Adam, some say, is our Federal Head (1)—which is usually explained with an analogy. As American’s vote for a president who then decides acts on their behalf and implicates them accordingly, Adam acts on everyone’s behalf and his progeny is implicated after him. Adam, though not a president, acts as a representative for his people on account of being the Patriarch.

Some, using Hebrews 7 to prove this position, err by going beyond what a Federal Headship should allow. Federal Headship just has to stop at the notion of a representative (and this is why some Federal Headship proponents state that if any of us were in Adam’s position, we would have done the same thing). But, I would call this advanced Federal Headship something like Federal Union (2) or Ancestral-Progenetical Union (if I’m allowed to make up a word). The progeny of the ancestor mystically reaches through time and performs the action with their ancestor. Abraham pays tithes; so does Levi. Adam sinned; all have sinned.

Some have disagreed and noted the overemphasis on the individual—be it of Adam or of his progeny. Aa work based on the a study of the way individualism dissolves within the corporate Aborigines clan¹, noted that Ancient Israel was no different: the corporate was always above and consumed, the individual. It’s not who these people (Adam or his progeny) are or what they did (or didn’t) do; it’s the fact that they belong to the Corporate Man (3) wherein Adam acts as part of that Corporate “I”.

The construct, though later heavily criticized, was helpful in informing Hebrews 7. The Author of Hebrews isn’t making a theological case for Levi actually performing any mystical action at all (that would be absurd especially with the pithy introduction “so to speak”). Levi, say the proponents of the Corporate Personality, are part of the Tribe with Abraham who paid tithes to one greater: therefore that one is greater than Levi. Likewise in Romans 5, it it’s not that Adam’s progeny merely have a representative or worse, were somehow magically united to Adam and personally sinned through him; rather since they are Adam’s People, Adam acts without personal identity but Corporate Identity leaving the Corporate “I” guilty.

Others have rejected all three notions and said that the Corporate does not subsume the Individual, it modifies them as they identify in the Corporate. So it is not that Levi is a non-entity-part-of-the-whole, it’s actually that Levi identifies as Abraham being their Great Father—and he paid tithes to one greater while they were just seed. So in Romans 5, it is not that there are two representatives being pitted against each other; nor is it two Deciders by which people are mystically united; nor is it two people which function as Corporate Persons; it is rather that the many unite and identify in the one. The action of the Adam-Christ is not so much something disconnected from those who follow, nor is it an action that those who follow personally participate in; rather it is an action that those who follow are affected by and agree with. Allow this final iteration to be called Corporate Solidarity² (4).

But which view does the exegetical evidence in Romans 5 support?

Firstly, the argument in Romans 5 is more concerned with the action of the One resulting in Something for the Many. For example, the sin of one spread to the many (Rom 5:12), Jesus’ gift abounds for the many (Rom 4:15), one transgression resulting in condemnation to the many (Rom 5:18). Paul is making an obvious difference between the Many and the One; the Corporate Man breaks down. Thus, the Corporate Person (3) must be removed from the pool of possibility

In that same vein, any construct that makes the many performing the action also wind up suffering. For example: the many sinned but not in the likeness of Adam’s sin (Rom 5:14); the transgression of the one (not the many) resulted in death reigning (Rom 5:17); only one man disobeyed and one later obeyed (Rom 5:19). This evidence removes any strange construct of mystical union (contra 2) with the actions of the Patriarch. Thankfully this position is gone since, taken to its logical conclusion, this Mystical Union would have people atoning for their own sins on Christ’s cross!

The first and the fourth construct are still potentially viable options. With (1) you can have the people implicated in the Head’s sin without being personal performers of the sin; likewise in (4) you can have people agreeing, in some sense, with the action without being personal performers of the sin. In both models you have people affected by the actions of the One. The first, on the other hand, makes people guilty or blessed apart from their own personal agreement; while the later requires agreement in both cases.

