Miracles and Hume's Bias

            There is an underlying assumption in Western culture that the physical universe is all that there is, and it is bound by strict laws that cannot be violated. This radical empiricism caused Douglas Adams to write, “My universe is my eyes and my ears. Anything else is hearsay.”[1] So it is not surprising that those who believe in miracles are often met with vehement opposition, especially in relation to the miracles attributed to Jesus Christ. For if the universe is strictly naturalistic, then there is no place for divine intervention and no place for God outside of the universe either. But is it reasonable to reject out of hand the miracles of Christ? I contend that this blanket rejection of miracles is not based upon a solid, methodological foundation, but is instead an a priori rejection of the supernatural, and that the miracles of Christ are eminently reasonable if approached with the desire to be as neutral in our worldview as possible.

David Hume (1711-1776)

            It is important to understand where the bias against miracles in Western thought originates. Therefore, before we look at more recent arguments against miracles, we must first lay some ground work by looking at David Hume and his argument against miracles. Hume argues in his essay “Of Miracles” that the only means by which testimony of a miracle may be believed is if “its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.”[2] Hume then assumes that there is no testimony that is sufficiently strong to disallow the uniformity of human experience in regard to natural laws. It is his estimation that no individual testimony can be free from the possibility of “delusion” or “design to deceive others”[3] because we must always give preference to that which is based “on the greatest number of past observations.”[4] Hume also contends that reports of the miraculous are only found among the barbarous and ignorant who exaggerate the natural because of the “propensity of mankind toward the marvelous.”[5]

            While there are several problems with Hume’s argument, there are three main areas that are directly pertinent if we want to approach the miraculous in a neutral manner. First, by Hume’s reasoning much of what we accept as being true in science and history would have to be discarded because it would not meet his burden of proof. Michael R. Licona states “Much of what we hold about the past is reported by a lone source and is rarely ‘beyond all suspicion’.”[6] Accordingly, this data cannot be verified by the uniformity of human experience or freed from the charge of falsehood. Taken to its logical extreme, this would disallow the testimony of a sole witness and instead demand that all must be experienced firsthand to be considered true. An individual’s personal experience cannot be the basis to “exclude the experience to which another person testifies.”[7] Second, many critics of Hume point out that his argument falls into the category of circular reasoning. Hume first assumes that the record of human experience is uniform and then posits that a testimony that contradicts this uniformity must be rejected because it goes against the uniformity of human experience. Craig S. Keener aptly points out that, “[Hume] excludes from being a miracle anything that can be observed to occur in the ordinary course of nature, yet he excludes the possibility of anything that does not occur in the ordinary course of nature.”[8]

            Finally, and most pertinent, is that Hume’s argument has an implicit atheistic or deistic basis that does not allow evidence to ever lead to the possibility of a miracle. A miracle is best understood as an event that manifests “divine intervention in human affairs”[9]. Michael Licona narrows the definition of a miracle even more by stating that we should only expect one in an “environment or context charged with religious significance.”[10] This eliminates the idea that a miracle can be that which is merely improbable or unlikely and places it in the realm of the supernatural, being caused by an agent outside of the natural. Hume, however, defines a miracle as something that must violate the laws of nature[11] rather than as an event caused from outside of nature. It’s at this point that Hume’s bias shows through. For if we take his view to its logical conclusion we are left with a natural realm that is uniform and cannot be violated, and any causal agent outside of nature must either not exist or be active in the natural realm.

If we adhere strictly to Hume’s reasoning, we are left to explain events only by naturalistic causes and the miraculous, defined as such, is a priori excluded. However, it must be noted that full theism need not be embraced to allow for the possibility of miracles. Skeptical and agnostic starting points can also allow for a neutral evaluation that leads to the possibility of miracles. Keener notes “one need not presuppose the existence of a deity to allow the hypothesis of a deity’s action; one need only not rule it out…An atheist has reason to presuppose miracles impossible on the premise of atheism, but they are not logically impossible; the degree of possibility assigned to miracles depends on one’s prior assumptions.”[12]

