First Adam, Second Adam?

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I probably should know this by now, but I still don't understand when I read things about the First Adam and the Second Adam? Why do they refer to Jesus I am assuming as the second Adam?

Thanks,
Nancy:confused:

[Paige]

Hey Nancy,

I've supplied an excerpt from an article I wrote a while back. I think it may shed some light on the topic:


I begin with what I understand of federal headship.The bible speaks in 1 Cor. 15:22, of people “in Adam”, and “in Christ”. Rom. 5 contrasts the “death” experienced in Adam with the “life”that would come through Christ. In vs.14 we are told that Adam was a type of Him who was to come. I would like to quote from an article written by Marcus Booker that I believe lays out some very clear teaching on the issue of federal headship:

“Christ as Federal Head
Ephesians speaks of two estranged parties being formed into one "new man." This man, as the context demonstrates, is Christ, who put to death the enmity in the flesh. The two parties are Jews and Gentiles who are united together into this "new covenant." Paul here embodies the covenant itself in the personhood of Jesus. John likewise describes Jesus as "the word made flesh." This "word" is the covenant of God in a person; it is the law incarnate. It's as the Psalms say, "His word he gave unto Jacob, His law to Israel." Christ is the fulfillment of the law. The law is contained in him. His body is the temple. In this very context, John contrasts two covenants: "the law through Moses" and "the grace and truth through Jesus Christ." This "grace and truth" is a new law. And John, affirming that the law is contained in Jesus, states that Jesus is "full of grace and truth."

Adam as Federal Head
Adam too represents the covenant. From the account in Genesis (delivered unto Jacob as they received their law), it is evident that he is a representative figure for national Israel. In Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth. Isaiah speaks similarly and explicitly of a creation of heavens and earth in proclaiming the establishment of a covenant. Also, Moses calls the "heavens and earth" to witness against Israel. [Note: Hosea suggests a covenant with Adam (sometimes translated generically as man)]. Moreover, Adam sees a glimpse of the holy days of the covenant. God makes the sun, moon, and stars for "signs, seasons, days, and years." He hereby establishes the days of observation, an integral part of the covenant. Paul, in writing the Galatians, calls them "days, months, seasons, and years," which the Galatians need not observe (released from the law as they were). Also, the sabbath is apparent in the Genesis account. Furthermore, like Jabob's race, God blessed Adam and gave him a law, consisting of blessings and curses. The blessing was long life in the land (Eden). The curse was death and exile from the land. And like Adam, Israel had made void the covenant. It is in this way that Adam is a figure for Israel. After Adam made void the covenant and is cast from his land, God clothes him in animal skins (which demonstrated grace and required a bloody sacrifice of another for the sake of a sinner)

Hope this is helpful,
Paige

[Amie]

Nancy,

After "adam", there were those born after his kind - children, grandchildren, etc; and then those after his kind - they learned the knowledge gained from the tree of knowledge and reacted the same way (like him).

Eventually, everyone was pretty much 'adam-kind'. "In adam, all died." In contrast, it was by Christ/through Christ that life came to the world. Therefore, "in Christ all" were "made alive".

1 Corinthians 15
22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Then look here (same book and chapter):

45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

To "quicken" is to make something/someone alive. Adam, worked to maintain his own life. Pretty much, 'he made a living'. He eventually died just as those who were like him would. So his work didn't bring gain to anyone. Jesus on the other hand, brought life to others.

If you will notice, Jesus is the "last" adam. From then on, he would be working to maintain life and there would be no more adam-kind - know what I mean?

(Again same book, same chapter):

46: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The above is what usually creates some confusion. We've now moved from Jesus being the "last adam" to his being the "second man". Another change that has happened, imo, is that we've also moved from talking about Jesus himself, to his creation - those that he brings life to.

So while Jesus is the "last adam", the "new creation" in him, is the "second man" ("man" = "mankind").

We can see evidence of this in the very next verse:

48: As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

The above uses a plural to describe "earthy man" because there are many of them.

I appreciate your questions Nancy.

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Paige and Amie,
Took me awhile to read through these since it was dancing with the stars night :) and Idol :)
Anyway, if we are done with the first Adam and second Adam or man, are we in a new humanity then? Or are we still the same humanity that God created:confused: I am sorry if this sounds bizarre!!
Thanks,
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

I think "same but different" - lol! I mean, I see the old adam as our infancy... Mike Parkes says it nicely here: http://spfarm.com/dasblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=4685cc8f-7594-47cd-8dda-1f0de4ef5360. However, if you have more questions, I am more than happy to do my best in answering them :).

