This is a short treatise on the household principal, apart of a larger work for class. Just throwing it out there to see what kind of feedback I get. as note if there are grammatical errors it is because I am still refining the larger work. Quite often we speak of the household principle, and defend it and use it by just assuming a set value that has been placed upon it. The principal as it is found in the Old Testament and Mosaic Covenant is often just carried over as being the norm in the New Testament. This short treatise plans to look God’s intention in having it be an integral part of the old covenant, along with it its ultimate meaning, and finally discuss the planned obsolescence for it in the New Testament. The household principal it all its simplicity is the idea that where the father or head goes so goes the rest of the family. If the father is cursed then the family is cursed with him, and if the father is blessed then the family is blessed with him. God articulates this as principal feature to the Mosaic Economy in Deuteronomy 5:9-10, and its parallel in Exodus 20:5-6. The first time we see the full effect of this principal is in Numbers 16 where Korah leads a rebellion. The Numbers story reaches its climax in Numbers 16:25-30, with the result in verses 31-33 where all of the household of Korah and those that rebelled with him were swallowed up by the ground, including their possessions. So because of his sin, his wife, and his sons, and his little ones perished. The next time this principle can be seen is with Achan in Joshua 7. A lot of people try to say the fact that his entire family dies with them is because of their complicity in the sin, but Lord destroys that theory in Joshua 7:15. "And he who is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord and because he has done an outrageous thing in Israel." The fact that Achan, and his sons, and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and even his tent, get stoned and burned is not because of what they did as individuals but because of his one transgression. Considering these two cases, and the prevalence of this household principle we have an issue when we come to the New Testament. In the Book of Acts Chapter 5 we have the story of Ananias and Sapphira. It is well known and commented on that Luke is crafting the telling of his story in the mold of the Achan narrative. They both withheld devoted things, they both were judged in community and they both result in a judgment of death. Luke even uses a rare verb from the Achan account to strengthen this tie. But what is clear in the text is the deliberateness with Luke presents the separation of Ananias and Sapphira. So much so that he points out the exact time that passes in-between their individual trials. As well as the fact that Sapphira has the chance to exonerate herself. In the narrative only Sapphira and Peter speak. Luke does not give Ananias a voice. In light the household principle and how we know it have functioned in the Old Testament, as well as Luke's ties to the Achan narrative this should appear to be striking. But it shouldn’t surprise us because scripture testifies to the planned obsolescence of the household principle in the New Testament. Most notably is the Jeremiah 31:27-30 "Behold the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will sow with the house of Israel and the House of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the Lord. In those days that shall no longer say: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." Looking forward to the New Covenant Jeremiah points to a day when the household principle will no longer be in effect. Don Carson calls this the overthrow of the tribal representative principle and by its overthrow, it requires the creation of a new covenant. What should be noted about the Jeremiah passage as well is the that just like the giving in the law in Deuteronomy and Exodus, where the household principle was established at the outset of the giving of the Decalogue, so also this overthrow of the principle finds it self right before the prophecy concerning the nature of the New Covenant. It should be apparent that the household principle was put in place deliberately in the old covenant, it was then prophesied about to find its end in the New Covenant era and we see in with Ananias and Sapphira a marked difference in administration of judgment then with Achan, proving that the household principle is no longer in effect. But the question that we should ask in light of these things is, what was God trying to communicate in the Old Covenant by instituting a household principle, so that the fortunes of the family were based on the obedience or disobedience of the family head? The fact that the household principle had a shelf life prior to the coming of Christ points to idea that God who is intentional in all that he does gave it to his people for the purpose of teaching them about an ultimate reality. The giving of shadows patterned after the reality, God condescending to speak to us on our level about things too glorious to understand. And only thing that the household principle relates to, to which it is similar is the nature of the Federal Headship with Adam and with Christ. That on the basis of the obedience or disobedience of the federal head, those represented by Adam or Christ are cursed or they are blessed. The household principle while it was in effect taught of these things, and if anything should help to strengthen that there was a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden. And because of his failure everybody who remains in Adam, has the curse of sin and guilt hanging over their head. But by faith we are united to Christ as our Federal head as result of that union we are blessed with him, we share in his victory and we are co-heirs with him of the new creation. The household principle was a shadow of this great reality, a shadow of Federal Headship with Christ. And now because the reality to which the household principle pointed to has come in the work of Christ on the Cross it is no longer necessary for it to exist in the New Covenant. God in former days spoke in a manner to which we could comprehend but now in this final day, in the light and the glory of Christ, to cling to the shadows would be blasphemous. God gave the household principle to the Israelites to teach of this greater reality. God spoke through Jeremiah looking towards a day when it would be obsolete and that day was the cross, and all its glory. The reality to which the household principle pointed was Federal Headship in Christ. Because only those who are united to Christ will be blessed by the steadfastness of the Father for a thousand generations.