Philosopher Antony Flew argues that Hume’s argument can be strengthened if we move away from the problems of human testimony and instead direct our question to how miracles would affect our epistemology. He argues that by doing so we can state confidently that there is no reason to accept the reports of miracles by Christ or of Christ’s resurrection. Flew posits that historians involved in critical research must accept certain criteria if they are going to have any faith in the reliability of historical documents. They must first accept that the reported events are subject to the same regularities that we see around us today. For example, to accept Vincenzo Viviani’s report of Galileo’s famous experiment with gravity at Pisa, we must expect that we could recreate the event today by ascending the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropping two objects of different masses and watching them plummet at the same rate. Second, the historian must use all of his accumulated knowledge of the possible and impossible to determine the feasibility of an event in the past. So not only must we able to, in theory, replicate Galileo’s experiment, but we must also be able to conclude there is no way in which it is impossible that the experiment could fail or result in a new outcome.

From these two foundational ideas Flew concludes that the historian must reject miracles because “the word miracle has to be defined in terms of physical necessity and physical impossibility, the application of these criteria inevitably precludes the proof of the actual occurrence of a miracle.”[13] Stated more simply, since a miracle is effectively a onetime event intended to show the impossible, it must be excluded as a valid occurrence because it invalidates how we know history. To support this thesis, Flew suggests that the recounting of a miracle must take the form of “once upon a time, on one particular occasion, this or that actually happened”[14] because it is an event that is not able to be confirmed or verified. In contrast, history reported from a naturalistic point of view can be framed in reports as something that occurred because prior causality and probability made it so. There is no allowance for a truly impossible, singular event. In fact, the “propositions asserting the subsistence of laws of nature and/or of causal connections, can in principle…be tested and retested anywhere at any time.”[15] Flew, in effect, demands that miracles be subject to the rigors of repeatability and falsifiability in modern experimental science.

Flew anticipates the largest challenge to his position to be the discovery of naturalistic explanations for miracles in the Bible. However, he considers this to be a point which would actually increase the strength of his argument. Finding that a miracle actually has a naturalistic explanation would be “not a bit of help to the apologist if the progressive verification is achieved…although what was said to have happened did indeed happen, it happening was not after all miraculous.”[16] Flew believes his argument strong enough to claim that if the miracles of Jesus were to be affirmed in this way, then they could be categorically rejected as proofs of the deity of Christ.

The problem with Flew’s argument is not the explanation of miracles by naturalistic means as he assumes. Rather, Flew’s argument is internally inconsistent because it subjects historical research to the same methodology as experimental science. Within scientific research it is expected that phenomena can be repeated because experiments are designed to be repeated and falsified. However, historical research does not deal in such concrete terms. There are events within history that are accepted to be true though they are unique, singular events that cannot be repeated under observation. To subject these events to Flew’s criteria would mean rejecting them outright. In a rebuttal to Flew’s argument, Norman L. Geisler argues that two of the most widely accepted scientific hypotheses would have to be discarded if Flew is correct: the big bang and the origin of life on earth. Geisler states “if Flew’s argument against miracles is correct, then it is a mistake for scientists to believe in either of these singularities…[their] existence as an unrepeated singularity refutes Flew’s argument against miracles.”[17]

Similarly, Flew’s naturalistic position fails to meet the standards to which he subjects miracles. Flew requires that miracles be able to be repeated under the standards of science. One of these standards is falsifiability – the logical possibility that an assertion, hypothesis, or theory “can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment”[18] with the intent that universal laws can be formulated from unique observation rather than possibly false generalizations. Flew fails to meet this standard primarily because he disallows any method by which we may know a miracle as a historical event in contradiction to strictly naturalistic events. Geisler points out that, “Flew must answer that no event in the world would falsify his naturalism because in practice he believes the evidence is always greater against miracles than for them.”[19] So while Flew criticizes miracles as being unfalsifiable, his own naturalistic worldview is just as unfalsifiable and subject to the same criticisms he levels against theists.

Another criticism leveled against miracles has its roots in Hume’s statement  “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”[20] This phrase was more broadly popularized by Astronomer Carl Sagan in his 1980 TV series The Cosmos as “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”[21] At its core this statement reflects a healthy skepticism. For most people, common sense would dictate that if someone claims the outrageous, they had better be able to support the claim with strong evidence. However, Hume’s statement has been misapplied to miracles by skeptics to claim that in order to prove the reality of a miracle one must provide an equivalent amount of irrefutable evidence.