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Amie,
I am going to read that article after Bagel church where I am headed now. Also, Paige, that was such a good article. I have read it several times now.
This really has me thinking about the Bible and the way we have been taught to believe. I have more questions:clap2: Will check in later.
ps. Still in pain and waiting to see the dr AGHHHHHHHH
Nancy

[sarahb]

Hey Nancy,

I was looking at this subject about a month ago and found some very interesting things.

It seems the Adam in Genesis 1 had no restictions on what tree he could eat from..
Genesis 1:

“27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Whereas the Adam in Genesis 2 had restrictions..


Genesis 2:

8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

It also appears that the Adam in Genesis 2 did not eat from the tree of life. 22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

If the Adam in Genesis 2 did not eat from the tree of life, and did not have life, then what type of life did he have?
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Apparantly the breath of God does not produce the same kind of life as the tree of life. Would this breath of life be the soulish?

So, when God said, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

he couldn't have been speaking of a spiritual death, because only the tree of life gives you this type of life, and Adam did not eat from it.

Was he merely stating the fact that Adam will die when he eats of the fruit...as a sort of prophecy, like when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three times before the cock crowed?

I see the Adam in Genesis 1 as God's finished work; created in the image and likeness of God. The Adam in Genesis 2 is the first man Adam, he was not created in the image of God in the sense that he did not eternal life in him (but in the likeness of God) he did not have the knowledge of good and evil, and he did not have dominion over the snake. Conversly, The Adam in Genesis 1 could eat of ANY tree, had dominion over all beasts, and I believe is the LAST MAN ADAM- a life-giving Spirit.

[Paige]

Sarah,

I'm inclined to see "Adam" in Gen. 1 as mankind, both male and female. Gen. 2 breaks in with covenant man.

You stated:


he couldn't have been speaking of a spiritual death, because only the tree of life gives you this type of life, and Adam did not eat from it.

This is something I've always pondered...Why do we assume Adam never ate from this tree? This seems to largely be an argument from silence. Kind of like assuming the couple was in the garden only a short while before exile. The text doesn't give us those particulars. There also seems to be an assumption that eating the fruit once produces some kind of permanent state. What if the fruit needed to be consumed regularly?

Conversely, if the TOL, gives spiritual life, I'm not following why you say the TOKGE could not deliver spiritual death. Can you clarify this for me?

Thanks,
Paige

[backtothefuture]

On my gosh you guys,
This really gives me something to think about. I never thought about did Adam eat the fruit or did they consume it daily?
I also for a long time wondered if Adam was just a type of Man with a bloodline who God used to tell his story. That there had to be other Men outside of this garden. I also have thought of the flood as local and not all over the world as we know it and also that maybe the Garden is really not a Garden but our consious? :eek: The place where we learn Good and evil or good from evil.
I know, the pain is making me nutty:biggrinbounce:
Nancy

[jlv]

Hi,
I probably should know this by now, but I still don't understand when I read things about the First Adam and the Second Adam? Why do they refer to Jesus I am assuming as the second Adam?

Thanks,
Nancy:confused:

Nancy,

The confusion is not yours but of the authors you've read. I Cor. 15:45 talks of a first Adam and last Adam. It follows a bit later with
The first man (in the list above, i.e. first Adam) was of the dust of the earth, the second man (in the list above, i.e. last Adam) from heaven. Everytime someone says "second Adam," replace it with "last Adam" and see if this person still makes sense. Quite likely he doesn't. He has made the common mistake that "Adam"="man" and is attempting in vain to retain his own manhood.

Adam was the first Adam. He was of the flesh and he failed to keep his covenant with God.

Jesus was the last Adam. He was of the spirit and he kept his covenant with God.

The first man (in this list) was of the dust of the earth. The second man (in this list) was from heaven. Jesus is nowhere called the second Adam. Seth was the second Adam. That is, the second covenant head. Luke lists 70-some Adam's, the last was Jesus.

Take care, and praise God you are not paying student loans on the seminary training these confused authors have.

JL

[sarahb]

This is something I've always pondered...Why do we assume Adam never ate from this tree?

