Examining Federal Headship and Imputed Adamic Guilt

Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine federal headship as a potential mechanism for Adam's guilt being transmitted to all of his descendants. This idea is distinctive of the original sin view concerning the fall and its consequences. This is a view we do not affirm. Contrary to original sin, we affirm ancestral sin. To get a full grasp of this doctrine, please read our article making the affirmative case for ancestral sin. Some of our points made in that article will be restated here. The doctrine of federal headship is almost completely tied to a faulty understanding of Romans 5 from the original sin perspective. To get a comprehensive understanding of Romans 5, read our article on it here. 

GUILT & THE MODES OF TRANSMISSION

Within the camp that affirms all of humanity is guilty of Adam's sin from conception, there are two primary modes by which this guilt could be transmitted. One mode is that Adam's guilt is passively inherited. In this view, Adam's guilt is essentially a transmittable substance that is passed down from one generation to the next like our genetics. This view is strongly connected to a doctrine concerning the origin of the human soul called Traducianism. We extensively covered the issue of where the human soul originates in our article here. In that article, we showed how the passive inheritance mode of transmission isn't scripturally compelling. The other mode of active imputation is often connected to the doctrine of federal headship. Active imputation through federal headship is the mode we will be tackling in this article. 

WHAT IS FEDERAL HEADSHIP?

To define and understand federal headship, we will cite theologians and apologists who affirm the doctrine and let them articulate its distinctions. 

“In Romans 5:12-21, Paul teaches that God deals covenantally with the human race under the concept called "Federalism." Essentially, Federalism or Federal Headship has to do with representation; that is one person acting on behalf of another. The American legal system uses a similar concept called, "A Power of Attorney"; a written authorization to allow one to represent another for some legal matter. Biblically, the entire human race is summarized in the two Adams: (1) the first Adam in the Garden was the Federal Head of the entire human race under the covenant of works (Gen. 1-2) and (2) the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:45, 47), is the Federal Head of all believers under the covenant of grace (Rom 5:12-21).” - Joseph Nally, ThirdMill, What is Federal Headship? 

“So, Adam represents the entire human race (Rom 5:12-21). When the first Adam in the Garden sinned (Gen. 3), sin fell upon "all" mankind (1 Cor 15:22; cf. Isa. 24:5-6; except Christ, who was born of a virgin and therefore is sinless - Matt 1:18; Luke 1:34-35; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5). In his active obedience, Christ, the second and last man Adam (1 Cor 15:45, 47), accomplished what the first Adam in the Garden failed to accomplish. He fulfilled the entire Law (Matt 5:17). It is only after one is regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-8) that they become born of God, and Christ becomes their Federal Head.” - Joseph Nally, ThirdMill, What is Federal Headship? 

“Federal Headship, the authority to represent descendants, is clearly taught in Scripture.  Adam was in authority when he fell.  That is, we fell “in Adam” when he fell.  The only way for this to be possible is for him to have represented us – just as Jesus represented us on the cross so that we live “in Christ,” (1 Cor. 15:22). To deny one is to deny the other.” - Matt Slick, CARM, Is Adam our Federal Head? 

“When Adam stood in Eden as a responsible being before God, he stood there as a federal head, as the legal representative of all his posterity. Hence, when Adam sinned, all for whom he was standing are accounted as having sinned; when he fell, all whom he represented fell; when he died, they died. So too was it with Christ. When He came to this earth, He, too, stood in a federal relationship to His own people; and when He became obedient unto death, all for whom He was acting were accounted righteous; when He rose again from the dead, all whom He represented rose with Him; when He ascended on high, they were regarded as ascending with Him. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).” - AW Pink, Divine Covenants, Part II, The Adamic Covenant

