteriological - He fulfills the law by bringing salvation.
3. Moral - He fulfills the law by doing what the law commands.

Ross doesn't want to suggest totally disregarding the lexica, but contends that we will understand Jesus' words when we read them with the church, in the context of Matthew as a whole, and with the OT background in view. (pg. 199)

Pope Leo the Great and John Calvin may not have had much in common, but they both thought it was proper to connect the sermon on the mount with Jeremiah's new covenant prophecy. (pg. 199)

Their case is strengthened if we also accept that Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17 is a piece of his fulfillment of all righteousness in Matthew 3:50. (pgs. 199 - 200)

We might hear echos of this relationship when we line up the voice that says 'This is my beloved Son' with the same voice in Jeremiah 31:20 saying 'Ephraim my beloved Son'. May we not then see Jesus standing with his people, and in their place, 'here's the beloved Son that Israel failed to be. (pg. 200)

Read Matthew 5 in that context and we may then see Jesus' fulfillment of the law as eschatological, soteriological, and moral. (pg. 202)

To illustrate the relationship between the elements in Matthew 5 and Jeremiah 31, Ross wants to call attention to the following four components in Jeremiah's prophecy. (pg. 203)

1. 'I will put my law within them' - According to Deuteronomy 6:4 - 9 the law was always meant to be internalized. Jesus promotes this intention as he calls for obedience to the great commandment, he promotes it in his exposition of the law throughout Matthew 5, and He fulfills it by exemplifying in his own life what it means to obey the law and be the obedient Son par excellence (meaning 'the best of its kind'). (pgs. 203 - 204)
2. The promise, 'I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' That theme permeates Matthew from beginning to end. Matthew 1:23, '... God with us.' We know that the Shekinah who dwelt in the bush and in the tabernacle now dwells in the flesh and fleshy blood. Immanuel's closing promise is, 'I am with you always.' Christ's being with his people in fulfillment of the law and the prophets is the dominant idea, but moral fulfillment can't be excluded from that. His instruction, 'teach them all that I've commanded you' presupposes ongoing obedience as an indispensable concomitant to God with us. (pgs. 204 - 206)
3. 'They shall all know me', is sometimes linked with Matthew 23:8 - 10 where Jesus says, 'You have one teacher'. We can hear in that passage a precise echo of the shama. Only one teacher fulfills Jeremiah's prophecy; he is the one who is one who will teach the New Covenant community. There is also a connection between Jeremiah 31:25 - 26 and Jesus' invitation to the laboring and heavy laden to come for rest (Matthew 11:28). He delivers the rest promised in the law and the prophets to those whom the Father reveals Jesus and to whom Jesus reveals the Father. (pgs. 206 - 211)
4. 'For I will forgive their iniquity', is the absolutely indispensable (Ross uses the term, 'sine qua non') promise of the first few promises in Jeremiah 31. Note the preceding three. There's not much question that Matthew 26:27 - 28 recalls this. 'Drink of it, all of you.' The 'all' recalling the 'all' of Jeremiah 31:34 as Matthew once again draws several OT threads together to show that forgiveness of sin and God's presence are conjoined in Jesus. If Jeremiah is in the background, then sin is transgression of the Decalogue because that's generally how Jeremiah defines 'transgression'. (pgs. 211 - 214)

If the sermon on the mount introduced new law then spoke of forgiveness in relation to the old law, how could Matthew's notion of atonement be coherent? Sin would be a moving target. (pg. 215)

The point is to say that for Matthew, Jesus' fulfillment of the law and prophets is eschatological, soteriological, and moral. He is a mighty savior, whose assumptions about the law he shares with the prophets, whose full assumptions land on the Pentateuch. (pgs. 214 - 215)

So Jesus leaves untouched the embryonic framework that saw some laws as a 'pattern'; some to be obeyed 'in the land'; but the Decalogue as the controlling influence. (pg. 215)

When Jesus says, 'not a jot or a tittle shall pass away', his statement is in harmony with the framework because it only makes sense if we recognize that the law had built in limitations. (pgs. 215 - 220)

Even before the entry into Cana, they had the mana laws, which were of temporal jurisdiction/duration. Yet these laws remained but did not bind in the same way they abide as memorial and foretoken. (pgs. 218 - 219)

Everything that Jesus says about the law is in continuity with the intent of the law, and Ross rejects outright the universal description of what follows in Matthew 5:21 - 48 as the antithesis. (pgs. 220 - 236)

