Reformed Theology Is Patrilineal Relationship Necessary for Federal Headship?  Calvinism

Is Patrilineal Relationship Necessary for Federal Headship?

Reformed Theology Is Patrilineal Relationship Necessary for Federal Headship?  Calvinism
Is Patrilineal Relationship Necessary for Federal Headship?

Let me get directly to the point. I am pondering this question (and it may be a wholly unorginal and already well-answered one) in conjunction with questions relating to the compatibility of an evolutionary understanding of creation with scripture. This is putting aside, for our purposes here, the straightforward factual questions about evolution from a biblical perspective, and looking strictly at it in terms of whether or not evolution is "compatible" with the conventional theory of original sin.

I think it's pretty much an airtight case that a historical Adam is absolutely critical here; no actual Adam, no actual covenant representative of the human race, no actual fall– certainly no actual fall as presented to us in both the Old and New Testaments. But does Adam have to be the literal first man in order to serve as the federal head of humanity? Is there any reason Adam has to be the biological father of all humans to fill this role? Again, ignoring the question of whether he was the first man, and just looking at the question of whether he needs to be the first man.

On one hand, covenant headship does seem to flow along patrilineal lines generally (Abraham, Jacob, etc), but it also seems like this is not necessarily the case in Scripture all the time. Kings, for example, seem to serve a representative role before God despite not being the direct ancestor of all the people. The most dramatic example, of course, would be Jesus himself, who does not need to be our physical father in order to be our New Adam, our new covenant head and representative.

In short, is it at least theoretically possible for Adam to have been descended from other men, or at least one of a number of contemporaries who were not his children, and still serve as the federal head in whom "all men died"?

Let me get directly to the point. I am pondering this question (and it may be a wholly unorginal and already well-answered one) in conjunction with questions relating to the compatibility of an evolutionary understanding of creation with scripture. This is putting aside, for our purposes here, the straightforward factual questions about evolution from a biblical perspective, and looking strictly at it in terms of whether or not evolution is “compatible” with the conventional theory of original sin.I think it’s pretty much an airtight case that a historical Adam is absolutely critical here; no actual Adam, no actual covenant representative of the human race, no actual fall– certainly no actual fall as presented to us in both the Old and New Testaments. But does Adam have to be the literal first man in order to serve as the federal head of humanity? Is there any reason Adam has to be the biological father of all humans to fill this role? Again, ignoring the question of whether he was the first man, and just looking at the question of whether he needs to be the first man.On one hand, covenant headship does seem to flow along patrilineal lines generally (Abraham, Jacob, etc), but it also seems like this is not necessarily the case in Scripture all the time. Kings, for example, seem to serve a representative role before God despite not being the direct ancestor of all the people. The most dramatic example, of course, would be Jesus himself, who does not need to be our physical father in order to be our New Adam, our new covenant head and representative.In short, is it at least theoretically possible for Adam to have been descended from other men, or at least one of a number of contemporaries who were not his children, and still serve as the federal head in whom “all men died”?
Link: Is Patrilineal Relationship Necessary for Federal Headship?
Submitted by Philologian