ECT Why is Jesus called the second Adam or last Adam?

[Stripe]

What does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race? Conversely, what was there about Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race that was purposed for Adam that, Adam failed to perform?

There is only one "race." Jesus had to be born in the line of Adam so that He could be one of us. He had to die to pay the penalty for sin in a manner that could cover all men.

 

[nikolai_42]

While keeping in mind both Adam and Jesus are the son's of God, both coming on the scene by the direct Hand of God i.e., innocent, one by creation while the other by procreation: What does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race? Conversely, what was there about Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race that was purposed for Adam that, Adam failed to perform? What was accomplished by Jesus being sent into the "world" for 3 1/2 years before it could be said He accomplished it after having already lived 30 prior years upon Earth but, mostly in obscurity? Why the need for the great appearing of Him to society to only end in His death anyway?

Adam :

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 3:37-38

Jesus :

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:1-3

I've seen reference to Adam as a Son of God before. And its tendency towards bringing Christ down is usually too great to resist once someone latches on to that comparison. Jesus has been given a name above every other name that every mortal will bow before Him as rightful object of honor, worship and reverence. To have Adam brought anywhere near that stature is against scripture and like trying to equate a pebble with a planet because they are both made of rock. And the very thing that men will use to bring that close comparison is the evidence of how vast a gulf there is between Christ and Adam. Christ's voluntary humbling of Himself has become the occasion to compare His lowly estate while on earth with the vanity by which Adam finds himself bound. By the outward eye, Christ had no difference from Adam - and in part that is the way it should be. But to say that the eternal Son of God (John 17:5) is nearly indistinguishable from the created Son of God is to define Jesus based primarily on His ministry and ignore His beginnings (if that word can even be used in light of Hebrews 7) and His present and future glory (to which no created man will ever attain).

That man should point to the humbled Christ as evidence of Him being little different from any created man is to forget utterly that Christ came that way in humility. And any attempt to divide His eternal glory from His earthly humbling (and put Him on some similar level to the first Adam) is ironically contrary to the humility He engendered. That's what Philippians 2:5-11 is saying. He didn't grasp at being God (even though He was) and humbled Himself to an estate unimaginably lower than His pre-Creation glory. THEREFORE, God has exalted Him. We, already being lower than He, should have the SAME mind and humble ourselves - not being as the disciples were when they argued over who would sit at His right hand in heaven.

Satan's sin was encapsulated in "I shall ascend and be as the most High...". Adam grabbed the devil's coattails and held on (so to speak). Christ's humility even unto the death of the cross undid that. His humility and obedience (not to mention the cross!) made an "open show" of Satan's hubris and brought down his kingdom (even if only in part prophetically - it's final collapse is yet to be evidenced).

Humility undoes pride...and how can man trying to compare Himself to the uncreated God be humility?

 

[Cross Reference]

There is only one "race." Jesus had to be born in the line of Adam so that He could be one of us. He had to die to pay the penalty for sin in a manner that could cover all men.

Yes. However, as being the second Adam presupposes a new creation, doesn't it? I believe Paul authored some words to that effect. Why not look them up and post them?

 

[nikolai_42]

While keeping in mind both Adam and Jesus are the son's of God, both coming on the scene by the direct Hand of God i.e., innocent, one by creation while the other by procreation: What does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race? Conversely, what was there about Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race that was purposed for Adam that, Adam failed to perform? What was accomplished by Jesus being sent into the "world" for 3 1/2 years before it could be said He accomplished it after having already lived 30 prior years upon Earth but, mostly in obscurity? Why the need for the great appearing of Him to society to only end in His death anyway?

The short answer to your question is in Romans :

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Romans 8:9-11

 

[Stripe]

The short answer to your question is in Romans :

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after thre flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Romans 8:9-11

:thumb:

 

[Cross Reference]

Adam :

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 3:37-38

Yes

B] Jesus [/B]:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:1-3

Was Jesus His Name before humanity? Could be but, it doesn't say, does it? I rather believe it was Who Moses saw in Gen 33:22 that Who was being reference in your abovepassage.

I've seen reference to Adam as a Son of God before. And its tendency towards bringing Christ down is usually too great to resist once someone latches on to that comparison.

Why too great if properly exegeted? Where is the error in how I verbalized my understanding?

Jesus has been given a name above every other name that every mortal will bow before Him as rightful object of honor, worship and reverence.

Yes. I am still look waiting for my error to be pointed out?