While this position may seem reasonable to the skeptic, there are several problems with it. In claiming extraordinary evidence be presented, the skeptic then must answer “How much evidence is extraordinary evidence? Is there some objective standard that must be met?” The truthful skeptic must concede that there is no objective standard that must be met. The burden of proof to be met is based solely on the presuppositions and worldview of the person demanding the evidence. For those assessing miracle claims from either a theistic or agnostic starting point, the burden of proof will be less because they are open to the possibility of divine interaction. However, for the atheist or deist, this burden of proof will be much higher, if not impossible to meet, because their starting presupposition either denies God’s existence or does not allow God to interact in the natural world.

Additionally, the inherent bias in the burden of proof demanded allows skeptics a way to categorically reject any proof in order to maintain their worldview. Apologist Matt Slick explains that the demand for extraordinary evidence allows the skeptic to “retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met.  Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.”[22] These two factors effectively disallow any reasonable or unbiased evaluation of evidence for a miracle claim if the skeptic is starting from an atheistic or deistic position. Michael Licona points out that if we are wanting to evaluate a claim from a neutral position we should not require extraordinary evidence, but

“additional evidence that addresses my present understanding of reality or my [presuppositions], which may be handicapped and in need of revision…It is the responsibility of the historian to consider what the evidence would look like if she were not wearing her metaphysical bias like a pair of sunglasses that shade the world. It is not the responsibility of the evidence to shine so brightly that they render such glasses ineffectual.”[23]

Therefore, the solution is not to provide extraordinary evidence, but instead to show that there is sufficient evidence. Again, skeptics may argue that providing more evidence does not fulfill the claim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, to disregard this principle is to disregard how our legal system works in criminal cases. Most cases cannot be prosecuted by extraordinary evidence, they must be prosecuted by enough evidence to prove that a defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The goal, then, is not extraordinary evidence, but sufficient evidence.

            How then are we to react to reports of the miraculous, especially in regard to the miracles of Christ? In evaluating both Hume and Flew, we can assert that categorically rejecting miracles based upon either human testimony or epistemology leads to inconsistencies in reasoning and an unfair bias to atheistic and deistic ideologies. When confronted with strong evidence that miracles have occurred, it behooves us to evaluate the data in as neutral a manner as possible. While this may not be objectively possible due to our own ingrained presuppositions, we do violence to the evidence if we categorically reject it based solely upon how we believe the world should work. Any careful evaluation of the world around us will cause even the skeptic to realize that our definition of reality cannot be limited to our eyes, ears, and nothing else.

---

[1] Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe in The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (New York, NY: Del Rey, 2002), 298.

[2] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu#SBN109 (accessed Apr. 23, 2012), 10.13.

[3] Ibid, 10.15

[4] Ibid, 10.16.

[5] Ibid, 10.20.

[6] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 139.

[7] Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 148.

[8] Ibid, 146.

[9] Merriam Webster Dictionary s.v. “Miracle”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle (accessed Apr. 17, 2012).

[10] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 171.

[11] Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 10.12.

[12] Keener, Miracles, 138-139.

[13] Antony Flew, Neo-Humean Arguments Against the Miraculous in In Defense of Miracles, R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 49.

[14] Ibid, 50.

[15] Ibid, 50.

[16] Flew, In Defense of Miracles, 53.

[17] Norman L. Geisler, Miracles & the Modern Mind in In Defense of Miracles, R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 83.

[18] Wikipedia s.v. “Falsifiability” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability (accessed Apr. 23, 2012).

[19] Geisler, In Defense of Miracles, 83.

[20] Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 10.4.

[21] The Cosmos, “Encyclopædia Galactica”, Episode 12, Youtube.com, 1:26, http://youtu.be/5DgWOlqa-iQ , (accessed Apr. 23, 2012).

[22] Matt Slick, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, http://carm.org/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence , (accessed Apr. 23, 2012).

[23] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 195-196.

Are We Really All That Bad?

