Jesus and Adam

[newton3005]

1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests a chronological connection between Adam and Jesus. It says, “... it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” There is enough in the Bible to at least suggest that the “last Adam” is Jesus. One wonders, though, why this Verse refers to Jesus as “the last Adam.” To what purpose?

Neither appear to be alike. Adam was made from the dust in the ground, according to Genesis 2:7. Jesus was conceived “from the Holy Spirit,” as it says in Matthew 1: 20. Adam sinned, but Jesus is perfect; he is immune to sin. So what’s with the “last Adam” Shpiel?

Is he referred to as the last Adam, because, perhaps, he is the last person having a direct relationship with God? Or could the reference to the last Adam be one of a new beginning?

John 1:1 strongly infers that Jesus was with God at “the beginning.” Also, “the beginning” referred to here is the same beginning as referred to in Genesis 1:1. So, Jesus actually existed before Adam. Although some suggest that 1 Corinthians 15:45 is fortified by Job 19:25, Jesus was standing at the ‘first’ as well, albeit it not on earth yet.

Perhaps it was important to distance the Jesus who stood on earth from the Jesus who stood in Heaven, and in this regard, to avoid equating Jesus with earthly man, he is referred to as an Adam. If so, to what purpose? Seems that by the time 1 Corinthians 15:45 is laid out, it is known of the distinction between Jesus and man, including the man Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45 may suggest not to think of Jesus of Heaven as the same as Jesus on earth. But that seems as absurd as to not think that the fictional Superman who flies through the air is not the same as the fictional Superman who stands on the ground.

Something else to ponder...how could “the last Adam” be a life-giving spirit when it is clear that Adam was a man devoid of such power? In terms of the use of “Adam,” seems that something got lost in the translation. Perhaps Paul used the word “beginning” in the first and the last, but through the years it evolved into Adam. But if Paul really meant Adam, then the significance doesn’t seem to be apparent.

 

[public hermit]

suggests a chronological connection between Adam and Jesus. It says, “... it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” There is enough in the Bible to at least suggest that the “last Adam” is Jesus. One wonders, though, why this Verse refers to Jesus as “the last Adam.” To what purpose?

I would say the connection is metaphysical/ ontological instead of chronological. Christ is the last Adam (human) because he is the ideal for which Adam (humanity) was created. The first Adam was created in time; the second Adam is eternal and enters time to bring to fulfillment the divine intention for the first.

 

[Clare73]

1 Corinthians 15:45 suggests a chronological connection between Adam and Jesus. It says, “... it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” There is enough in the Bible to at least suggest that the “last Adam” is Jesus. One wonders, though, why this Verse refers to Jesus as “the last Adam.” To what purpose?
Neither appear to be alike. Adam was made from the dust in the ground, according to Genesis 2:7. Jesus was conceived “from the Holy Spirit,” as it says in Matthew 1: 20. Adam sinned, but Jesus is perfect; he is immune to sin. So what’s with the “last Adam” Shpiel?
Is he referred to as the last Adam, because, perhaps, he is the last person having a direct relationship with God? Or could the reference to the last Adam be one of a new beginning?

John 1:1 strongly infers that Jesus was with God at “the beginning.” Also, “the beginning” referred to here is the same beginning as referred to in Genesis 1:1. So, Jesus actually existed before Adam. Although some suggest that 1 Corinthians 15:45 is fortified by Job 19:25, Jesus was standing at the ‘first’ as well, albeit it not on earth yet.

Perhaps it was important to distance the Jesus who stood on earth from the Jesus who stood in Heaven, and in this regard, to avoid equating Jesus with earthly man, he is referred to as an Adam. If so, to what purpose? Seems that by the time 1 Corinthians 15:45 is laid out, it is known of the distinction between Jesus and man, including the man Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45 may suggest not to think of Jesus of Heaven as the same as Jesus on earth. But that seems as absurd as to not think that the fictional Superman who flies through the air is not the same as the fictional Superman who stands on the ground.

Something else to ponder...how could “the last Adam” be a life-giving spirit when it is clear that Adam was a man devoid of such power? In terms of the use of “Adam,” seems that something got lost in the translation. Perhaps Paul used the word “beginning” in the first and the last, but through the years it evolved into Adam. But if Paul really meant Adam, then the significance doesn’t seem to be apparent.

Jesus is the second Adam in that:

1) all those born of the first Adam are condemned in spiritual death, while all those born of the second Adam are justified in spiritual life (Ro 5:18),
2) all those born of the first Adam were made sinners, while all those born of the second Adam are made righteous (Ro 5:19),
3) as Adam's sin was imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-14), so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11),
4) as those in Adam all die, so those in Christ all will be made alive (1 Co 15:22),
5) as Adam was a natural (sinful) living mortal physical body giving a natural (sinful) living mortal physical body to his descendants,
so Christ is a life-giving Spirit giving a spiritual (sinless) living immortal physical body (resurrection) to his descendants (1 Co 15:44-45).

 

[newton3005]

Jesus is the second Adam

IMHO, 'the second Adam is a weird name to label Jesus with. That's like referring to the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the 'second Hitler,' in that, just as contrary to Chancellor Hitler, Merkel was a decent Chancellor, so, contrary to Adam, Jesus is a totally righteous being, free from the sins and evil temptation that Adam fell for.

So, there is either a goof in the translation concerning this passage, or within the recesses of the Bible there is a purpose for referring to Jesus as the second Adam, instead of referring to him as something like the 'second beginning.'