Now, these contingencies might just be casually possible. For example, the concept of death spreading to the Many, we can readily admit that you don’t have to agree with Death to Receive It; you just have to be human. This might prove damaging to (4) if not for the fact that Paul’s entire argument thus far as been that people are justified by agreeing with God (faith) rendering a receipt of the benefits of Christ a priori incoherent.

And of course, we have the added problem of the pivotal translation of Romans 5:12: yes one man sinned, yes death spread to all men—but did all men sin as Adam sinned as a representative or did they sin in agreement by evidence of their current existence? All have sinned once for all in Adam as Representative or Because Adam sinned, therefore all, subsequently, sinned?

² Grogan, G.W. (1998).The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity In Hebrews. Tyndale Bulletin. 49.1, 159-173. The term “Corporate Solidarity” is borrowed from Grogan but he often depends on the concept of Corporate Personality with some modifications. His piece is well worth the read to see how he explains the relationship between Abraham, Levi and Melchizedek.

Technorati Tags: adam, christology, levi, melchizedek

Now, I didn’t want to bother addressing all those interpretative elements but I did want to address this one theological note that could permeate pretty much all the views (though I guess it can pose problems to the hypothetical sans-Spirit view).

All the positions are using a form of tunnel vision that theologically focuses in on this chapter’s struggle to the exclusion of what came before and what is coming after. Romans 8′s theology soars to the eschatological (future/end-times/last-day) heights of a renewed creation, of a humanity conformed in the image of Christ, of God in all three persons altogether on the side of the believer. It does this after having long established the theological necessity of wrath, of justification, of peace, and of entrance into a proper sanctifying salvation.

In other words, it’s all going Somewhere. The eschatological ramifications of this salvation are tied up throughout the Gospel: from the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the bringing in of the Gentiles with the Jews, and the overloading of grace on the side of Christ over Adam, and the cutting off of Sin’s Power—it rings through each of the chapters. Paul doesn’t go through the nature of tribulations resulting in hope for the mere purpose of saying our character will get better in a couple of weeks; it all has a goal tied into the impending Future…the Eschaton.

The Last Days began at the resurrection from the dead, were further evidenced by the outpouring spirit, and further evidenced by a community that is the Temple of God, and further evidenced by individuals that are the Temple of God.

This is the real struggle of a person who has noted all of those eschatological facets in the present and realizing that they are now standing at the edge of that future. This theological ramification winds up having application in just about every interpretation: an unbeliever about to be saved realizing God has inaugurated the Last Days;  a believer looking at the nature of the Law pointing to Christ who is the Promised Messiah; a believer noting his or her own life in the shadow of the cross and empty tomb heralding the promise of Daniel 12; and a believer looking at the brightness of the coming Dawn by the down-payment of the Holy Spirit.

In all cases the individual, standing at the edge of the Eschaton, finds him or herself saying “who shall deliver me from this ruination? I thank God, it is Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Technorati Tags: eschatology, eschaton, romans 7

I don’t think this exegetical decision is viable.

The thrust of the passage seems to be that the θλίψεσιν (tribulation/affliction) isn’t empty; it yields results. That’s something that justified believers can now properly exult—not so much a happy rejoicing but a confidently joyful expectation, not because of our nature but the nature of God who does what He says. The exultation is then not only through the tribulations end goal but in the God who allows the tribulations, be it of accidents or chastisement of sin.

So for example, Joseph can exult that God meant for good what his brothers meant for evil; a tribulation which came through sin but was allowed, by God, to work an approved character which God knew it would bring about (Gen 50:20). David can exult that God will do rightly even as praying for mercy; tribulation which came through David’s sin, allowed by God, but wound up working an approved character just as God already knew (2 Sam 12:10-23).