To have Adam brought anywhere near that stature is against scripture and like trying to equate a pebble with a planet because they are both made of rock. And the very thing that men will use to bring that close comparison is the evidence of how vast a gulf there is between Christ and Adam.

Suppose I said: What was performed by the man Jesus was intended for Adam to perform to produce what Jesus produced __ in the first 30 yrs of His life?? I hope you will think about that because that was what it was all about. He learned the ways of His Father.

C

hrist's voluntary humbling of Himself has become the occasion to compare His lowly estate while on earth with the vanity by which Adam finds himself bound.

Consider His humbling was of His first 3o yrs being tutored by the Holy Spirit in learning how to protect the Character of the Father.

By the outward eye, Christ had no difference from Adam - and in part that is the way it should be. But to say that the eternal Son of God (John 17:5) is nearly indistinguishable from the created Son of God is to define Jesus based primarily on His ministry and ignore His beginnings (if that word can even be used in light of Hebrews 7) and His present and future glory (to which no created man will ever attain).

Please point out where, in your reading of my remarks/replies I erred in that? Please do that that!!

That man should point to the humbled Christ as evidence of Him being little different from any created man is to forget utterly that Christ came that way in humility.

Again, I hope you not addressing me.

And any attempt to divide His eternal glory from His earthly humbling (and put Him on some similar level to the first Adam) is ironically contrary to the humility He engendered.

Then why is Jesus called "the last Adam" or "second Adam"? What does being associated with Adam in any way have to do with Who He was and what He accomplished if He there is no similarity, in your estimation.

That's what Philippians 2:5-11 is saying. He didn't grasp at being God (even though He was) and humbled Himself to an estate unimaginably lower than His pre-Creation glory.

vs.6: Only the "Form of God" which points up the conclusion to His human intimate relationship with His Father.

THEREFORE, God has exalted Him. We, already being lower than He, should have the SAME mind and humble ourselves - not being as the disciples were when they argued over who would sit at His right hand in heaven. Satan's sin was encapsulated in "I shall ascend and be as the most High...". Adam grabbed the devil's coattails and held on (so to speak). Christ's humility even unto the death of the cross undid that. His humility and obedience (not to mention the cross!) made an "open show" of Satan's hubris and brought down his kingdom (even if only in part prophetically - it's final collapse is yet to be evidenced).

. . . and it will be in that day when all things are summed up in Christ Jesus.

Humility undoes pride...and how can man trying to compare Himself to the uncreated God be humility?

The man Jesus did it. If fact, that was and is, His never-ending reward for abandoning His Life unto Him. God ordains such union in Him. Hard to figure, isn't it? But then to function as one in/with Him, equality has to happen doesn't it? That is God's plan for having created man and the world he lives in __ that will one day be the center of the universe.

 

[nikolai_42]

Yes

Was Jesus His Name before humanity? Could be but, it doesn't say, does it? I rather believe it was Who Moses saw in Gen 33:22 that Who was being reference in your above passage.

The point there is that the passage underscores Christ's eternal nature.

Why too great if properly exegeted? Where is the error in how I verbalized my understanding?

My point there (and it takes into account some of the other things I posted) is that Jesus humbled Himself greatly (more than we can fathom) by taking on humanity as He did. For a man to take up the title "Son of God" (when Jesus barely took that title to Himself while on earth) begs the question - to what end? The only warrant for that title that I can see is to the point that Adam was directly created by God as the beginning of the human race. Just as there is an instance of the term "Children of God" that applies to men generally as creations of God but does not apply to all men equally (since all are not in Christ), the taking of that title by one who is not in Christ is done for self-justification. By the one who is in Christ, it is done with full thought and honor being given to God. When Jesus sent out the 70, He told them not to rejoice that they had power over demons, but rather that their names were written in heaven. When He addresses those who He doesn't know but who did many "wonderful works" for Him, you see that those who are rejected were on about what they could do - those that knew Him were on about His work. Those that know/knew Him may do those same "wonderful works", but they are doing it in the name of Jesus with glory due Him. And those that see these works glorify....the Father (not the man carrying out the work) because it is recognized as His work.

And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do
Luke 17:5-10

Likewise, those that want to make an issue about taking the term "Son of God" simply because it is written in scripture need to recognize why it is there. It is not to be compared with Christ's Sonship. So I say that proper exegesis in that instance is to contrast Christ's Sonship with ours. Christ's nature with ours. Not to be used to make a case of either being in any sense merely human (or taking on Divinity) or of making man Divine.