Despite all the arguments that Jesus is overturning the law in these verses, its demonstrable that everything Jesus says reflects a correct and proper understanding of the laws; his views of hatred, lust, divorce, oaths, the lex talionis - law of retaliation -, and love for enemies do not reflect abrogation of the law, but co-ordination with the law. (pgs. 236 - 237)

What was Jesus' attitude to things that were not of the weightier matters of the law? (pgs. 173 - 174)

One person wants to say that because Jesus touched a leper He made himself unclean and therefore held the purity laws in contempt, while another wants to defend him against accusations of uncleanness at all costs. (pgs. 174 - 177)

So was Jesus ever unclean? Well, of course he was. What Jew who ever sucked at his mother's breast was not unclean? But, so what? (pg. 178)

The law makes no straightforward equation between guilt and ceremonial uncleanness. (pg. 178)

So matters of:

1. The woman bleeding who touched Jesus (Mark 5:27) is simply not a issue. (pgs. 174 - 177)
2. Mark doesn't introduce us to an antinomian Jesus when he records Jesus' comments in Mark 7, 'nothing that goes into a man can defile a man'. Perhaps Jesus is reflecting creational norms: Nothing is intrinsically unclean. The Levitical law concurs - eating unclean foods could not itself defile. Jesus' statement is in continuity with the law. Looking back, Mark makes the kind of statement he should have made about the Sabbath if the anti-Sabbatarians are correct that the Sabbath ought to not be part of a Christian's life. (pgs. 179 - 187)

When we see Jesus at the end of his earthly life it's instructive to think about these events in the light of Leviticus 20:24 - 26. There the Lord separates Israel to himself, separates certain foods to uncleanness as a sign of Israel's separation to a God whose separation was marked by the temple veil. (pgs. 184 - 187)

Then when the veil is torn in two, it signifies not the departure of the Shekinah, as some argue. It signifies that the separation has ended. (pgs. 189 - 190)

Viewing this event through the lens of Isaiah 64, God has rent the heavens and come down, and the rent veil proclaims that from this point onwards no symbolic uncleanness can separate them from Emmanuel. (pg. 190)

In the Gospels we meet a Savior who lived in conformity with the law. He taught us to obey it in its own terms. Fulfilled its shadows. Evangelists confirm, rather than overturn, the presuppositions outlined from the Pentateuch. They do not abort the embryonic form of the threefold division that appears in the OT. (pgs. 190 - 191)

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

A lot more material this week than in the last post. Ross is summarizing chapters four and five in his book, which is 93 pages. In our next post in this series we will consider how the Apostles interpreted the law, as recorded in the book of Acts. We will start to develop a better idea about what actually changed in the church after the rending of the temple veil.

A tale of three responses, but only two different outcomes

For about four years I have been reading various well-known Reformed confessional documents along with the Bible. I do this to remind myself that the Reformed churches do have a way of understanding the Bible that I need to keep in my mind and in my heart. I do not just decide what the Bible means today, but the church also testifies about what the Bible says and what the Bible means for me.

I have chosen a weekly plan which takes me though all seven documents in 52 week segments, called Daily Confessions. This past Friday I read two articles in the Canons of Dordt Head I, Articles 15 and 16. These two articles have to do with the doctrine of Reprobation. However, the way the Synod of Dordt actually talks about the doctrine of Reprobation is actually very pastoral and practical. I mean a really good pastor, not a bad one either, because I have heard of Reformed pastors misusing the doctrine of Reprobation. The part that always strikes me about these two articles is the title of article 16, "Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation". I just didn't expect the Synod to be all that concerned about how a person would respond to the doctrine of Reprobation.

It doesn't stop there, however, it goes on to talk about three responses which lead to two different outcome. Here's how it describes the first response:

Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us—such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility.

Up to the third comma in this translation we're probably a bit surprised about the first person: this person does not "actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ"; does not have "an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ". What's going on with this person? This person is surely a reprobate!

However, let's proceed past the third comma. There's a "but"-how could the Synod of Dordt have a "but"? This person's surely going to hell. The "but" is there is tell us that in spite of not actively experiencing within themselves a living faith in Christ etc., which is a subjective standard, or a person measuring perhaps their enthusiasm now with their past enthusiasm the story of this person's life is not finished. This person in spite of "not feeling it" does what? They "use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us" and the "continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility."

What advice does the Synod have for this person based on what they are doing? "[S]uch people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate. ..."  This is Dordt! How could they reach the conclusion that this person isn't a fake? Well, what are they doing? They are still faithfully going to church. They are still waiting in faith that the Lord will not forsake them in spite of them "not feeling it".

Let's move on to the second person:

On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like—such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed.