We’re seeing the understanding of peace with the God who loved us made available by the eyes of faith (which doesn’t merit anything) reflected on our experience

This is one of the reasons I take this section as a culmination of the previous chapters (1-4). Paul similarly caps off the second section (Rom 5:12 – 8) with another excurses on the αγαπώσιν τoν θεoν (love of God) which remains inseparable from His people (Rom 8:26-39). The end goal is secured, God’s love is sure, therefore believers can be confident in the Now: knowing that even if they fall into sin and are chastised, God will ensure that they are made better; knowing that even if horrible catastrophe occurs, God will ensure that they are made better; and knowing that no matter what occurs, God will ensure that they are molded into the image of His beloved Son.

Technorati Tags: exegesis, greek, men's study, romans

The questioner was confused about the nature of violation of Law since this entire chapter doesn’t seem to be dealing with Law at all. After all, asked the student, isn’t the nature of Law to (1) prescribe and punish; and hasn’t Paul already established the (2) equality of Jew and Gentile to enter in by faith: why go back and deal with condemnation that comes about from Law breaking?

Personally I think that the student was making a categorical mistake, that hasn’t been helped by the study defining Law only as prescription and punishment. The Law did not only prescribe and punish, but according to the Sinai Covenant (and the nature of God’s hope for Israel in Isaiah 5), the Law was to work as a hedge around the Covenantal community in the effort to make them Fruit Generators before the world. The Law codified the nation of king-priests under God (Exo 19:5-8).

In other words, the purpose of the Law was not only to prescribe—it was to define the Covenantal Community but perceived as defining The People of God.

The problem here is that Paul has already argued that Jews and Gentiles enter into the group People of God on the grounds of faith since they all stand condemned. That leaves the reader with a gaping hole: if the People of God Community is defined by the Law how is it that non-Jews can enter in without Law? The question is no longer that regarding the personal fault that results in equal condemnation of Jew and Gentile (so they all stand on the same ground of God’s wrath); the question is now actually how is it even allowable to have Jews enter in by faith and without all the other covenantal stipulations that would define them also as King-Priests.

Paul’s use of Abraham is on the basis of the already set precedent found in Case-Law. The Case Law does not only show that faith is the entrance into the Community (contra 2); it shows that this was made possible before the community markers were even established. It is extremely important that the point this occurred in Abraham’s life was when he was (according to Circumcision) a Gentile. It was after this that he worked, yes, but also that he took on the distinction that made him a Hebrew. Before that he already had the distinction of being the Father of many nations—later the Hebrews, but at that point all the Gentiles. This establishes that it was no future mistake that Gentiles would enter into the group labeled the People Of God.

Therefore, Paul is not referring to Law as the principle of precept and punishment (contra 1) but as the non-violated covenantal definer which came later. The People of God was always going to include Jew and Gentile; the Gentiles were not a surprise and now sudden violation of God’s Law since that came later at Sinai. In this way, Abraham, usually claimed only as the Father of Israel, is properly established as the Father of Many Nations (Rom 4:14). This even makes sense of Abraham becoming an heir of the world (Rom 4:13) while now bringing no wrath on account of Gentiles becoming part of it all.

Personally, I think this makes more sense than Paul taking a very strange tangent to raise a polemic against works or reargue the nature of merited wrath, already properly addressed in Romans 3.

Technorati Tags: gospel, law, romans

Most of us are familiar with Romans which is broken into four Gospel focused. Note the chart:

As a skeleton structure this means nothing but once we zoom in and examine Paul’s argument the implications become obvious.

Chapter three of the first movement finalizes a major dilemma, that all men, both Jew and Gentiles, are sinners before God and under God’s wrath. And yet, Christ became a propitiation for God’s wrath so that Sinners wouldn’t be wiped out. The section culminates with the love of God and the end of hostilities pointing out that the equal footing of both Jews and Gentiles before God: under His wrath, propitiated on behalf of God and justified by faith apart from works.

The second movement’s great dilemma is that man is besmirched and bemired by sin: they continue to sin because they are sinful. Both Gentiles and Jews find themselves law struggling with the carnal desires against conscience and/or command-moreso when the command becomes explicit. But this section also culminates in God’s solution once again in Christ. Both Jewish and Gentile believers have died in Christ and have risen in Christ and are therefore able to try to walk as perfect as God always demanded. There will surely be failures but God’s solution is not merely giving access to that bounty but providing all the power to generate that bounty. Specifically God imbues with His Sprit, has a plan for those in Christ to be conformed into the image of the Son, and they will surely be perfected. This section also culminates with the love of God and showing that God is altogether on the side of those who are in Christ.

