Our Union With Adam & the Necessity of the Virgin Birth

Someone on 𝕏 posed the question: “Why is sin inherited but salvation isn’t?”

I responded with the following:

“There are three views of our union with Adam:

Representative – Adam acted as our federal head; his guilt is imputed to us.¹

Seminal – We were biologically “in Adam.”²

Realistic – Adam was the universal essence of humanity.³

I hold to the representative view: we are counted guilty because Adam represented us. Likewise, all who are in Christ are counted righteous because He represents them. There’s no inconsistency or unfairness (Rom. 5:15–19).”

An acquaintance of mine who goes by @5pointbaptist⁴ responded with:

“Agreed. Which is also why I don’t buy the ‘Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to escape original sin’ claim. It’s not seminal; it’s representative.”

This led to a relatively brief but in-depth discussion about the nuances of the representative view and whether or not the virgin birth was indeed necessary.⁵

I was always under the impression that Jesus had to be born the way He did because sin passes down through the male line.⁶ In my attempt to explain how this accords with the representative view, I proposed the following:

“I think a case could be made that federal headship passes through the male line. Scripture consistently ties covenant representation, genealogies, and inheritance to fathers rather than mothers. So while Adam is the federal head of all humanity, we come under that headship through our fathers.

If that’s the case, then it would follow that Jesus had to be born of a virgin.”

He responded with the following:

“I try to understand it through all 3 acts of imputation. Our sin isn’t imputed to Christ through male lineage and His righteousness is not imputation to us through male lineage. Based upon this, I don’t see a need to assume original sin is based upon male lineage. I simply see us as ‘in Adam’ because we all come from Adam.”

I found that to be a very interesting point. The way I’d respond now (if I were arguing for my original hypothesis) is that, while I grant there is a parallel between Adam’s imputation and Christ’s imputation—in fact, that’s one of the main reasons I hold to the representative view—there’s also a key difference in that there is no double imputation with Adam (we don’t impute anything back to him), whereas there is with Christ (the Great Exchange). So I would say the imputation of our sin to Christ could arguably be dismissed here. That leaves Adam’s guilt being imputed to us versus Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us. In both cases, it’s through male headship (consistent with the view being posited).

However, one might argue that there’s no need to introduce an extra step with Adam’s imputation (it passing through, as it were, an intermediate male line) when Christ’s imputation doesn’t require that. One possible response would be that Adam’s imputation depends upon one being physically born from him through natural generation; consequently, there are necessary intermediate steps (i.e., we have to be born from a mom and a dad, who were themselves born from their parents, and so on).⁷ Whereas Christ’s imputation is connected to supernatural birth, which doesn’t require a chain, so to speak. Thus, while both Adam and Christ represent their respective people directly, our relationship to Adam necessarily involves generational descent in a way that our relationship to Christ does not.

I’m now convinced the view I was attempting to argue for might not be the best explanation, if for no other reason than that I realized a potentially fatal flaw in it. That is, if it is the case that Adam’s federal headship is direct, but we come under that federal headship through our fathers due to the fact that paternal headship is reflected throughout Scripture, then is it not the case that, while Jesus didn’t have a biological father, He nonetheless had an earthly father who was the legal head of His household? In that case, it would not matter that Joseph was not Jesus’s biological father. He was still His legal father and, consistent with the logic of the argument, Jesus would therefore not be exempt from coming under the federal headship of Adam simply because Joseph was not His biological father.

It seems, rather, that the best explanation, and one that is consistent with the WCF,⁸ is simply that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because “Adam represents only his natural progeny, and that by God’s ordination. … [That is to say] God so constituted the covenant union that Adam represents only his natural children. Jesus is not completely his natural child, because [while He was] born a human being naturally, . . . [it was] a supernatural, miraculous birth.”⁹ Consequently, if those who are “a part of the old human race represented by Adam” are to be represented by Jesus, “they too have to be born miraculously.”¹⁰ All that to say, I now believe the more accurate distinction is between ordinary and extraordinary generation, rather than between paternal and maternal descent.

The virgin birth was necessary because God established that it would be through ordinary generation that man falls under Adam’s condemnation. Jesus’s entrance into humanity, therefore, had to be extraordinary. Jesus came to be the head of a new humanity. It’s worth noting in this connection that there are several relevant parallels between Adam and Christ. For example, neither one’s entrance into humanity was the result of ordinary generation from two parents.¹¹ Luke refers to Adam as “the son of God” (Luke 3:38) and Jesus as “the Son of God” (Luke 4:3, 9). Paul explicitly draws parallels between the first Adam and last Adam (Jesus) in 1 Corinthians 15:45–49. You’re either “in Adam” or “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12–19).