“Now the fact that Adam was the federal head of the human race, that he did act and transact in a representative capacity, and that the judicial consequences of his actings were imputed to all those for whom he stood, is clearly revealed in God’s Word. In Romans 5 we read: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all sinned” (v. 12); “through the offence of one many be dead” (v. 15); “the judgment was by one to condemnation” (v. 16); “by one man’s offence death reigned” (v. 17); “by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (v. 18); “by one man’s offence many were made [legally constituted] sinners” (v. 19). The meaning of these declara­tions is far too plain for any unprejudiced mind to misunderstand. It Pleased God to deal with the human race as represented in and by Adam." - AW Pink, Divine Covenants, Part II, The Adamic Covenant

“The technical theological term that describes this transaction involving the representative and the represented is imputation. Adam’s one sin is imputed (accounted, reckoned) to all those whom he represents. As a result of this transaction, all who are “in Adam” enter into condemnation. That is to say, they are liable to divine justice for the one sin of Adam imputed to them. On the other hand, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all those whom He represents. As a result of this transaction, all who are “in Christ” are justified. God counts them righteous, not for anything that they have done, are doing, or ever will do. God justifies sinners only on the basis of the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, which God imputes to them, and which they receive through faith alone.” - Guy Waters, Tabletalk, Federal Headship 

“And ultimately, when it comes to damnation and salvation, it all depends who you have union with. Who is your federal head? Who is your representative? Are you in Adam? Or are you in Christ? Every time a person is physically born into this world it is in spiritual terms a stillbirth. They are born spiritually dead. They are born in Adam. And they deserve what Adam, their earthly father has earned for them. The wages of sin is death. We all sinned in Adam.” - Joel Webbon, Understanding Federal Headship, 2:44-3:28 

“You have to understand that Adam is our federal head and that all of us were in Adam and guilty in Adam.” - Voddie Baucham, Federal headship is important to understand, 0:34-0:43

“In the latter half of Romans 5, Paul teaches that God deals with the human race under a system known as “federalism.” Simply put, federalism has to do with representation, with one person acting on behalf of another. God has appointed two representatives in history: Adam and Christ. Adam did not represent the race well; he disobeyed God. As a result, all of his descendants are born with an inclination to sin, and they all share in his guilt and suffer the same penalty he received—death. This is what Paul means when he says in verse 12 that “all sinned.” In today’s verses, Paul seeks to support this argument.” - Ligonier Ministries, Our First Federal Head  

The idea of federal headship is most prominent among those of a Reformed or Calvinistic theological persuasion. Notice how central their particular understanding of Romans 5 is to the doctrine. As we stated earlier, federal headship is almost completely tied to a faulty understanding of Romans 5:12-21. Other underpinning pillars for federal headship can include doctrines like unconditional election and a Reformed perspective on covenant theology. 

To summarize the points of federal headship as it concerns Adamic guilt: 

1. Federal headship is a covenantal way in which God deals with the human race. 

2. This way of dealing with the human race is pleasing to God.  

3. Adam is the legal representative for all future humans who are in/from him. 

4. Adam being the legal representative entails unilateral and unconditional imputation of his guilt to all future humans. 

5. As a result, all humans are under spiritual condemnation from conception. We are legally guilty in God's sight from the beginning of our existence.  

We will be primarily interacting with these points. The use of Romans 5 by the cited theologians and apologists will not be covered comprehensively in this article. Please refer here to our article that goes through Romans 5.

FEDERALISTS ON THOSE WHO QUESTION THEIR DOCTRINE 

“The rejection of Adam's covenant headship leads to an abandonment of the doctrine of Christ's headship (Rom 5:17). If Adam did not represent all men as Paul teaches, then Christ cannot be the Savior of all the elect. If one rejects Adam's headship of the human race, then they necessarily reject Christ's sacrifice as well.” - Joseph Nally, ThirdMill, What is Federal Headship? 