Thomas Cole "The Garden of Eden"

“There’s nothing wrong with me. How could you say that I’m naturally sinful?” This is a question that could well summarize how modern society views the concept of its own sinfulness. But is this assessment correct? Can a person truly say that sin does not affect them at the most basic level? Christianity’s account of man’s nature is unambiguous in its assessment – there is something inherently wrong with man. Puritan theologian John Owen well surmised that, “Human nature suffered an indescribable disaster in the fall, so much that we might rather say that what we call ‘human nature’ is really all that we know of the remnants of human nature as it was intended to be.” [1] It is my belief that if we accept all that Scripture teaches on the matter, we are forced to come to a conclusion that may be unsettling to some. Scripture informs us that man’s fall into sin was complete and spiritually disastrous. Adam fell from being the pinnacle of creation, in perfect relationship and knowledge of God, to being bound to a corrupt sin nature that affected every part of his being and all future generations of mankind as well.

            To understand the extent of the fall it is imperative that we also understand the nature of man prior to the fall. For without any basis of comparison any description of our sin nature will fail. We will have no means by which to comprehend how far man fell and the privation that sin wrought upon our original condition. From Genesis 1 and 2 we can gather a few clues as to the nature and place of Adam in creation prior to the fall. We learn first that Adam was unique among all the rest of the created order. Prior to the Adam’s creation, all other created things were made by divine fiat with no deliberation among the godhead as to their nature being recorded in Scripture. However, with the creation of man, the text records that God said “Let us make man in our image and our likeness”.[2] The sudden switch to a plural pronoun seems to indicate a discussion between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as to the nature of man. Man was to be unique because he was deliberately created to rule over all of the rest of creation and to share some of the same traits as God. Arthur W. Pink comments “Thus, the divine conference here conveys the impression that the most important stage of creation had now been reached, that man was to be the masterpiece of the divine workmanship, the crowning glory of the mundane sphere – which is clearly borne out in his being made in the divine image.”[3]

            Scripture maintains that man was created in the image of God and that he did not lose this trait in the fall. However, Adam was unique in his creation because even though he shared in the communicable attributes of God that mankind still has today, he also had additional traits that have been lost to us. Therefore, to fully understand Adam’s nature we must look to future promises rather than at man’s current state. Christians look ahead to the day when Christ will return and glorify His people to the state of perfection held by Adam prior to the fall, and Scripture affirms that the regenerate have the precursors of those traits which will someday be perfected. From passages that describe this restoration, we can get some idea of what Adam was like. Ephesians 4:24 says that we are to put on our “new self, created in the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” Moreover, Colossians 3:10 commends us to “put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” From these passages we can pull three traits that we will touch on and add one additional trait to examine – Adam was created with righteousness, holiness, knowledge of God, and a self-determining will.

            Adam’s righteousness and holiness are so closely related that some theologians place them together under the label of “moral nature”. I believe, however, that there is enough of a distinction between the two to treat them separately. We will consider the righteousness of Adam first. Ecclesiastes affirms that “God made man upright”[4], or righteous. Some equate being “upright” to an innocence in Adam by which he was neither inclined to sin or righteousness. However, this seems to conflict with the usage of the Hebrew word yaw-shawr, which is translated upright, as it is used in other passages. Job 1:1 uses the same word to describe Job as being blameless and upright before God. Additionally, Psalm 25:8 uses it to describe God’s good nature by which He instructs sinners in righteousness. Thomas Paul Simmons notes “Man’s original moral likeness to God consisted of more than mere innocence…If innocence were enough to satisfy this statement [Man was made in God’s image], then we should be forced to conclude that every infant is born in the moral image of God, and this the Scripture denies.”[5] Indeed, it seems reasonable that when the author of Ecclesiastes says that man was created upright, he means just that. Adam was capable of acting in accordance with divine moral law because of a positive inclination in his character. Not only were his actions righteous, but the very motives that drove those actions were righteous as well.