The third movement’s great dilemma is potent: If God has discarded His promises to Israel how is it possible that He’ll keep His promises to those in Christ in regards to ensuring their ultimate conformation and glorification? Paul deftly argues that it’s not a matter of the created person’s desires but the fact that God has figured a way possible that no one stands head and shoulders above another in respect to race, creed, age-ranking or even works. All people stand on the same ground of God’s absolute right to show mercy giving Him unrestricted usage of His mercy. God can therefore freely show mercy to Israel and to Gentiles because it’s His prerogative. Of course, God can also choose to refrain from showing mercy and take an individual or group who already stands under His wrath and make that individual firm in their decision against God: they then become a vehicle of God’s wrath to save others. With these facts in place, Paul establishes the length of God’s mercy towards Israel and the fact that Israel is only partially hardened but will fully be realized in a later time-a time after the Gentiles have received their full mercy. The Gentiles stand on the mercy of God for Israel is partially hardened and the Jews stand on the mercy of God since they’re only partially hardened and not full-on. In fact, the Gentiles are being saved to provoke Israel to jealousy but how much greater (argues Paul) will it be when the Jews finally do believe. This section winds up culminating in the wisdom of God.

The final movement then deals with a great problem which is an expansion of Chapter 7. The Church is a new entity where she stands on God’s mercy, love and wisdom and promised to be perfected but her members are wracked by their old sinful ways. Therefore God’s solution is this Measure of Faith. This is not a little faith for X person or a little faith for Y person: that would be contrary to Paul’s constant argument that no one has a reason to boast.

The measure is a measuring rod, or a ruler-stick, of the object of Faith which is Christ Himself. There was wrath, Christ propitiated; there was sin, Christ empowered; there was needs for mercy, Christ was provided; there was need for love, Christ illustrated; there was need for wisdom: God was personified and died. So this measuring rod winds up being used for everything.

Like a regular measuring stick asks “How long is this?” this stick does the same thing. Yet the question this measuring rod wants to answer is twofold. Question one: How do I measure up to God’s Gospel? Question two:Do They stand on the same ground (before God) as Me?

Constantly through the final chapters of Romans the measuring rod is used.

• How does it work in the body of believers? We’re all segments of a Whole, saved by grace, justified by faith, standing on God’s mercy and equipped by His Sprit to function as a whole.
• How does it work in the government? We are sinners, just as they, the powers that be are established by God therefore we are to respect them as God ordained.
• How does this work in regards to things that are doubtful? Christ died for me while I was still a sinner and Christ died for Them while they were still sinners: should I then beat them down over food when they stand before Christ and His righteous decisions?
• What about dealing with these legalistic Jews in our church? Well, both Jews and Gentiles stand on the same ground but they have the commandment that really makes them aware of their sinfulness-just as myself with my conscience.
• Should I rob them of their convictions if they stand before God’s mercy, wisdom and love?

So here finally is my concluding practical point. Cynicism looks at everyone else as having some ulterior selfish motive. Pharisaicism is that position where we look at all others as beneath us. Judgmentalism is that position where we self-righteously preside over others in matters that aren’t black or white and in fact, may be extremely minute. In each of these positions we’re stepping away from the Gospel’s message (you are a sinner, you have no place to stand but the same ground as those next to you, beneath God’s wrath, on top of His Mercy, needing His Love and grateful for His wisdom in sending His Son who died so that Humanity may live). But when we step back under the shadow of that cross, we are put on the same level with everyone else: completely reliant on the Lord. We can’t be cynical, pharisaic or judgmental since we don’t have that prerogative.

Technorati Tags: cynicicm, gospel, judgmentalism, romans, selfishness