Yes. I am still look waiting for my error to be pointed out?

I'm explaining my hesitation with the premise. If the foundation is Christ's Sonship compared with man's, the fact that Christ is eternal and man is not is what emphasizes the gap. By way of that hesitation and the reasoning, I think I answer the ultimate question you have - why Christ had to be born, spend 30 years in obscurity and then 3 1/2 years in ministy, die and be resurrected?

But further, when you make the statement about Jesus being sent in flesh to fulfill what "Adam failed to perform", it seems to me that you DO, in fact, see a rather close kinship on the basis of Adam being called a "son of God". One of a fallen son, yes, but one that inherently shares much (or most) of what Christ has in the Father. Anything Adam currently has is conferred by God's grace - not a right by birth. The only right Adam has is death by virtue of sin. Christ is the ONLY begotten Son of God (eternally a Son, revealed in flesh) as distinct from Adam's birth at the hand of God.

Suppose I said: What was performed by the man Jesus was intended for Adam to perform to produce what Jesus produced __ in the first 30 yrs of His life?? I hope you will think about that because that was what it was all about. He learned the ways of His Father.

That was His humbling. It wasn't simply showing up in flesh, but bearing all the weight that went along with it - yet being without sin.

C

Consider His humbling was of His first 3o yrs being tutored by the Holy Spirit in learning how to protect the Character of the Father.

Scripture seems rather to say that it was His being about His Father's business. No need to protect the character of the Father. Rather to walk out the expression of it.

Please point out where, in your reading of my remarks/replies I erred in that? Please do that that!!

This is an "integrated response". There is an underlying concern I have with the premise that ties in to the specifics of your post that can't be severed. So while I understand you agree with some (much?) of what I have written, there are different conclusions here that arise from what I can only see as different assumptions or different readings of Philippians 2.

Again, I hope you not addressing me.

Again, I'm looking at extent of the way one views Christ's humbling in light of man's "natural" sonship. I've seen the fruits of focusing on Adam as a son of God and I don't see the benefit beyond establishing a genealogy and the fact that we were created by God. Your thought seems to require something inherent in man's natural sonship that leads Godward (but at some point fails in Adam's fall). I don't see that in scripture. I don't see Adam's role and Christ's role (even in a world where Adam never fell) as converging. And I think you do. I'm trying to get to where we diverge and so a good portion of that requires me looking at (at the risk of being repetitive) premises. I am addressing what I see in the premises. One of the more radical examples of the fruits of Adam as a son of God is the Word of Faith movement and some of their leading lights. I could be wrong, but I don't think you would agree much with men like Kenneth Copeland. Having said that, I'm trying to limit this all to the underlying ideas - not just the conclusions. They can't be divorced from one another. Not everyone who emphasizes man's sonship becomes a Kenneth Copeland, but that doesn't mean everyone is coming to consistent conclusions.

Bottom line - Christ's Sonship so outshines man's sonship (fall or not) that I can't see making a comparison between the two or believing Christ came to do what Adam failed to do. Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam. And it's not "cleaning up"...it's a radical overhaul (new heart, new spirit,new creation, born again....).

Christ's humbling and coming in the likeness of sinful flesh only serves to underscore the vast difference between created man and eternal Christ. If it makes sense : the more (by degree) He appears as a man, the more it undermines man's attempt to supplant Him - which was what happened in Eden. And the more Christ appears as a man, the greater glory as God He receives.

I'm merely trying to explain what I see in Philippians 2 - the same thing that is used by one extreme (to say that Jesus wasn't really God) actually shows that He is (and was on earth) God. And the greater the expression of Him in and through His humanity, the more Satan's power is undermined and man's pride is cast down.

Then why is Jesus called "the last Adam" or "second Adam"? What does being associated with Adam in any way have to do with Who He was and what He accomplished if He there is no similarity, in your estimation.

I can only hope my responses above clarify that some.

vs.6: Only the "Form of God" which points up the conclusion to His human intimate relationship with His Father.

He was in the form of God (Phil 2:6) and took on the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). His human intimate relationship with His Father brought much to humanity, but resulted in greater glory in the Divine relationship thereafter. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "conclusion".

. . . and it will be in that day when all things are summed up in Christ Jesus.

AMEN!

The man Jesus did it. If fact, that was and is, His never-ending reward for abandoning His Life unto Him.

What life are you talking about? For the point I think you are trying to make, that matters immensely.

