Concerning Adam and Jesus

[Ormly]

Concerning Adam and Jesus ..... Orm



“God does not merely forgive our disobedience; he calls us to obedience, and to a life completely centered in Him.”……. a thesis of William Law


The question has been many times asked, “Why did God create Adam if He knew Adam would fail”, which begs another question: “Fail at what”? Answering the second question will help explain the reason for asking the first one.

Let’s look at this passage from Hebrews that pictures what Paul readily saw and understood and, as a result of that revelation understanding, wrote all his letters with it as central to his perspective:

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” Hebrews 2:9-11 (KJV)

We can see that ‘many sons for Father’ is the reason for creation and procreation would be the only means they would ever come into existence. We know that because “procreation ‘r’ us”. God would not nor could not individually create us as did He the Angels who have no redeemer nor can ever have one. If in doubt about that ask the question: “How many redeemers would be needed for each of God’s fallen creatures, if He created them all individually? Moses was commanded to strike the ‘rock’ once. Never again is the ‘Rock’, Jesus Christ, to be smitten for mankind nor need He be because He died once, for all. We know that is true and we will one day see the single set of nail prints in His Hands as an eternal testimony of that fact. The Disciples saw them first on that day in the upper room. [John 20.27] Only one set could and will ever be in His Hands. “And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Hebrews 6:5-6 (KJV)


Knowing that Adam would fail was certainly in the foreknowledge of the Father, however, Father still had to; was compelled to, follow through with His “soon to fail” creation while and at the same time, make provision for its redemption. Make no mistake about this: Adam was given humanity to its fullest degree/strength; a superhuman degree for a test Adam alone must pass in his own strength. No one could come to his aid in this. It should be understood and remembered that at this time Adam was not divine in anyway. Though he came from Hand of Divinity; Divinity formed him from dust to shine in innocence, there was not a speck of Divinity in him. He was all man could be, short of Divinity. Keep in mind he was NOT perfect. Only Divinity can ever be perfect. However, Adam was “perfectly innocent”. Innocence that needed to be groomed-tutored; to be filled with “Perfection”, the result of moral choices given him that would have accomplished the task, i.e., his transfiguration. The eating of the Tree of Life whereby he would have lived forever as God intended would have been his instead of the cruel tree needed for his redemption, suffered upon by the second/last Adam, Jesus…. Human Divinity demonstrating the Character of God would have been consummated. “It is Finished” would have been the words of Adam.

Saying this does not mean procreation would have ceased for realizing God’s ultimate intention because it was still to be the means for birthing sons and bringing them into Glory. Obviously the “new birth” or second birth would not have been needed had Adam succeeded in passing his test.

This is not about self-righteous flesh accomplishing anything for or in God but flesh totally submitting to the will of the Father as Jesus later demonstrated by His life… and for the same reasons.“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” Hebrews 10:5 (KJV). This was spoken by Christ, the Word of God, not the Son of God. The Son of God was in “hypostatic” union with Jesus; begotten human flesh as “son of man” who later, by His obedience, became transfigured. The transfiguration of Jesus was His graduation day! It was the heavenly testimony of accomplished perfection in the life of a *born sinless man and because of His obedience He is now the new Christ of Glory …. Glorified Human Flesh and Bone in Union with the Throne of God. …Consummated as the Ultimate Intention of the Father, from the beginning of the Himself. And yet not consummated as King of Kings and Lord of Lords until all His enemies are made His footstool. Until then He sits at the right hand of God pleading our case before the Throne of Grace.


Adam never enjoyed what we now can when we sin, i.e., an advocate with the Father. When they all died, the righteous of God could never enter into the presence of God because of the penalty of Adam’s transgression but were consigned to paradise; God’s holding tank, to await the Blood of the Lamb that would set them free.


Four thousand years mankind had to wait for such an advocate who, “in the fulness of time” another Adam, born not created and filled with God’s own Nature, that by His allegiance to the Nature His Father for success in the task given Him, not only redeemed mankind but demonstrated how we can do the same and must, that we overcome as He did. Jesus showed us the “way” of the cross before ever going to it to do the “work” of the cross which now, by His resurrection as proof, enables us who are faithful in Him, Christ Jesus. [Eph 1.1] (KJV only)
* Jesus had to be born and NOT created. He could not have been created because creation was completed; finished after the six days of it. There is no new creation except by His Spirit.............