“But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?” - AW Pink, Divine Covenants, Part II, The Adamic Covenant

“Third, to deny Adam’s representative headship logically leads to a denial of Christ‘s representative headship on the Cross.” - Matt Slick, CARM, Federal Headship 

"But some may object and say that this is not fair. They will say that we should not be held responsible for Adam’s sin because we didn’t commit his first sin–he did." - Matt Slick, CARM, Federal Headship 

"One difficulty that people have often expressed with Paul’s teaching in Romans 5:12–21 can be summarized in the objection, “Not fair!” - Guy Waters, Tabletalk, Federal Headship 

Defenders of federal headship consistently make two points or arguments when speaking of objections and those who question the doctrine. 

1. Not affirming federal headship leads to a denial of Jesus' sacrifice. 

2. Denial of federal headship is rooted in the idea that the doctrine isn't fair.

These two points are erroneous as we will soon discover. The denial of federal headship doesn't entail either of these points. There are many robust biblical reasons for not affirming this doctrine as a mechanism for the imputation of Adamic guilt. 

OUR OBJECTIONS AND POINTS OF CONTENTION WITH FEDERAL HEADSHIP 

We will begin by summarizing our points of contention and objections to federal headship in no particular order of significance. We will then dive into each point in greater detail. 

1. Federal headship's vision of how God deals with each human judicially is inconsistent with the biblical data. 

2. Federal headship causes disharmony and disconnects in the typology between Adam and Jesus.  

3. Federal headship's understanding of how humans are represented by Adam is inconsistent with how the Bible says humans are represented by Jesus.  

4. Federal headship conflates and collapses the distinction of origin between human substances (the physical body and spiritual soul). 

5. Federal headship is almost entirely derived from a limited number of passages in the Pauline corpus. However, the doctrine is in sharp disctoninuity with the entirety of the Pauline corpus.  

6. Federal headship is more than just humans having representatives. We have zero issue with humans acting on behalf of another or people being represented by another. The issue is that federal headship entails a representation that is unconditional, unilaterial, and perpetual. And these concepts are completely foreign from any comparison the federalists make between their doctrine and human government when attempting to ground this idea in reality. 

 

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR JUDICIAL GUILT IN THE END?

If we want to get a solid grasp on how God has chosen to deal with each individual person judicially, looking at how God judges in the eschaton is probably our best bet. It is our best bet because there's no confusion in regard to whether these judgments are merely physical and earthly judgments or eternal judgments that determine and finalize each person's fate of both body and soul. If God views each human as guilty before him concerning Adam's sin, it would seem reasonable to think that how he judges humanity, in the end, would reflect that. On the contrary, if the Bible conveys that everyone is only judged and held guilty for their own sins, it would seem reasonable to conclude that God doesn't hold all humans guilty in his sight for the sin of Adam. 

Mat 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.   

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 

 Joh 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.  

Rom 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 

Rom 14:11-12 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  

1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.  

Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 

In God's word, there is no indication that we will be judged and held accountable before God in the end for any sins other than what we commit in our own bodies. In the end, humans receive the things they have done. Judgment is rendered according to each person's deeds. Humans give an account of themselves and their own words. People are judged according to their own works. We see repeated mention of personal responsibility before God in the eschaton for what each person personally does in their own body with their own God-given faculties. There isn't a theme of God rendering individual judgment and guilt to individuals for things those individuals didn't do. The concept of Adam's sin being unilaterally and unconditionally imputed to all humans because of federal headship is not present in the minds of Jesus or the disciples regarding God's judgment in the end. This fact is a sign that the doctrine of imputed guilt through federal headship is simply untrue. 

THE TYPOLOGY OF ADAM AND JESUS

Paul says in Romans 5:14 that Adam is a figure of Christ. One of the major themes of Romans 5 is how the redemption and benefits that flow from the work of Christ are the reversal of the condemnation and detriments that flow from the work of Adam. Paul is the only New Testament author who speaks of Adam with any significance outside of a genealogy. However, he only touches on Adam's role as a figure of Christ in two places (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). All New Testament authors speak at greater length about the benefits that flow from Christ. 