God ordains such union in Him. Hard to figure, isn't it? But then to function as one in/with Him, equality has to happen doesn't it? That is God's plan for having created man and the world he lives in __ that will one day be the center of the universe.

Christ in God (whatever He was known as before He took on flesh) already had perfect union with the Father as far as I can tell. But to express that union in flesh requires time. It is revelation. And the more Christ is humbled (even unto an ignominious death), the more it expresses the lengths to which He has gone to identify with His Creation. But He will not give His glory to another. Jesus functioned in perfect union with the Father while on earth, but not in terms of equality - probably for the very reason that we simply cannot operate on that basis. I'm not saying He wasn't equal, but He took on the form of a servant - not an equal.

The closest I can come to any sense of equality is here :

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,
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 2:9-18

This is probably already overlong, so I won't prolong this other than to point out that while His children are called "brethren" by Him, they are still children. He is their deliverer...He took on flesh (...a little lower than the angels...) and it was all so that He could provide for those children in their need. He is still their "captain"...

 

[Cross Reference]

The short answer to your question is in Romans :

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Romans 8:9-11

Help me to understand. I fail to see how any of that applies to my question.

 

[DAN P]

While keeping in mind both Adam and Jesus are the son's of God, both coming on the scene by the direct Hand of God i.e., innocent, one by creation while the other by procreation: What does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race? Conversely, what was there about Jesus that He had to be born of Adam's race that was purposed for Adam that, Adam failed to perform? What was accomplished by Jesus being sent into the "world" for 3 1/2 years before it could be said He accomplished it after having already lived 30 prior years upon Earth but, mostly in obscurity? Why the need for the great appearing of Him to society to only end in His death anyway?

#1 The FIRST / PROTOS became Into a living Soul !

#2 , The Last Adam into a " QUICKENING " or a live giving spirit !!

#3 QUICKENING /ZOOPOIEO is in the Present Tense , which means Christ is Continuous life making spirit !!

dan p

 

[Cross Reference]

Originally asked by Cross Reference:

Was Jesus His Name before humanity? Could be but, it doesn't say, does it? I rather believe it was Who Moses saw in Gen 33:22 that Who was being reference in your above passage.

Originally answered by nikolai in quotes_42

The point there is that the passage underscores Christ's eternal nature

More accurately I would say, His eternal origin.

My point there (and it takes into account some of the other things I posted) is that Jesus humbled Himself greatly (more than we can fathom) by taking on humanity as He did. For a man to take up the title "Son of God" (when Jesus barely took that title to Himself while on earth) begs the question - to what end?

I don't believe He took on humanity as you suppose except to die for its redemption. What He did do was demonstrate for 3 1/2 years what was the intended relationship God purposed for Adam, i.e., divine intimacy absent sin. Jesus was God’s perfect representation of man Adam forfeited. It took 3 1/2 years for Jesus to make His point and then He died that fallen man could be enabled to follow suit by means of a new birth.

The only warrant for that title that I can see is to the point that Adam was directly created by God as the beginning of the human race.

As Jesus was directly conceived by God as the beginning of a new human race of reconciled “sons of God” who were born again by the same Hand that birthed Him.

OMT: Both Adam and Jesus were sons of God who, in complete innocence, came into existence directly by the hand of God but only in the genetic sense at their birth do I believe it is accurate to believe that. Both were to be made holy by obedience. That is not arguable for me. One was created, the other, birthed. I have emphasized that many times when discussing the two.

Sidenote: Your problem, Nic, is that you don't 'origin' back far enough that comparison with Adam and Jesus can be better understood. Try seeing God's intention for Adam BEFORE he transgressed. List all that he had in promise form; that required his obedience to completely fulfill the promises. Then bring it up to Jesus to see the same the thing in promise form.

 

[Cross Reference]

I wrote:

"Consider His humbling was of His first 3o yrs being tutored by the Holy Spirit in learning how to protect the Character of the Father."

Nicolia replied:

Scripture seems rather to say that it was His being about His Father's business. No need to protect the character of the Father. Rather to walk out the expression of it.

. . . which Satan did not want to happen Hence, the temptations for proving Jesus, the man, given the responsibility for handling the glory of God in His human state of being. Again, what was purposed for Adam to perform.

Nic, concludes:

Christ's Sonship so outshines man's sonship (fall or not) that I can't see making a comparison between the two or believing Christ came to do what Adam failed to do. Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam. And it's not "cleaning up"...it's a radical overhaul (new heart, new spirit,new creation, born again....).

Why? For why, you don't say.