 

[jamiel]

That was really illuminating! I appreciated it! I've been thinking about the Adam-Jesus connection.


One of the things that I couldn't understand is why Jesus is the "second Adam". Why is it that when Eve ate the forbidden fruit first it nevertheless is Adam who brought sin into the world? I've read justifications for this (that he has the spiritual authority of the pair) but that really didn't make sense to me.

However, very recently I read something that does indeed make much better sense and explains it all in such a profound way! It centers on Adam and Jesus. The interpretation is this:


Eve was tempted and ate first. Adam however did nothing to stop her and then sinned himself. He is the one who could've (should've) sacrificed himself for her. He was at that point sinless. Once he ate of the fruit that was impossible.

Jesus, however, gave His life for His bride. He is fully God and fully man. Because of what happened only a sinless man could lay down his life for the people in this world since the penalty of sin was death. The angels were incapable.

If we propose the scenario where only one (either Adam or Eve) ate but the other hadn't -- then I'm thinking this could've been salvageable right then! Whoever hadn't eaten could've sacrificed themselves for the other. Since they were without sin they wouldn't have stayed dead (just like Jesus). It's when both of them went down then that was it.

Eve sinned first, but Adam is chiefly responsible for the spread of sin into the world (by human means). He completed the job or guaranteed it. In fact, he didn't even correct or question Eve like she did the serpent once! Eve's sin was a self-contained one, but the disease spread to Adam and then onto us. The buck very much DID stop with Adam. This is why he is responsible.

This whole world and the course of history could've been different. He would've attained "divine" status and I agree that that wouldn't have limited procreation. WE certainly would've been the benefactors of it. But human beings when given a free choice (then) on their own just don't function like that.

I also think foreknowledge by God absolutely was at work here precisely because it all stopped with Adam (a man) and fully a man in Jesus (God's only begotten Son) would be needed for salvation. It's a matching or symmetry that completes the process.

So in this way, Jesus is the "second Adam", doing what the first one didn't do. What a powerful lesson that we can't do it on our own. We can't save ourselves and need God. I think it's brilliant!

Make no mistake about this: Adam was given humanity to its fullest degree/strength; a superhuman degree for a test Adam alone must pass in his own strength. No one could come to his aid in this.

I fully believe this! This was certainly a key point. Just how it was set up meant it rested on him.

However, Adam was “perfectly innocent”. Innocence that needed to be groomed-tutored; to be filled with “Perfection”, the result of moral choices given him that would have accomplished the task, i.e., his transfiguration.

Human Divinity demonstrating the Character of God would have been consummated. “It is Finished” would have been the words of Adam.

ITA! It would've changed everything. We're getting the tutoring for what will eventually come in God's Plan.



God Bless.

 

[Ormly]

That was really illuminating! I appreciated it! I've been thinking about the Adam-Jesus connection.


One of the things that I couldn't understand is why Jesus is the "second Adam". Why is it that when Eve ate the forbidden fruit first it nevertheless is Adam who brought sin into the world? I've read justifications for this (that he has the spiritual authority of the pair) but that really didn't make sense to me.

However, very recently I read something that does indeed make much better sense and explains it all in such a profound way! It centers on Adam and Jesus. The interpretation is this:


Eve was tempted and ate first. Adam however did nothing to stop her and then sinned himself. He is the one who could've (should've) sacrificed himself for her. He was at that point sinless. Once he ate of the fruit that was impossible.

Jesus, however, gave His life for His bride. He is fully God and fully man. Because of what happened only a sinless man could lay down his life for the people in this world since the penalty of sin was death. The angels were incapable.

If we propose the scenario where only one (either Adam or Eve) ate but the other hadn't -- then I'm thinking this could've been salvageable right then! Whoever hadn't eaten could've sacrificed themselves for the other. Since they were without sin they wouldn't have stayed dead (just like Jesus). It's when both of them went down then that was it.

Eve sinned first, but Adam is chiefly responsible for the spread of sin into the world (by human means). He completed the job or guaranteed it. In fact, he didn't even correct or question Eve like she did the serpent once! Eve's sin was a self-contained one, but the disease spread to Adam and then onto us. The buck very much DID stop with Adam. This is why he is responsible.

This whole world and the course of history could've been different. He would've attained "divine" status and I agree that that wouldn't have limited procreation. WE certainly would've been the benefactors of it. But human beings when given a free choice (then) on their own just don't function like that.