It's not a controversy that when someone is born again spiritually, they are spiritually cleansed, regenerated, and sealed with the Holy Spirit. However, all Christians know that not all of the benefits had in Christ are present from this birth. Christians haven't yet been redeemed from the presence of sin, and the fallen world, and haven't received glorified immortal bodies yet. Does this mean that these things won't happen and aren't inevitable? Of course not. When someone is born again, it inevitably leads to physical immortality and glorification. 

What does this mean for Adam, the figure of him that was to come? The defenders of federal headship would have us believe that the detriments had in Adam are completely and wholly present beginning at the first birth. This sequence is disconnected from who Adam is supposed to be a figure of. 

In our view, because of Adam, humans are physically mortal first beginning at the first birth, and inevitably become spiritually condemned later due to their own sins. But Jesus reverses the ailments, detriments, and consequences that naturally flow from Adam. Because of Jesus, those who are born again are spiritually justified and cleansed beginning at the second birth, and inevitably become physically immortal later in the eschaton. In our view, there are two stages in the progression of our redemption as well as two stages in the progression of our condemnation. But the federal headship view would have us believe there's one stage in the progression of our condemnation and two stages for our redemption. This is inconsistent with the truths we know about the redemption of humanity. The federal headship view makes a mess of the typology found in the very chapter that's supposed to be their prime proof text for this doctrine. 

 

REPRESENTATION BUT IN WHAT WAY?

Recall earlier when we showed how defenders of federal headship argue that if you don't affirm the representation of Adam then it logically leads to a rejection of Jesus' representation. What they need to understand is that we don't reject representation outright. It's their particular mode and type of representation that we deny. What we are contending against is a unilateral and unconditional representation that necessarily pushes effects and consequences in a 1:1 ratio directly and immediately onto those who are represented. As we've said previously, there's much more scripture on the benefits had in Christ and how they operate than there is scripture on the detriments had in Adam. If we understand how representation works in Christ, it will point us in the correct direction of understanding how representation works in Adam. Because federal headship is a doctrine almost entirely derived from Pauline texts, we will only refer to verses in the Pauline corpus here. 

Rom 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:26-28 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.  

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 5:1-2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 

Rom 10:5-6 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 

Gal 3:6-8 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.  

 Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 

Repeatedly in the Pauline corpus, we see over ten times that the benefits had in Christ are not unconditional and unilaterial. Rather, they're conditioned on personal faith. What does this mean for the detriments had in Adam? If it's the case that the benefits had in Christ aren't wholly unconditional and unilateral, it would seem improbable that the detriments of Christ's figure (Adam) are actually wholly unconditional and unilateral. 

THE DISTINCTION OF SUBSTANCE ORIGIN  

The origin of substances is a relevant issue when it comes to the topic of federal headship. We believe the defenders of federal headship are prone to overlook this aspect of human anthropology and how it relates to human representation. When we cited Slick, Waters, Webbon, and Baucham; they all affirmed the notion that all humans are and/or were "in Adam" when he sinned. Therefore, all future humans are justly imputed with Adam's guilt. We will formulate this deductively. 

1. Adam federally represents everyone that is in/from him. 

2. In this representation, Adam sinned. 

3. Therefore, everyone in/from Adam are justly imputed with his guilt and are spiritually condemned from conception. 

Our problem with this view is that it completely neglects the origin of human substance. If the whole point is that Adam represents what comes from/out of him, it follows that Adam doesn't represent that which doesn't come from/out of him. This is where substance origin becomes relevant. We will formulate this deductively. 

1. The physical body of humans descends from Adam. Our bodies can be traced back to him. 

2. The spiritual souls of humans do not descend from Adam. Our spiritual souls cannot be traced back to him. 

3. Instead, the spiritual soul of humans are created by God. 

4. Therefore, it's not accurate and not an ontological truth that human souls are in/from Adam. 

5. Because human souls are not in/from Adam, according to federal headship he doesn't represent the spiritual souls of humans in any unconditional or unilateral way.