In conclusion, there are three views of our union with Adam: the representative view, the seminal view, and the realistic view. I maintain that the representative view is the biblical position and that there are significant issues with the other two. When Adam sinned, God legally counted it as us having sinned. Those who are naturally born by ordinary generation come under Adam’s federal headship. Some might object to this, but if you’re going to be consistent, you must ultimately object to Christ’s representation as well. After all, He is the one who obeyed God perfectly, not you. Why should you get His righteousness imputed to you?

Whether it nevertheless remains the case that Jesus being born without a biological father specifically has particular significance with respect to His sinlessness, I’m not sure. What we can definitively say is that the extraordinary nature of His birth was necessary. This is consistent with Scripture, the Confession, and the representative view (which, as already noted, I maintain is also scriptural).

1. What Adam did, God legally counts us as having done. ↩︎
2. Proponents of this view point to Hebrews 7:9–10 as an example of this principle. One problem with this view, as Greg Bahnsen points out, is that “according to the Bible, we are guilty for the first sin of Adam. But we are not guilty for his subsequent sins. . . .” Greg L. Bahnsen, “28 – Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment, Ch. 6, Sec. 3 (28 of 46)”, Westminster Confession Faith, 9:28. To restrict our guilt to only Adam’s first sin would seem arbitrary on the seminal view, while not restricting it would put the view out of step with Scripture. Another problem is that it does not seem consistent with the parallel Scripture draws between Adam’s imputation and Christ’s imputation. That is, Christ’s imputation is not seminal. ↩︎
3. Platonic philosophy posits that there are forms and there are particulars that participate in those forms. Individual instances belong to classes or categories. For example, 3 particular ducks all share in the one category of “duckness.” Likewise, different humans all share in the category (or form) of humanity. So according to the argument, “at the time of Adam, human nature was totally comprehended in the one particular” (i.e., Adam). “Whatever was true of him was true of the form of humanity.” So, when Adam sins, the human form is corrupted. The problem with this view, as Bahnsen points out, is that “human nature was not comprehended in the particular. In fact, that confuses the form… and the particular. . . It’s not as though the form is made up by the particulars.” Adam was not the “form of humanity”; he was “the particular instance of humanity.” Another problem is that “Adam wasn’t the only human being at the time when he sinned. He was the only male human being. What are we going to do with Eve? Was she subhuman on this view?” Greg L. Bahnsen, “28 – Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment, Ch. 6, Sec. 3 (28 of 46)”, Westminster Confession Faith, 11:05-15:17. ↩︎
4. @5pointbaptist was part of a group of apologists (which included Tom from Jude 3 Ministries [who used to have the YouTube channel 1tmoch], Louis from Truth Defender Ministries, Greg Crouse, James, etc. [I don’t recall all their last names]) who would go out to the Third Street Promenade. One of my favorite YouTube channels from back in the day was the one that housed all their street apologetics videos. So good. Can’t recommend highly enough. Unfortunately, virtually all of them have since been lost. ↩︎
5. We both agree that the virgin birth was necessary insofar as it was prophesied and therefore could not fail to come to pass. The discussion was geared more toward whether the virgin birth was necessary in order for Jesus to be born sinless. ↩︎
6. This is a common view that attempts to explain how Jesus, who was fully man, could be born without a sin nature. While I embraced it for a time, I never gave it much thought in relation to the different views of our union with Adam. I suppose if I were to hold to the seminal view, it might lend more credence to this explanation. But, alas, I do not. So, what I was trying to do was shoehorn the idea that Jesus had to be born without a biological father into the representative view. ↩︎
7. Of course, Cain, Abel, and Seth would be exceptions with respect to the need for a chain of intermediate generations. Nevertheless, on the hypothesis being considered, the guilt of Adam’s first sin would still be imputed to them as his naturally generated offspring through paternal descent; they simply would not have intervening generations between themselves and Adam. ↩︎
8. Westminster Confession of Faith 6.3: “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.” ↩︎
9. Greg L. Bahnsen, “28 – Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment, Ch. 6, Sec. 3(28 of46)”, Westminster Confession Faith, 57:55–58:24. ↩︎
10. Greg L. Bahnsen, “29 – Fall of Man, Sin, Punishment, Ch. 6, Sec. 3 (29 of 46)”, Westminster Confession Faith, 3:55. ↩︎
11. Of course, unlike Adam, Jesus had to have a mother because He came not to originate humanity but to assume it and redeem it. ↩︎