            Closely tied to Adam’s righteousness was Adam’s holiness. While Adam’s righteousness was the means by which he was able to actively obey God’s command, his holiness was the actual purity of his being. Arthur W. Pink maintains that this was necessary in Adam’s original nature because it was that “which fitted him for communion with the Holy One. Holiness is not only a relationship, but a moral quality too – not only a separation from all that is evil, but the endowment and possession of what is good.”[6] Scripture is clear that holiness is the means by which we will someday enter into God’s presence in heaven[7], a necessary condition of believer’s continuing sanctification[8], and the trait which defines all the rest of God’s character.[9] It seems almost necessary, then, that for Adam to be created in the image of God that he share in this trait.

            Righteousness and holiness would have been of little use to Adam, however, without the ability to know God and understand His nature and commands. It is therefore necessary that Adam be created with some knowledge of God and His nature. John Owen calls this knowledge “natural theology” and states that its extent and purpose was twofold:

“In regards to this innate law of God, two factors might be considered; first the law itself, or the rule of obedience required by the creature, and, second, the creature’s awareness and understanding of the law. The law’s supreme requirement is that this excellent and great Benefactor, this supreme Ruler and rewarder, be loved, worshipped, and feared… [Adam’s] knowledge of the law was then, in no fundamental way, different from the essential nature of law itself. This consisted of a health-giving [knowledge] by which he could walk and demonstrate his obedience according to the law…[Adam] was furnished with wisdom and power and the ability to demonstrate his obedience to God, and his intelligent understanding of God’s will…”[10]

Adam’s knowledge then was pure and capable of a completely correct understanding of God’s will. This is not to say that Adam possessed omniscience, but that in all areas where his knowledge touched upon God’s nature and will, it was correct in its understanding. Accordingly, any sin on Adam’s part would be done in full knowledge of its rebellious character and God’s displeasure of the act.

            Finally, Adam was created with the ability to be self-determining in his choices. Adam’s correct and uncorrupted knowledge of God was in no way constrained. Rather, he was given the ability to choose contrary to the will of God because he had the “power to choose both an end and the means to attain it.”[11] Consequently, Adam was open to influence from outside of himself and also from internal desires. Indeed, this is how we see Adam fall into sin – by the influence of Eve, and also, as we’ll see shortly, by his own desires. We must be careful not to assume that because Adam was free to choose that the inevitable result would be his sinning. As we have previously noted, Adam was fully equipped by God to obey and grow in holiness and righteousness. Pink correctly points out that, “Our first parents had that freedom of will, or power to retain their integrity. This is evident from the clearly revealed fact that they were under an indispensible obligation to yield perfect obedience to God, and liable to deserved punishment for the least defection.”[12]

            What then was the nature of Adam’s sin? Theologians have held for centuries that the root of Adam’s sin was pride and the desire to be like God. However, to limit Adam’s sin strictly to pride belies the depth and evil of Adam’s act. In fact, Adam’s sin was a complete denial of every good and moral trait he was given by God and the refusal to submit to the revealed will of God in full knowledge of the immorality of the act. Owen writes “it is plain that the primal sin…was an attempt at total subversion of God’s order and a striving to escape from moral dependence on God.”[13] Accordingly, Adam broke not one command in eating the fruit, but instead violated the whole law of God. Pink summarizes the full exposition of this idea as given by James Ussher:

“He broke the first commandment by choosing another ‘god’ when he followed the counsel of Satan. The second, in idolizing his palate, making a god of his belly…The third, by not believing God’s threatening, in that way taking his name in vain. The fourth, by breaking the sinless rest in which he had been placed. The fifth, by thus dishonoring his Father in heaven. The sixth, by bringing death on himself and all his posterity. The seventh, by committing spiritual adultery, and preferring the creature above the Creator. The eighth, by laying hands upon that to which he had no right. The ninth, by accepting the serpent’s false witness against God. The tenth, by coveting that which God had not given to him.”[14]

Thomas Cole "Expulsion from the Garden of Eden"