6. Therefore, Adam's guilt isn't judicially imputed to all human souls from conception. 

Even though federal headship isn't necessarily rooted in Traducianism, it seems like its affirmers still have a hard time not connecting the spiritual souls of humans to Adam in an ontological sense of origin. If Soul creationism is affirmed, the idea of Adam representing human souls in/from him seems untenable. We've covered the issue of the human soul and its origin at greater length in our article here. At the end of the day, the ultimate point of contention is the spiritual condition of humans from conception. Are we judicially guilty and under spiritual condemnation from the womb? If the source of spiritual condemnation is a connection between Adam and our spiritual soul, but our spiritual soul isn't actually ontologically connected to Adam as far as origination is concerned, it seems implausible and unreasonable to confer Adamic guilt onto all spiritual souls from conception. 

It's our view that because of what Adam did, our flesh which we initially received from him will inevitably lead to spiritual condemnation of our soul when we sin. This is an unavoidable reality for all humans due to our own sinful inclinations that originate in the flesh as well as the sinful and fallen environment we live in. We touch more on the origin of our sins in this article here. 

But, because of what Jesus did, the souls of believers whose souls were initially received from God are cleansed, spiritually regenerated, and sealed with the Holy Spirit. This inevitably leads to the glorification of our bodies which we received from Adam. 

So the first birth (physical) inevitably brings about spiritual condemnation. The second birth (spiritual) inevitably brings about physical glorification. The detriments and corruption that flow from Adam are reversed by the benefits and healing that flow from Jesus. We believe that all of this serves as a disconfirmation of federal headship. 

FURTHER DISCONTINUITY WITH THE PAULINE CORPUS 

 

We mentioned earlier how the doctrine of federal headship is almost exclusively derived from a small set of passages in Paul's letters. We will now look at overarching themes in the Pauline corpus that contribute towards a disconfirmation of federal headship. 

Paul on who or what God sets his wrath on:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 

Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 

Col 3:6-8 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 

In Paul's writing, we see a consistent theme that wrath from God (as well as His ministers) is upon actions that are ungodly, unrighteous, and disobedient. God sets his wrath on humans who commit these aforementioned actions. There's no indication in Paul that God's wrath is upon those who haven't yet transgressed but have an unconditional and unilateral representative. It seems that wrath begins and is conditioned upon actions of transgression. 

Paul on personal responsibility and judgment based on personal sin: 

Romans 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 

Rom 14:11-12 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 

1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Co 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.  

Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden. 

Gal 6:7-8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 

Absent from Paul is the idea that anyone will have to give an account of the sin another person committed. Absent from Paul is the idea that we will receive things done in the bodies of other people. Absent from Paul is the idea that God will render to people according to the deeds of sinners who aren't themselves. A framework that includes all humans from conception being guilty of the first sin of Adam because of unilateral and unconditional representation conflicts with the cumulative statements from Paul.  

THE LOOMING MOTTE AND BAILEY FALLACY  

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). We believe that this fallacy looms over the doctrine of federal headship because of comparisons and similarities that are inferred from real-world examples. Let's revisit some of the citations we gave earlier. 

“In Romans 5:12-21, Paul teaches that God deals covenantally with the human race under the concept called "Federalism." Essentially, Federalism or Federal Headship has to do with representation; that is one person acting on behalf of another. The American legal system uses a similar concept called, "A Power of Attorney"; a written authorization to allow one to represent another for some legal matter.” - Joseph Nally, ThirdMill, What is Federal Headship? 

“In the latter half of Romans 5, Paul teaches that God deals with the human race under a system known as “federalism.” Simply put, federalism has to do with representation, with one person acting on behalf of another.” - Ligonier Ministries, Our First Federal Head  

“But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?” - AW Pink, Divine Covenants, Part II, The Adamic Covenant 

The looming Motte and Bailey fallacy is perhaps best exemplified by AW Pink. Remember, the primary distinction with federal headship is that the representation is unconditional and unilateral. When Pink deals with the objection of "unfairness" to his Bailey claim (unilateral and unconditional representation), he justifies federal headship with Motte statements (obvious and uncontroversial statements about representation). What do we mean by this? 