I also think foreknowledge by God absolutely was at work here precisely because it all stopped with Adam (a man) and fully a man in Jesus (God's only begotten Son) would be needed for salvation. It's a matching or symmetry that completes the process.

So in this way, Jesus is the "second Adam", doing what the first one didn't do. What a powerful lesson that we can't do it on our own. We can't save ourselves and need God. I think it's brilliant!





I fully believe this! This was certainly a key point. Just how it was set up meant it rested on him.



ITA! It would've changed everything. We're getting the tutoring for what will eventually come in God's Plan.



God Bless.

Good thinking in this concerning Eve. I never made the connection before as you have presented her. Thanks.

This is what I see when equating fallen Eve with the culture of the worlds people who say, I partook of this fruit and if you want me you will have to join me. Adam can then be seen as leadership that prostitutes itself from self-love for "gain"; persuades himself into believing he can reclaim her by accomodating her, after all, just look at the results of "souls for Christ" we will get by doing so! And todays leadership does so from reasoning that God declares to be anathema to Him.... Adam's reasoning? Perhaps.

Who will redeem His Church, His Eve, except Christ himself.
Woe to them at that time, who call themselves shepherds but have led His Church astray. Woe to them who call themselves, "His Body" who have allowed themselves to be led atray in exchange for the full bellies!

Thanks, Jamiel for sharing that piece

 

[KCDAD]

Concerning Adam and Jesus ..... Orm



“God does not merely forgive our disobedience; he calls us to obedience, and to a life completely centered in Him.”……. a thesis of William Law


The question has been many times asked, “Why did God create Adam if He knew Adam would fail”, which begs another question: “Fail at what”? Answering the second question will help explain the reason for asking the first one.

Let’s look at this passage from Hebrews that pictures what Paul readily saw and understood and, as a result of that revelation understanding, wrote all his letters with it as central to his perspective:

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” Hebrews 2:9-11 (KJV)

We can see that ‘many sons for Father’ is the reason for creation and procreation would be the only means they would ever come into existence. We know that because “procreation ‘r’ us”. God would not nor could not individually create us as did He the Angels who have no redeemer nor can ever have one. If in doubt about that ask the question: “How many redeemers would be needed for each of God’s fallen creatures, if He created them all individually? Moses was commanded to strike the ‘rock’ once. Never again is the ‘Rock’, Jesus Christ, to be smitten for mankind nor need He be because He died once, for all. We know that is true and we will one day see the single set of nail prints in His Hands as an eternal testimony of that fact. The Disciples saw them first on that day in the upper room. [John 20.27] Only one set could and will ever be in His Hands. “And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Hebrews 6:5-6 (KJV)


Knowing that Adam would fail was certainly in the foreknowledge of the Father, however, Father still had to; was compelled to, follow through with His “soon to fail” creation while and at the same time, make provision for its redemption. Make no mistake about this: Adam was given humanity to its fullest degree/strength; a superhuman degree for a test Adam alone must pass in his own strength. No one could come to his aid in this. It should be understood and remembered that at this time Adam was not divine in anyway. Though he came from Hand of Divinity; Divinity formed him from dust to shine in innocence, there was not a speck of Divinity in him. He was all man could be, short of Divinity. Keep in mind he was NOT perfect. Only Divinity can ever be perfect. However, Adam was “perfectly innocent”. Innocence that needed to be groomed-tutored; to be filled with “Perfection”, the result of moral choices given him that would have accomplished the task, i.e., his transfiguration. The eating of the Tree of Life whereby he would have lived forever as God intended would have been his instead of the cruel tree needed for his redemption, suffered upon by the second/last Adam, Jesus…. Human Divinity demonstrating the Character of God would have been consummated. “It is Finished” would have been the words of Adam.

Saying this does not mean procreation would have ceased for realizing God’s ultimate intention because it was still to be the means for birthing sons and bringing them into Glory. Obviously the “new birth” or second birth would not have been needed had Adam succeeded in passing his test.