The consequences of Adam’s sin were immediate and far reaching. Genesis informs us that upon eating the fruit “the eyes of both were opened”[15] and they were aware of their guilt before God. Suddenly, man was no longer ruled by a perfect knowledge of God and the ability to obey. Instead, he became subject to an imperfect and incomplete understanding of God through his conscience. Dietrich Bonhoeffer begins his work on ethics by stating that this “knowledge of good and evil shows that [man] is no longer at one with his origin.”[16] The will of God is no longer clear and unambiguous in man’s intellect. “[Man’s] life is now his understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of God…Instead of the original comprehension of God and of men and of things there is now taking in vain of God and of men and of things.”[17] While the moral law exemplified in man’s conscience provides some indication of what obedience should be given to God, it is a pail, anemic knowledge in comparison to Adam’s knowledge of God before the fall. In fact, Scripture is clear that rejecting God’s perfect knowledge caused Adam, and all future generations, to have “a debased mind…filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, [and] malice.”[18]

            The spiritual side of man also underwent corruption in the fall. Man’s spiritual aspect, created in righteousness and holiness to allow access to God, was no longer able to function as such because it now carried the taint of sin. Scripture paints a picture of this complete corruption that is bleak and unpromising. Sin is described as a “defilement of body and spirit”[19] that man cannot escape because it “is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of [the] heart”[20]. So pervasive is sin that, “the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil”[21] and “every intention of the thoughts of his heart [is] only evil continually”[22]. This is not a learned or acquired trait, nor is it something that he can escape on his own. Man is spoken of as being conceived in sin, estranged from God from the womb, and in rebellion against God at birth.[23] He is “insatiable for sin”[24], walking “in the stubbornness of his evil heart”[25] until his death. And, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, man is willing to stay in this condition. Christ, speaking of himself, says “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness [of sin] rather than the light because their works were evil.”[26]

            We must be careful, however, to state that Scripture does not teach that unregenerate man is incapable of good deeds or virtuous acts. Christ affirms that even those who are evil “know how to give good gifts to [their] children.”[27] Nor does it mean that man is as sinful as he could possibly be because it is possible for man to add to his sins.[28] Pink asserts that man’s sin “has affected all of man’s being to such an extent that he has no inherent power of recovery left to restore himself to harmony with God, and that this is the case with every member of the race.”[29] Additionally, while we are capable of doing good acts, these acts are “discharged without any love for God, any subjection to His authority, or any concern for His glory.”[30]

Piero della Francesca "The Death of Adam"

            A further consequence of Adam’s sin is that it destroyed the means by which Adam was promised life and blessing. Upon placing Adam in the garden, God warns of immediate consequences for disobedience to his decree to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  “[B]ut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”[31] It is implicit in this command that the converse is also true – if Adam obeyed, then he would enjoy life in the presence of God and the blessings of the garden. This has been referred to as the covenant of works because it involved a conditional promise whereby Adam could maintain life and blessings through obedience. Adam’s sin broke this covenant and resulted in spiritual and physical death. However, the change in Adam’s state did not affect a change in the terms of the covenant on God’s part. Instead we see the covenant expanded and made clearer at Mount Sinai as God reveals the full nature of His law rather than leaving man in a state of innate, moral law. Scripture affirms throughout that fallen man is still subject to the covenant of works because “the wages of sin is death.”[32] A further consequence is that while Adam had previously had all the means necessary to be obedient, in his new state he became incapable of obeying God in any way that satisfied the conditions of this covenant. Adam was bound to sin and, as we have previously noted, his every action was tainted by sin and lacked the righteousness and holiness necessary to satisfy God’s requirements.

            We have asserted throughout that Adam’s fall affected him and all his future descendants, but there are those who disagree with this position and assert that Adam’s sin was his own and was not passed to his progeny. Rather, each man stands condemned for only his own sin and is not counted as being unrighteous because of Adam. A close reading of Scripture, however, indicates that this is not the case. Adam held a place as the federal head of all mankind by which he represented all future generations in his place and they would either bear his righteousness or his guilt based upon his willingness to obey. The first indicator in Scripture that Adam held this position is in Genesis 3:6-7 where Eve is the first to sin by eating the fruit, but it is at Adam’s eating that they both realize their guilt. A.W. Pink comments “Very, very striking is this. We do not read of any change taking place when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, but as soon as Adam did so ‘the eyes of them both were opened.’ This furnishes a confirmation of our previous statement that Adam was the covenant head and legal representative of his wife, as well as of the future children which were to issue from them.”[33]