AW Pink appeals to "principles of representation" that are completely incompatible with federal headship. We will walk through some of the examples he gives. 

Example #1: "The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family." 

Response #1: Yes of course this is true. This is not controversial. But if the father committed a crime, does his status of "legal head" mean that all of his children are held judicially guilty for their father's crime? If the father gets a prison sentence, is that sentence conferred upon the children as well? Of course not. Yet, this is exactly the type of representation that federal headship entails. Of course children suffer negative consequences for any crimes their parents commit. If their father gets put in prison, their household income is almost certain to decline, they won't grow up with a father figure, and they are likely to have less opportunities. But these negative consequences don't mean that the children are judicially guilty for the crime of their father. Parental representation does not equal a unilateral and unconditional transfer of right and wrong. 

Example #2: "A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents." 

Response #2: Except business is not done unilaterially and unconditionally. We wish Pink went into further detail on this example so we could better understand the type of transaction and business he's referring to. However, it's universally understood that business entails paperwork, consentual partnership, and the proverbial handshake. The normative function of business is the voluntary exhange of goods and services between two or more parties. This is the exact opposite type of responsibility that federal headship entails. 

Example #3: "The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?"

Response #3A: This is also uncontroversial. Heads of state obviously can enact laws that are binding upon the people they represent. But are not heads of state usually elected by the people to become their representative? It's hard to find a totalitarian autocracy in the 21st centry. But even in such a system, what's to stop the will of the people and military from overthrowing the head of state if they are representing poorly? This has happened numerous times in human history. Therefore, appeals to human government fail. Pink is correct that the principle of a representative government "cannot be set aside". But he fails to realize that this is a Motte (an obvious uncontroversial statement). And this Motte is vastly different from the Bailey (an unconditional and unilateral representation) which he affirms in federal headship. 

Response #3B: We also want to point out that it's easy to conceive of scenarios of government action that completely undermine this example for federal headship and the distinct premises of original sin. Let's imagine a leader (president, king, governeror, or otherwise) begins abusing their power and doing horrendous things either on an international or local level. Virtually any form of political corruption or evil that a person in power could do will suffice for this exercise. Now, with this evil in your mind shift your attention to the perspective from outside nations. When leaders and people of other nations look to what this evil leader is doing, would they automatically assume the entirety of the citizenry they represent are also guilty of these evil acts and particated with the leader? Almost certainly not unless evidence can be brought forth that the citizens were collaborating with the leader and/or were keenly aware of these atrocities coming to pass prior to electing this representative. The normative reaction of everyone on the outside would be to assign guilt to the evil leader and not assume participatory guilt of all the citizens even though they are federally represented by the leader. The horrendous actions of federal leadership might have disasterous consequences for citizens; it could even lead to economic and civil ruin. Even so, the guilt of these actions would rest on the leadership and perhaps those who actively collaborated with them. The nations on the ouside of this affair would not assume that the citizens enduring hardship means they're guilty of whatever this evil leader has done. So while leadership has representative power, this does not inherently mean the guilt of their wrongs or goodness of their rights translate to all whom they represent in an unconditional and unilateral way. Therefore, this principle of representation for federal headship fails and actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what is meant to be proven.

 

The looming Motte and Bailey fallacy can also be observed in the statements that are made about those who doubt and question federal headship. 

 “Third, to deny Adam’s representative headship logically leads to a denial of Christ‘s representative headship on the Cross.” - Matt Slick, CARM, Federal Headship 

“The rejection of Adam's covenant headship leads to an abandonment of the doctrine of Christ's headship (Rom 5:17). If Adam did not represent all men as Paul teaches, then Christ cannot be the Savior of all the elect. If one rejects Adam's headship of the human race, then they necessarily reject Christ's sacrifice as well.” - Joseph Nally, ThirdMill, What is Federal Headship? 

