Fesko: "Adam is the universal federal and covenantal head for the entire human race."

Rom 5 v 13- 14 (CSB)

13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. He is a type of the Coming One.

"Paul proves his point regarding the imputation of Adam’s sin by surveying the landscape of redemptive history and dividing it into three sections:

Adam Adam ➔ Moses Moses ➔ Present day

It is easy to understand why Adam died and why people after the revelation of the Mosaic law died: They all transgressed expressly revealed commandments of God. God explicitly told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge lest God punish him with death. And Israel, like Adam in his state in the garden, received expressly revealed commands from God, who threatened them with death for violating them (e.g., Ex. 21:15–17). But what about the people who lived and died between Adam and Moses? On what basis did they die when God had not revealed His commands or laws to them as He did to Adam and Israel?

The answer comes from the doctrine of imputation. “Death reigned,” writes Paul, “from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam” (Rom. 5:14). The inhabitants of the Adam-Moses gap died even though they did not transgress expressly revealed commands of God like Adam did. But if they suffered the consequences of violating the law—namely, death—then God must somehow credit Adam’s first sin to all people.

God, therefore, punishes all people as if they disobeyed His revealed law even though they did not personally do so. In short, God imputes Adam’s guilt to all humanity. Adam is the universal federal and covenantal head for the entire human race."

J. V. Fesko, Romans, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), 135–136.

Comments

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ. On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion. The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin. The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place without the first. J

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know. So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he knew that his cri

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here. I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions. This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration. I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him. I assume he is a brother in the LORD. Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern: Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a good and healthy example? Let's think about it some together. (Watch this clip below here first.) Context: The clip was posted to stand on its own as if it were wise and sound on it

Search This Blog