            Another text that demonstrates the idea of federal headship is found in Hebrews where the author is making an argument from the inferior to the superior. The author argues that Christ’s role as priest is superior to that of the Levitical priesthood because the Levites gave tithes to and received a blessing from Melchizedek, a priest who typified Christ.  Obviously, the superior is one who receives tithes and gives blessings, but Melchizedek lived centuries before the Levites were born or functioned as priests. How then, did he receive tithes and give a blessing to them? The author answers that it was through Abraham who gave the tithe and received the blessing and that Levi “himself…paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”[34] In this case, Abraham functioned as the federal head for all of his descendants. In giving the tithe and receiving the blessing he proved the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood because all future generations were represented as giving homage through him.

            The final text we will look at addresses the federal headship of Adam directly. Paul uses the federal headship of Adam in the book of Romans to draw a contrast with the federal headship of Christ. Paul states “sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” and “by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.”[35] Theologian Wayne Grudem explains that the Greek term katestathesan, translated as “many were made” is in the form of “an aorist indicative indicating completed past action.” [36] Accordingly, all men are not seen as becoming sinful through present action, but instead because of the completed past action of “one man’s disobedience.” Grudem continues that this is “consistent with Paul’s statement that ‘while we were yet sinners Christ dies for us (Romans 5:8). Of course, some of us did not even exist when Christ died. But God nevertheless regarded us as sinners in need of salvation.”[37] Paul gives a second example of federal headship in this passage in the atoning work of Christ. As Adam is the means by which all men are accounted sinners, Christ is the perfectly righteous sacrifice which “leads to justification and life for all men... [for by] the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”[38] We are presented here a stark contrast. Christ has now become the federal head of all those who are called into the family of God and he imputes his righteousness to them in restoration of what Adam forfeited.

            Even in this partial assessment of man’s sinful nature we are left haunted and despairing at the depths of our own wickedness. While we may claim that we are above our sin, or untouched by it, the exact opposite is true and there is nothing in unregenerate man free from the taint of it. What hope is left for man in this condition? Man’s sole hope is found in Genesis 3:15 with the giving of the protoevangelion – the first gospel. The promise of a future messiah that would undo Adam’s sin and provide redemption to those in open rebellion to God. Fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ who, by his atoning work, called out a people for himself and “reconciled [them] in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present [them] holy and blameless and above reproach before [God]”.[39]

---

[1] John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria, 2009), 31.

[2] Genesis 1:26

[3] Arthur W. Pink, Our Accountability to God, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), Kindle e-book, 21.

[4] Ecclesiastes 7:29.

[5] Thomas Paul Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine (Baptist Book and Bible House, 1936), http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter16.htm, (accessed May 3, 2012).

[6] Pink, Our Accountability to God, 113.

[7] Revelation 21:27; Matthew 5:8.

[8] 1 Peter 1:14-16.

[9] Isaiah 6:3, Revelation 4:8 as examples of the superlative declaration of God’s holiness.

[10] Owen, Biblical Theology, 25.

[11] Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter15.htm , (accessed May 3, 2012).

[12] Pink, Our Accountability to God, 28.

[13] Owen, Biblical Theology, 26.

[14] Pink, Our Accountability to God, 74.

[15] Genesis 3:7.

[16] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics trans. By Neville Horton Smith, (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995), 21.

[17] Ibid, 29.

[18] Romans 1:28-29.

[19] 2 Corinthians 7:1, emphasis mine.

[20] Jeremiah 17:1.

[21] Ecclesiastes 8:11.

[22] Genesis 6:5.

[23] Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 48:8.

[24] 2 Peter 2:14.

[25] Jeremiah 11:8.

[26] John 3:19, emphasis mine.

[27] Matthew 7:11.

[28] 1 Samuel 12:19.

[29] Pink, Our Accountability to God, 161.

[30] Ibid. 161.

[31] Genesis 2:17.

[32] Romans 6:23.

[33] Pink, Our Accountability to God, 76.

[34] Hebrews 7:9-10.

[35] Romans 5:12, 19.

[36] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 494, emphasis mine.

[37] Ibid., 495.

[38] Romans 5:18-19.

[39] Colossians 1:22.