This is not about self-righteous flesh accomplishing anything for or in God but flesh totally submitting to the will of the Father as Jesus later demonstrated by His life… and for the same reasons.“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” Hebrews 10:5 (KJV). This was spoken by Christ, the Word of God, not the Son of God. The Son of God was in “hypostatic” union with Jesus; begotten human flesh as “son of man” who later, by His obedience, became transfigured. The transfiguration of Jesus was His graduation day! It was the heavenly testimony of accomplished perfection in the life of a *born sinless man and because of His obedience He is now the new Christ of Glory …. Glorified Human Flesh and Bone in Union with the Throne of God. …Consummated as the Ultimate Intention of the Father, from the beginning of the Himself. And yet not consummated as King of Kings and Lord of Lords until all His enemies are made His footstool. Until then He sits at the right hand of God pleading our case before the Throne of Grace.


Adam never enjoyed what we now can when we sin, i.e., an advocate with the Father. When they all died, the righteous of God could never enter into the presence of God because of the penalty of Adam’s transgression but were consigned to paradise; God’s holding tank, to await the Blood of the Lamb that would set them free.


Four thousand years mankind had to wait for such an advocate who, “in the fulness of time” another Adam, born not created and filled with God’s own Nature, that by His allegiance to the Nature His Father for success in the task given Him, not only redeemed mankind but demonstrated how we can do the same and must, that we overcome as He did. Jesus showed us the “way” of the cross before ever going to it to do the “work” of the cross which now, by His resurrection as proof, enables us who are faithful in Him, Christ Jesus. [Eph 1.1] (KJV only)
* Jesus had to be born and NOT created. He could not have been created because creation was completed; finished after the six days of it. There is no new creation except by His Spirit.............

Wow. This is great... presuming Adam, (in Hebrew, adam) meaning "mankind" was ever intended to represent one single human being.

However, I think you will find it difficult to find any serious scholar who thinks Genesis was intended to be a factual account of the first human being.

 

[Ormly]

Wow. This is great... presuming Adam, (in Hebrew, adam) meaning "mankind" was ever intended to represent one single human being.

However, I think you will find it difficult to find any serious scholar who thinks Genesis was intended to be a factual account of the first human being.

I understand, as I don't believe all who say they are of Christ, will make the cut.

 

[KCDAD]

I understand, as I don't believe all who say they are of Christ, will make the cut.

What is that supposed to mean? A rather cryptic non response...

 

[Ormly]

What is that supposed to mean? A rather cryptic non response...

Try this out: I was a UMC and left. I couldn't endure the Spiritual distruction. I believe I made the cut.

 

[KCDAD]

Try this out: I was a UMC and left. I couldn't endure the Spiritual distruction. I believe I made the cut.

Wow! Good for you. You made the cut.

You are a superior human being.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus.

God doesn't play favorites when it comes to which church you attend, nor even if you attend a church.

 

[Ormly]

Wow! Good for you. You made the cut.

You are a superior human being.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus.

God doesn't play favorites when it comes to which church you attend, nor even if you attend a church.

True, however, it was for the reason of the absence His Gospel preached and the shallowness of the people's spirituality that "elected" such the preacher, that I left. I would rather not attend any church than to go back to any UMC.

 

[KCDAD]

True, however, it was for the reason of the absence His Gospel preached and the shallowness of the people's spirituality that "elected" such the preacher, that I left. I would rather not attend any church than to go back to any UMC.

That is a good point. All United Methodist Churches and their congregants are exactly the same. Of course, it goes without saying that every Methodist preacher is alike. You have made a wise decision. (Aren't preachers "elected" by God? Isn't that what ordination is all about?)

Find a good Baptist or Presbyterian Church (sorry, you guys), their members are never shallow.

 

[Ormly]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I found few at UMC's who read their Bible.

 

[jamiel]

However, I think you will find it difficult to find any serious scholar who thinks Genesis was intended to be a factual account of the first human being.

I take it as allegory (including symbolism) while simultaneously finding spiritual truth in it. To me that doesn't at all make it less valid (whether there was an actual "Adam" or not). This account is very much saying something about human beings. It's all about the message. At it's heart, all of the Bible is about the spiritual message.



God Bless.

 

[Ormly]

I take it as allegory (including symbolism) while simultaneously finding spiritual truth in it. To me that doesn't at all make it less valid (whether there was an actual "Adam" or not). This account is very much saying something about human beings. It's all about the message. At it's heart, all of the Bible is about the spiritual message.



God Bless.

I have just been disppointed

 

[greatnut]

I think a good rule in interpreting the Bible is to take literally what can be taken literally.