 

[Andrewn]

IMHO, 'the second Adam is a weird name to label Jesus with. That's like referring to the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the 'second Hitler,' in that, just as contrary to Chancellor Hitler, Merkel was a decent Chancellor, so, contrary to Adam, Jesus is a totally righteous being, free from the sins and evil temptation that Adam fell for.

Your example of Hitler and Angela Merkel is not a bad one. Both were Federal Heads of the German nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world.

"In Christianity, this concept has been used to explain the concepts of the covenants found in the Bible. In particular, it has been applied to passages such as Romans 5:12-21, explaining the relation of all humanity with Adam, as well as the relation of redeemed humanity with Jesus Christ, who is called the last Adam. According to this understanding, as humanity's federal head Adam brought the entire human race into sin, misery, and death due to his disobedience.[5] Christ, in his perfect obedience to God the Father, earned eternal life and blessedness for all his people.[6]"

Federal headship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the Cambridge Commentary, "Christ is called the last Adam because He was a new starting-point of humanity. Thus to be in Christ is called a ‘new creation,’ 2 Corinthians 5:17 (cf. Galatians 6:15). He is called the ‘new man,’ created after God in righteousness and holiness,’ Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10, Whom we are to ‘put on,’ Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27."

 

[Clare73]

IMHO, 'the second Adam is a weird name to label Jesus with. That's like referring to the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the 'second Hitler,' in that, just as contrary to Chancellor Hitler, Merkel was a decent Chancellor, so, contrary to Adam, Jesus is a totally righteous being, free from the sins and evil temptation that Adam fell for.

So, there is either a goof in the translation concerning this passage, or within the recesses of the Bible there is a purpose for referring to Jesus as the second Adam, instead of referring to him as something like the 'second beginning.'

"In thy humble opinion" thou judgeth the word of the LORD! ! ! ???

Thou dost think thyself more wise than the word of the LORD, that he should use "second beginning" instead of "second Adam"! ! ! ???

Dost thou not realize that as the OT sacrifices were a pattern of the NT sacrifice,
so Adam, as head of the original creation in Adam, was a pattern of the head of the new creation in Christ?

Dost thou not realize that Adam was a pattern of Jesus in that:
1) all those born of the first Adam are condemned in spiritual death, while all those born of the second Adam are justified in spiritual life (Ro 5:18),
2) all those born of the first Adam were made sinners, while all those born of the second Adam are made righteous (Ro 5:19),
3) as Adam's sin was imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-14), so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11),
4) as those in Adam all die, so those in Christ all will be made alive (1 Co 15:22),
5) as Adam was a natural (sinful) living mortal physical body giving a natural (sinful) living mortal physical body to his descendants,
so Christ is a life-giving Spirit giving a spiritual (sinless) living immortal physical body (resurrection) to his descendants (1 Co 15:44-45)?

As for me and my house, Adam was a pattern of Jesus Christ just as the word of the LORD presents.

 

[newton3005]

Thou judgeth the word of the LORD! ! ! ???

Methinks thouest may protest too much...

TO CONSIDER, OR NOT TO CONSIDER? That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of WONDROUS SUMMATIONS,
Or to take arms against a sea of PRE-FABRICATED IMPROVISATIONS SUCH AS “A PATTERN,”
And by opposing end them. OR To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The ARGUMENTS and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: HERE IS a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to DREAM?—ay, there's the rub...

As for dreams...Under God, not even our dreams can shield us from His Majesty; He need only send an angel to appear in our dreams to tell it like it is. Some may be waiting for such an angel to appear in their dreams, as a variation of “wait for the Lord,” espoused in Psalm 27:14.

Some infer that in God’s name at least, the “second Adam” denotes the second humanity of those born in the dust like Adam was, formulated as man’s second chance if explained in the context of the Law, the Prophets and Jesus.

In that regard, considering the shape the world is in, a second chance is badly needed...

 

[Clare73]

Methinks thouest may protest too much...

Meknows that "in the humility of thy opinion" thou hast falsely charged, because thou knowest not the Scriptures.

TO CONSIDER, OR NOT TO CONSIDER? That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of WONDROUS SUMMATIONS,
or take arms against a sea of PRE-FABRICATED IMPROVISATIONS SUCH AS “A PATTERN,”

See Ro 5:14 for Adam as the pattern of Christ.

If you do not understand the patterns/types in Scripture (Col 2:17, Heb 10:1), you are without moorings and free to view things as you wish them to be, as in "the second beginning."

 

[newton3005]

See Ro 5:14 for Adam as the pattern of Christ.

Please quote the word "pattern" in that passage, or any others you have in mind. Any words not specifically mentioned in the Bible, can amount to improvisations that can draw us away from our faith if we aren't careful. Acceptance of the Bible is based on faith, so it really can't be tampered with since we don't read the Bible for any facts it may contain. We all run that risk when we resort to any paraphrasing of things in the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Please quote the word "pattern" in that passage, or any others you have in mind. Any words not specifically mentioned in the Bible, can amount to improvisations that can draw us away from our faith if we aren't careful. Acceptance of the Bible is based on faith, so it really can't be tampered with since we don't read the Bible for any facts it may contain. We all run that risk when we resort to any paraphrasing of things in the Bible.

The definition of type (tupos, hupotuposis, hupodeigma from tupto - "to strike:" therefore, impression, stamp, figure, image, form, model, pattern, example (Ro 5:14, Tit 2:7, 1Tim 1:16, 2 Tim 1:13, Heb 9:23, etc.)