Why not ask yourself the question: Had Adam NOT sinned, spiritually speaking, what would his future progeny have been and was that not in the heart of God to have been His desire; His purpose for having created man? Jesus is the second Adam!

 

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

"re Phil 2:6: Only the "Form of God" which points up the conclusion to His human intimate relationship with His Father."

Nicolia replied:

He was in the form of God (Phil 2:6) and took on the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). His human intimate relationship with His Father brought much to humanity, but resulted in greater glory in the Divine relationship thereafter. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "conclusion".

Does not “Divine relationship thereafter” say what the “conclusion” was?

BTW: What does “in the form of a servant” say to you if not servanthood would be something He would soon leave behind?

 

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference:

"God ordains such [human union] in Him. Hard to figure, isn't it? But then to function as one in/with Him, equality has to happen doesn't it? That is God's plan for having created man and the world he lives in __ that will one day be the center of the universe."

Nicolia's reply:

Christ in God (whatever He was known as before He took on flesh) already had perfect union with the Father as far as I can tell. But to express that union in flesh requires time.

Requires time for the proving of it for any human to express by his life. Jesus did that outside the realm of glory that the rest of humanity might understand the government of God, to desire it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nicolai wrote:

the more Christ is humbled (even unto an ignominious death), the more it expresses the lengths to which He has gone to identify with His Creation.

"Identify with His creation"???? Jesus was of God's creation! . . and in no way do I mean to elevate Adam, so don't go there.

But He will not give His glory to another.

He did give His glory to another. . . glory, as in relationship.

Jesus functioned in perfect union with the Father while on earth, but not in terms of equality - probably for the very reason that we simply cannot operate on that basis.

You are simply admitting you don't understand why He came to Earth. . . . "and few there be that find it".

I'm not saying He wasn't equal, but He took on the form of a servant - not an equal.

How 'bout "childhood" and all of its disposition spiritually implies ? Am I less a man for it??

 

[Cross Reference]

re Hebrews 2:9-18

Nicolia comments:

". . . while His children are called "brethren" by Him, they are still children.

My reply:

For clarities sake you hurt yourself. Try letting it say what it says.

He is their deliverer...He took on flesh (...a little lower than the angels...)

Understood

and it was all so that He could provide for those children in their need. He is still their "captain"...

Wrong assumption! Here is the reason you are dismissing/overlooking: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory" vs 10.. SONS as in "brothers.

Again, the reason God created Adam. God wants SONS -- a vast family of them for His Habitation and they need to be without "spot or wrinkle". Jesus, the man, being the "First of first fruits" Who is coming again in clouds of Glory bringing His "Brothers" with Him.

 

[TFTn5280]

Not everyone who emphasizes man's sonship becomes a Kenneth Copeland, but that doesn't mean everyone is coming to consistent conclusions.

Bottom line - Christ's Sonship so outshines man's sonship (fall or not) that I can't see making a comparison between the two or believing Christ came to do what Adam failed to do. Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam. And it's not "cleaning up"...it's a radical overhaul (new heart, new spirit,new creation, born again....).

This whole post was really good. And the statement above seemed to bring it all together for me. I commend your ability to communicate with CR. It is obvious his respect for you, even in disagreement. May I make an observation, and perhaps build a bit on what you say above?

In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).

The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, via headship," in (by inference) the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."

As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or head of the entirety of a whole group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato and Aristotle, this concept of "the one and the many." BUT we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.

In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to your statement that Christ "isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.

What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil, for example, and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.

In the following passage I am going to provide a word-for-word translation of the Gr text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article impacts our understanding of the passage:

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.
​

Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.

The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."

And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious son-of-God interpretation/doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?

Again, though, I digress: great post!

T

 

[Cross Reference]

This whole post was really good. And the statement above seemed to bring it all together for me. I commend your ability to communicate with CR. It is obvious his respect for you, even in disagreement. May I make an observation, and perhaps build a bit on what you say above?

In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).

The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, viaheadship," in (by inference the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."

As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or headof the entirety of a whole group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato and Aristotle, this concept of "the one and the many." BUT we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.

In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to your statement that Christ "isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.

What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.

In the following passage I am going to provide a word-for-word translation of the Gr text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article impacts our understanding of the passage:

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.
​

Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.

The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of*grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is*also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."

And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious son-of-God interpretation/doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?

Again, though, I digress: great post!

T

The OP is about none of the above. Please stay on topic.