The reason I think this is because He drove Adam out of the Garden and set "cheribums, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

and earlier He says,"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tol, and eat, and live forever."

It just seems by this reading that He had to keep the way to the tree of Life so that Adam did not eat of it and live forever. His knowing good and evil was lasting by one bite, wouldn't the tol be the same?


Conversely, if the TOL, gives spiritual life, I'm not following why you say the TOKGE could not deliver spiritual death. Can you clarify this for me?


I will clarify in a minute, I have to go workout before my kids get home from pre-school. :)

[Paige]

It just seems by this reading that He had to keep the way to the tree of Life so that Adam did not eat of it and live forever. His knowing good and evil was lasting by one bite, wouldn't the tol be the same?

Not necessarily, IMO. The reason I say this is because of the parallels I see in the NT. Jesus tells his discliples to "abide" in Him. This abiding is a continuing and sustained action, IMO. Also, He talks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Eating is repeated action. Communion was a repeated action. (Remember, during the transition it was possible to "turn back" or discontinue abiding.) Remember, Adam was told that he could "freely eat" from any of the trees in the garden (including the Tol), except the ToKGE. This is a clue that tells me that this one tree would do something far different than all the rest (including the ToL). I could be wrong here, just throwing out some thoughts.

Another thought about the exile of Adam from the garden...If Adam had been left there, he would have had continual access to the ToL.

Something else I find curious is where God says that He couldn't allow Adam anymore access to the TOL..."lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the TOL, and eat, and live forever. <- What strikes me about this is that if physical death is what came from the fruit of the ToKGE, then it seems as if God is saying the the ToL would cure it. So, with that in mind, it seems then, that the ToL would not be the giver of spiritual life, but rather physical life.

Where I'm presently at in my understanding is that both trees represent not a physical state, but rather a spiritual state. I think it can be said that the spiritual state of man has great effect on his physical state. At the Baytown conference, Amie made a point about the "fleshly wisdom" that resulted in humanity's partaking of that tree. The wisdom became one of prosperity being evidence of God's favor. This was the way the "eye of the flesh" (and sometimes the "eye of the mind", as well) understood things. Enter Jesus, who brings with Him the understanding of the "eye of the Spirit". His wisdom turned the wisdom of the "eye of the flesh and mind" on its head. It also turned those who thought they cornered the market on wisdom against Him. In this way, we can see how God was working in the last days of the OC world.

1 Cor. 1:26-28, "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,"

Death on a cross was a shameful and despised end, according to the wisdom gained from the ToGKE. Yet, it was this very thing that brought about the victory of God, and the reconciliation of all things.

Paige

[backtothefuture]

Ha! Thanks JL
That post really helped a lot. I am praising God that we don't have any student loans at all!! We decided not to go into debt for college for the kids!!:clap2:
But really, what you said, and what everyone is saying gives me so much to ponder and wonder why I never heard of any of this at all in my very (non existent now) but old fundamental life!!!

Blessings,
Nancy

[Desert Reign]

and set "cheribums,

I hope not! :eek:

Desert

[jlv]

Ha! Thanks JL
That post really helped a lot. I am praising God that we don't have any student loans at all!! We decided not to go into debt for college for the kids!!:clap2:
But really, what you said, and what everyone is saying gives me so much to ponder and wonder why I never heard of any of this at all in my very (non existent now) but old fundamental life!!!

Blessings,
Nancy

Nancy,

My wife and I went to college and grad school without student loans. It took longer that way, but it was worth it. We had majors with real value. We now have 4 daughters in college (one in grad school) and no student loans, no credit card debt, and no car payments. If only I could say the same for the mortgage. :)

Blessings,

JL

[sarahb]

I understand what you are saying here. In other words you see it as Adam had already been eating of the tree of life, giving him spiritual life?, and then when he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it brought spiritual death because he disobeyed? Whereas, if he took again from the TOL he would get spiritual life back?