When someone questions federal headship's Bailey of an unconditional and unilateral representation in Adam, there is a tendency to act as if this is actually a rejection of a Motte. In this case, the Motte is the concept of representation as a whole. It is obvious and uncontroversial that there is representation in Adam and in Christ. The issue that is often taken for granted and ignored is the exact nature of the representation. As we've witnessed, advocates of federal headship are prone to appeal to examples of representation that in no way convey the type of representation that the doctrine of federal headship entails. Therefore, attempts to ground the entailments of federal headship in reality largely fail. 

DISCONFIRMATION OF FEDERAL HEADSHIP IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 

There are many passages we could go to in order to show disconfirmation of federal headship. We cover Old Testament passages more thoroughly in our article on ancestral sin here. For the sake of brevity, we will look at just two passages here. In Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31, we see an extra-biblical proverb used by Israelites that ties into inherited/imputed guilt. It's important to take notice of what the Israelites said and how it was received by God and the prophets. Are the Israelites approved or reproved?

Eze 18:1-4 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 

Eze 18:19-20 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.  

Eze 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?  

Eze 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? 

In Ezekiel 18, who are the ones using this proverb about the children bearing the iniquity of the father? It's the Israelites. Who's the one saying to not use this proverb? It's God. Who are the ones quoted as asking why doesn't the son bear the iniquity of the father? It's the Israelites. Who's the one who rebukes them and says the son doesn't bear the iniquity of the father? It's God. Who are the ones quoted as criticizing God's ways twice? It's the Israelites. Who's the one who responds by saying it's actually the Israelites' ways that aren't balanced and equal? It's God. It appears that our interlocutors have their views being advocated for in this chapter. The only problem is that they're siding with the people who're directly rebuked and corrected by God for their view being incorrect. The Israelites here are appealing to some type of representative headship where guilt is conferred from parents to children, yet God reproves them rather than approving them.

Jer 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

We see virtually the same thing said in Jeremiah that we saw in Ezekiel. The same proverb is condemned rather than approved. So why were Israelites saying this proverb? It's simply because some Israelites mistook corporate and conditional aspects of the old covenant as God holding people personally guilty for the sins of others. One chapter that best exemplifies this is Deuteronomy 28 where we see conditional blessing and cursing for Israel. We need to remember that both Ezekiel and Jeremiah were written in and around the exilic period. This was not a time when Israel was thriving. So while the Israelites did experience secondhand consequences for the sins of their ancestors, the point that God and the prophets make in these chapters is that the actual guilt of those sins is attributed to the one who sinned. The actual guilt of sin isn't passed down from parent to child. Therefore, these passages offer very strong disconfirmation for any notion of federal headship. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have now examined federal headship as a potential mechanism for Adam's guilt being transmitted to all of his descendants. We have cited theologians in favor of this view and brought up at least six robust reasons why the idea of federal headship is incorrect. Our main issues with federal headship that we elaborated on are as follows: 

1. Federal headship's vision of how God deals with each human judicially is inconsistent with the biblical data. 

2. Federal headship causes disharmony and disconnects in the typology between Adam and Jesus.  

3. Federal headship's understanding of how humans are represented by Adam is inconsistent with how the Bible says humans are represented by Jesus.  

4. Federal headship conflates and collapses the distinction of origin between human substances (the physical body and spiritual soul). 

5. Federal headship is almost entirely derived from a limited number of passages in the Pauline corpus. However, the doctrine is in sharp disctoninuity with the entirety of the Pauline corpus.  

6. Federal headship is more than just humans having representatives. We have zero issue with humans acting on behalf of another or people being represented by another. The issue is that federal headship entails a representation that is unconditional, unilaterial, and perpetual. And these concepts are completely foreign from any comparison the federalists make between their doctrine and human government when attempting to ground this idea in reality. 

For these reasons and more, we believe federal headship as a mechanism for imputing Adam's guilt should not be affirmed. 

That's all for now. Thank you for engaging with this article!