 

[nikolai_42]

Help me to understand. I fail to see how any of that applies to my question.

Your question was why Christ had to come in the flesh - what does the life of Adam have to do with the life of Christ were your words. Conversely (you say), why did Jesus have to be born of Adam's race to succeed where Adam failed? They are two sides of the same coin. Paul is saying that Christ had to come in flesh to condemn sin in flesh. And that is completed by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (in which He overcame death, hell and the grave) - whereupon the Spirit was given. He was exposing the sinfulness of sinful flesh by overcoming it. He made an open show of the powers of death by overcoming them - triumphing over them. He made that overcoming power available to "the many" by ascending to the Father and giving the Spirit to those that believed on Him.

Maybe in the natural, the human Christ, He could do nothing - in that He was like Adam. But only because He set aside what He had before He came to earth and displayed humility, meekness, submission to authority and obedience to God. None of these were displayed by Him "harnessing" His Divine powers. But as God, He knew "the way through" so as to perfectly live and thus perfectly condemn everything that "falls short" (as it looks in the natural). There is nothing He did that we could not do. Indeed, His utter dependence on the Father is to be perfectly emulated. But He, Himself, as He is in glory, is totally other than that. He has power natively that we never have. He has authority natively that far exceeds any authority or dominion God ever gave Adam (i.e. before the fall). He may have set all that aside, but that didn't make Him any less God.

What it sounds like to me is you are saying that God had something for Adam to do - which he failed to do. And since Adam failed to do it, Christ had to step in and do it.

Am I wrong?

 

[Cross Reference]

Your question was why Christ had to come in the flesh

Can you cite where I asked that, using those exact words?

 

[nikolai_42]

Originally asked by Cross Reference:

Was Jesus His Name before humanity? Could be but, it doesn't say, does it? I rather believe it was Who Moses saw in Gen 33:22 that Who was being reference in your above passage.

Originally answered by nikolai in quotes_42



More accurately I would say, His eternal origin.

I would say His eternal origin is subsumed by His eternal nature

I don't believe He took on humanity as you suppose except to die for its redemption. What He did do was demonstrate for 3 1/2 years what was the intended relationship God purposed for Adam, i.e., divine intimacy absent sin. Jesus was God’s perfect representation of man Adam forfeited. It took 3 1/2 years for Jesus to make His point and then He died that fallen man could be enabled to follow suit by means of a new birth.

And here is where it seems to me you are trying to find something besides (I would't say "beyond", necessarily) what is stated. It's subtle, but it's there. You say Christ took on humanity only to die for its redemption (full stop). But in reading Romans 8 and Hebrews 2, it's apparent to me that there was something far greater going on that involved a complete condemnation of sin, a complete victory over death and a complete provision of righteousness. So most of what you say seems to follow, but there's a gap. Relationship doesn't mitigate the need for sacrifice nor make it simply a basic purpose that can be grasped in a second or two (in preparation for the supposedly harder understanding of relationship). That relationship is based entirely on Christ's humiliation and sacrifice. Grasp the humiliation and sacrifice and the need for overcoming of sin and the relationship naturally flows.

As Jesus was directly conceived by God as the beginning of a new human race of reconciled “sons of God” who were born again by the same Hand that birthed Him.

But His birth was not His inception. It was merely His appearing.

OMT: Both Adam and Jesus were sons of God who, in complete innocence, came into existence directly by the hand of God but only in the genetic sense at their birth do I believe it is accurate to believe that. Both were to be made holy by obedience. That is not arguable for me. One was created, the other, birthed. I have emphasized that many times when discussing the two.

Jesus being created is a concept I can't accept. Born into humanity, maybe. Or is that what you are saying?

Even if it is, the idea about innocence is foreign to me as well. Christ's innocence was nothing like Adam's innocence. We have the testimony (at Creation):

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
Gen 1:26a

And later:

And the Lord God said, 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 tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:22

Jesus - as one of the Godhead - had the knowledge of good and evil yet was without sin. That knowledge destroyed Adam (as God warned). Jesus was not like Adam in nature or in innocence.

Sidenote: Your problem, Nic, is that you don't 'origin' back far enough that comparison with Adam and Jesus can be better understood. Try seeing God's intention for Adam BEFORE he transgressed. List all that he had in promise form; that required his obedience to completely fulfill the promises. Then bring it up to Jesus to see the same the thing in promise form.

God's purpose for a "lower" being may have been great, but it was not the same purpose (in degree or kind) as He had for His ONLY begotten Son.