What if the first man Adam was created innocent and carnel? He was made of dust and returned to dust, he was made this way. He was naked, but did not know it until it was shown him, until he had the knowledge of good and evil. He was never in the image/a reflection of the Father, but a lawless one. He was made to return to the dust, die a physical death, and with the death of the physical body, the soul is lost in sheol and the breath returns to God who gave it. God never told him that he would live forever, but rather when he ate it, he would die. The curse seems to be the cursed ground. It seems rather like a set-up. It had to be since there was a lamb slain from the foundations of the world; it was in the plans, not reactionary.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
He did not have any laws, until God said, “Thou shall not eat..”, and then where law is, sin is imputed. I can see the KOGE as the letter of the law, and the tree of Life as the Spirit of the Law. Adam chose to follow the ‘letter’ of the law, as opposed to the ‘spirit’ of the law. This leads to death, but it was already ‘in’ Adam to sin because God tempts no man, but he is enticed when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and when sin conceives it brings forth death.


<- What strikes me about this is that if physical death is what came from the fruit of the ToKGE,


I think the physical body was always meant to die, the KOGE just does not bring Life. It is the last man Adam that is a life giving spirit/the tree of life. The first man Adam does not have life in him.

I appreciate your comments very much. I have had this idea in my head and have had no one to offer it to, and wanted someone to challenge it with scripture. I certainly do not understand all of the creation account, and wonder if there are 3 layers to it; the plight of mankind, the plight of the Israelites, and the plight of the individual, within (as Nancy pointed out).

[Amie]

If Jesus is alive now, then physical death has been defeated also. That's not to say that there wasn't an afterlife before then, that's to say that when Jesus rose from the dead that everyone became aware of afterlife.

It affected people deeply. They were no longer afraid of dying, remember?

[Paige]

Thanks Sarah,

I too have had lots of these thoughts bouncing around in my head, and love the fact that we can come here and voice them :) I think we all do a good job of sharpening each other's focus, IMO. I'm going to re-read your post because I'm sitting here with a towel on my head, LOL!!!

Amie,

I agree with your thoughts there. As Sarah said (and I agree), the physical body was always meant to die. However, you and I have been talking back and forth on this one, and it just came to my mind that the ToKGE must have had an effect on how OC man would interpret physical death. :idea: God allowed this fleshly wisdom to prevail, and even communicated with His OC people on the terms of their fleshly wisdom at times, didn't He? (Barry has pointed out so many times how He allowed them to think they could house God in a temple, lol!)

So, with Jesus' resurrection, man now had the evidence to understand both that physical death does not mean we are separated from God, and that there is more beyond what was thought to have been "the end." And the really cool thing about Christ's resurrection was that all the resurrections prior to His had ultimately ended in the same condition (physical death) they had been brought out of. Not so Christ's!!!

Paige

[Paige]

Sarah,


What if the first man Adam was created innocent and carnal? He was made of dust and returned to dust, he was made this way. He was naked, but did not know it until it was shown him, until he had the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm following you here, and I think we agree.


He was never in the image/a reflection of the Father, but a lawless one.

I'll have to think on this part. At this time, I'm thinking he was created in God's image, but perhaps this does not mean what some have said it does. Could it be simply that he was made according to what God intended? IOW, God intended him to be exactly what he was, including the capability to disobey and go his own way. In fact, I think we agree that God was not surprised by his choice at all, it was part of His plan. I think that there are some clues to God's plan in Genesis 1. God brought light into darkness... Evening and morning. These pictures show that dark comes before light. The OC was a ministration of death and condemnation, according to 2 Corinthians. It came first in the plan of God, before the NC which is a ministration of Spirit and righteousness. I'm thinking that God is telling us that we would never have been able to appreciate life/grace/Spirit without first experiencing dark/law/flesh.


In other words you see it as Adam had already been eating of the tree of life, giving him spiritual life?

Quite possibly.


and then when he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it brought spiritual death because he disobeyed? Whereas, if he took again from the TOL he would get spiritual life back?

Actually, I'm thinking that access to that tree was denied once the choice was made to go after the "letter of the law" (you put that really well :) )rather than the Spirit. It serves as another picture illustrating that law cannot inherit with grace. To allow Adam access, would have been to allow him both--a mixing of law and grace. The problem with that is the two do not mix! This is why Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land; to do so, would have laid the foundation for law to inherit with grace. John 1:17, "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

What do you think?

Paige

[Amie]

Oh my gosh Paige, that makes so much sense!

And the funny thing is that Scripture reads that "death reigned from Adam to Moses", not "death existed from Adam to Moses" :).