The second person looks a bit better than the first person. They "seriously desire to turn to God," they also desire "to be pleasing to him alone," and lastly "to be delivered from the body of death". All good qualities. However, here comes that word "but", which is really cramping the Synod's whole "stick their nose up to the entire world" image.

The second person is "not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like." Their not quite meeting their spiritual goals just yet. What's going to happen to this person? "[S]uch people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation. ..." What's going on here? The first person was attending church, and fellowshipping with the saints, but didn't have "an experience within themselves of a living faith in Christ," there was no "an assured confidence of heart," they didn't have "a peace of conscience," nor "a zeal for childlike obedience," and finally there was no "glorying in God through Christ"; and the second person was "not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like ...". To both however the Synod said they are not to stand in fear of reprobation.

Okay, so who's this third person. Here he is person number three:

However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh—such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.

The third person forgets all about God and Jesus-"why are you bothering me with that Jesus guy that I worshiped yesterday. Give me now and let me leave God and Jesus alone." You see the first person was still trusting God to use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us. What's the "things"? They are:

• An active experience within themselves of a living faith in Christ
• An assured confidence of heart
• Peace of conscience
• A zeal for childlike obedience
• and finally a glorying in God through Christ

The second person is given slightly different advice. He is told that in spite of how little progress he feels like he's making that they need to remember that our merciful God has promised not to:

• snuff out a smoldering wick
• and that he will not break a bruised reed

As opposed to the doctrine of reprobation causing a believer damage it should lead us to Christ! That's why I really treasure reading the Confessions multiple times.

Katy Perry vs. Muslims and The "Son of God" movie vs. The Reformed Confession

According to the BBC, Pop-singer one of Katy Perry new videos recently was edited in response to a petition claiming that a scene was blasphemous because a pendent with the Arabic word for God was reduced to sand in the video. The petition instigator is apparently very pleased and feels like his petition showed the justness of his cause based on the number of signers and the result. One could only assume from his concern that he can now watch the video and listen to Perry's music with a certain piece of mind that before the video allowed his to tolerate some Perry's other questionable tastes of clothing and behavior in her other videos. However, does this really change any hearts and minds? No, it just shows that people can get a studio to change a music video if it offends Muslims.

Don't misunderstand me, the third commandment - "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain" - is important and the application of WLC 113 list of sins forbidden in third commandment might mean that Perry's unedited video actually breaks the third commandment. So it commendable that the video was changed.

Oddly enough, though, there is a new Jesus movie coming out titled Son of God today. As a Reformed Christian who confesses that Jesus is one person with both a human and divine nature (WCF 8.2, 3) and as a result, in the language of WLC 109 about sins forbidden in the second - or first, if your Lutheran - commandment the movie coming out today is also blasphemous.  WLC 109 says,

... the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; ... oppos[es] the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Since Jesus' person was both fully man and God the latest movie about Jesus is blasphemous. The question and answer in the Heidelberg Catechism (questions 96, 97, and 98) is also helpful here:

Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?
Answer: That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.

Question 97. Are images then not at all to be made?
Answer: God neither can, nor may be represented by any means: but as to creatures; though they may be represented, yet God forbids to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them or to serve God by them.

Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?
Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, (a) but by the lively preaching of his word.

Therefore, what are we to make of this latest movie about Jesus? Are we to petition the studios and movie theaters showing the movie? Am I supposed to close my eyes while I'm at work when the trailer is playing while I am going into the backroom of Wal-Mart? Or, even tell my employer that I quit because they're advertising a blasphemous film? No. That person up on the screen is not the Person who died for my sins and then rose from the dead so that I can have eternal life. The Person who died for my sins and gives me His righteousness didn't leave instructions for His followers to make society conform to His commandments. He will do that on His own. He did, however, tell us to spread the news to others that He offers salvation to all those who hate Him.

That Person took on humanity for my sake and was humiliated even in the act of taking the form of a servant (WLC 46 - 49) for His bride, the Church. All the Jesus movies can do is capture the human side of Jesus' humiliation, but as Heidelberg Catechism Q. 14 - 18 and WLC Q. 38 - 40 demonstrate the man on the screen is only fully human, but not divine which means he only dies for himself and cannot withstand the burden of God's wrath, restore us to righteousness and life, and will not rise from the dead.

There is, however, a place where I can go to meet the real Jesus, and it's referred to in WLC 109 as the appointed place to worship and take the ordinances that God did appoint by His Spirit which lives in me. That place is the visible church. The ordinances are preaching and the sacraments. God gave us a medium and the means to meet us "where we're at" and it's not a movie theater.