And I have no problem with a literal Adam, a literal Eve, a literal tree in a literal garden - which existed till a literal flood.

 

[Ormly]

I think a good rule in interpreting the Bible is to take literally what can be taken literally.

And I have no problem with a literal Adam, a literal Eve, a literal tree in a literal garden - which existed till a literal flood.

The rule for understanding anything written is to first let it say what it says.

 

[KCDAD]

I take it as allegory (including symbolism) while simultaneously finding spiritual truth in it. To me that doesn't at all make it less valid (whether there was an actual "Adam" or not). This account is very much saying something about human beings. It's all about the message. At it's heart, all of the Bible is about the spiritual message.



God Bless.

Absolutely correct. There is truth in it. The story is not The Truth. The Truth is found in it.

 

[CShephard53]

Wow. This is great... presuming Adam, (in Hebrew, adam) meaning "mankind" was ever intended to represent one single human being.

However, I think you will find it difficult to find any serious scholar who thinks Genesis was intended to be a factual account of the first human being.

Nice claim.

You are a superior human being.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus.

God doesn't play favorites when it comes to which church you attend, nor even if you attend a church.

Fortunately, KC, your sarcasm has nothing to do with the Gospel either. You might be a 'superior human being' by cutting that.

Absolutely correct. There is truth in it. The story is not The Truth. The Truth is found in it.

Yes, and either of you have backing to these claims?

 

[jamiel]

I have just been disppointed

I'm sorry to read you feel that way. I'm equally disappointed as well.

Sometimes I think Christianity (and every third person in this world is a Christian . . . ) is a much bigger tent than some people realize.

I think a good rule in interpreting the Bible is to take literally what can be taken literally.

Yes, I did that.

The rule for understanding anything written is to first let it say what it says.

Yeah, I did that too!


Wholesale "literalism" regarding the Bible in my opinion has to be one of the BIG misinterpretations I see going on.

And yet despite me not taking that account literally -- I still take it just as seriously as you do, Ormly! How about that? We're not "off" of the same page regarding this.

Please don't be afraid or leery of words like "allegory", "metaphor", "story", etc. or even -- "parable"!

Jesus' parables most certainly hold great, ultimate, spiritual truth in their messages even though he's not talking about a specific, "literal" vineyard owner or prodigal son, etc. as he described . . . Must I believe the actual vineyard owner existed to understand that parable? I understand it even if these characters didn't exist and apply them to my life. No difference to me.



God Bless.

 

[greatnut]

Jamiel

You wrote...

Jesus' parables most certainly hold great, ultimate, spiritual truth in their messages even though he's not talking about a specific, "literal" vineyard owner or prodigal son, etc. as he described . . . Must I believe the actual vineyard owner existed to understand that parable? I understand it even if these characters didn't exist and apply them to my life. No difference to me.

It sounds like you have the right approach to reading the Bible. It is quite clear when Christ spoke in parables (parallels) because He told us that He did. It was his favorite figure of speech. And He also liked metaphor. It generally is not hard to tell when He means something literally either. Occasionally it is difficult to tell if He means something literally. Take the rich man and Lazarus of Luke 16. I always wonder about whether there was a literal Lazarus. He lived a pretty rough life for someone God loved.

 

[Ormly]

I'm sorry to read you feel that way. I'm equally disappointed as well.

Sometimes I think Christianity (and every third person in this world is a Christian . . . ) is a much bigger tent than some people realize.



Yes, I did that.



Yeah, I did that too!


Wholesale "literalism" regarding the Bible in my opinion has to be one of the BIG misinterpretations I see going on.

And yet despite me not taking that account literally -- I still take it just as seriously as you do, Ormly! How about that? We're not "off" of the same page regarding this.

Please don't be afraid or leery of words like "allegory", "metaphor", "story", etc. or even -- "parable"!

Jesus' parables most certainly hold great, ultimate, spiritual truth in their messages even though he's not talking about a specific, "literal" vineyard owner or prodigal son, etc. as he described . . . Must I believe the actual vineyard owner existed to understand that parable? I understand it even if these characters didn't exist and apply them to my life. No difference to me.



God Bless.

Note, whenever Jesus spoke in parables He NEVER used names in them.

Think about that when you wish to believe the stories in the Bible to be allegorical or metaphor.

OMT, The Bible not just about a spiritual message.