[backtothefuture]

Oh my Gosh you guys,
Your answers are all so exciting. Boy just ask a little question around here and the answers back are amazing.:clap2: I have to re-read all of this again and again to soak it all in.
Thanks so much
Nancy

[Amie]

Sarah,

Could being owned by another person equate death? Like, as soon as they were able to threaten you with death, and rule over you with it, that your life was no longer yours? And then to compile that with fear and shame - it just doesn't seem like "life".

If the death from the fruit of the tree of knowledge were supposed to be biological, then the serpent will have been right because they didn't drop dead.

Also, the humanity ("adam") created in Genesis 1 will have lived forever biologically and then "boom", died as soon as the forbidden fruit was eaten.

The law of moses was actually the increase of the trespass.

Romans 5
20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

This was actually the "ministry of death".

2 Corinthians 3
6 who also made us sufficient to be ministrants of a new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit; for the letter doth kill, and the spirit doth make alive.
7 and if the ministration of the death, in letters, engraved in stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look stedfastly to the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face -- which was being made useless,
8 how shall the ministration of the Spirit not be more in glory?

Romans 7
5 for when we were in the flesh, the passions of the sins, that are through the law, were working in our members, to bear fruit to the death;

The above means that death was actually being spread and increased. That would also mean that not everyone "boom" died when the forbidden fruit was bitten in the garden.

We can know that didn't mean that some people did not biologically die, and then more and more they did. The death being "ministered" must have been something else then, besides biological death.

Amie

[sarahb]

Amie,


Could being owned by another person equate death? Like, as soon as they were able to threaten you with death, and rule over you with it, that your life was no longer yours? And then to compile that with fear and shame - it just doesn't seem like "life".


To me this would describe slavery. But I do see where you are going with this. When I think of the scripture that says concerning when the law was given.."sin revived and I died". I don't think the law created the sin, but shone the light on it, and by doing so increased it...kind of like if I say,"Don't think of pink elephants." What is the first thing you see? Doesn't the Apostle Paul say that sin dwells in our members/this mortal body?


If the death from the fruit of the tree of knowledge were supposed to be biological, then the serpent will have been right because they didn't drop dead.

Also, the humanity ("adam") created in Genesis 1 will have lived forever biologically and then "boom", died as soon as the forbidden fruit was eaten.



Didn't God say that in the day they eat of it, "dying you shall die". I think of the 'dead burying their dead', and 'white washed tombs'. Though they live, they are dead because their 'breath is in their nostrils' (somewhere in Ezekiel). I can also see where you are coming from regarding death being a state of slavery.

As I'm reading through your post, I am starting to think we agree. (I'm still organizing my thoughts though). I do not think the punishment for eating of the ToKGE was physical death...this was already working in Adam. The punishment was thorns and thistles and slavery type death, because isn't the fruit of the law death because I can not perform it? The slavery would be that I condemn myself because I can not do what I will to do.

Cool! I think I'm learning something.

I don't see the serpant as being correct because they did die in the 6th day (biologically and in soulish slavery to sin). I see day as an age as opposed to a 24 hr. period. Christ was the 7th day.


Also, the humanity ("adam") created in Genesis 1 will have lived forever biologically and then "boom", died as soon as the forbidden fruit was eaten.


I see the Adam if Genesis 1 as the last-man Adam with His bride. He can eat of every tree, has dominion of all the beasts of field, and was created in the 'image and likeness' of God.

I'm going to go away and think about this for awhile and play devil's advocate with myself, because I'm already feeling questions forming within. ;)

[sarahb]

O.k.

I've been away for awhile, and wow, Iv'e had a major shift in thought all of a sudden. I never saw that a lot of the talk in the bible regarding resurrections and death and dust could be referring to this life. :eek:

Something that I was thinking of though is that we see Jesus as the 'breath of life' and the 'tree of life', but how could He be both, they were on different days? Could the breath of life be similiar to the Holy Spirit that conceived Jesus? Any thoughts?

[Amie]

Christy,

"Rauch" is translated as "breath" and as "spirit" and "wind", in the old testament. They all represent something which was life sustaining - wind patterns told the nomadic Hebrews weather patterns just like they do us. Yet when you're nomadic, understanding the weather is important to the livelihood of the tribe and its' agriculture.

The tree of life and the breath of life both were life-sustaining, yet the lives which they sustained would be different. One would be flesh, the other spirit.

:) Amie