Adam is not Jesus’ type (Romans 5)

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
21

That’s a good way of putting it.

Right, and even though there are many differences between Adam and Jesus, Paul can still call each “one man.” But a bad king isn’t a type or pattern for a good king; one is against the type of the other. There’s actually a different word that may be used to express that, found in 1 Peter 3:20–21:

…God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight lives, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured [antitupos], now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

Now, perhaps this means that being saved from the waters prefigures going through the saving waters of baptism. Or, it may contrast those who were washed away by the waters of the flood with those who are saved by the waters of baptism. Either way, the image is flipped; it’s an antithetical likeness. An antitupos is inferior to what it reflects (see also Hebrews 9:24). Had Paul used antitupos in Romans 5:14 rather than tupos, it would be far easier to see how it could link Jesus to Adam.

22

Then how can an individual here make the statement “the notion of God needed to be preached to others outside the garden”?
If God needs to be preached to others outside the garden, who have not yet sinned, how is it that they cannot communicate/talk with God directly as Adam did?

The bible says that humanity was cutoff from God because of sin. Not only that, the bible says that sinful humanity cannot look apon God and live. God shielded himself from Elijah by "putting him in the cleft of a rock "(1Kings 19.9)

That means that those outside the garden were also sinners…or that there was no one actually outside the garden (which is the only logical choice and supports the biblical narrative of only a single creation event)

23

so you think, but the trouble is, i have theolgoical biblical proof that there was a law prior to Sinai…

  1. Adam and Eve were judged to have disobeyed God (if there is no rule, how can one disobey?)

  2. God arraigned both Adam& Eve and the Serpent and dished out punishment for their transgressions (adam and eve were banished from the garden, because they had become like God knowing good and evil). One cannot know evil unless one experiences evil. If there is no law, there is no evil or good.

  3. As i have said before, revelation clearly tells us “that ancient serpent called the devil” the “deceiver of the whole world” was cast out of heaven

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world — he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

  1. Cains offering was rejected in Genesis 4

3In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

And what does the bible tells us sin is?

1John 3:4-6

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

  1. Noahs flood in Genesis 7 (it doesnt matter if the flood is allegorical, the moral principle of death for transgression/sin applies)

1Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

22Of all that was on dry land, everything that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained.

24

There is no such thing in the Bible. This is another one of your additions. Very convenient for those using religion for power over others.

Yes there were consequences for what they did. But disobedience isn’t mentioned anywhere.

  1. You have presented no such evidence.

  2. Even if there were laws prior to Sinai (for I will not rule out the possibility that some of the laws given in other religions before that time came from God), it doesn’t follow there were laws (except the laws of nature) given from the beginning.

  3. However convenient the invention of laws at the beginning of time may be for all the legalists infesting human religion. This obsession with the law doesn’t agree with the teachings of Jesus and especially with Paul. The law was invented to deal with sin, and no sin did not exist in the beginning. The legalists and abusers of religion equate sin with disobedience to laws because that is what gives them power over others. But this is what allows them to change religion into thing of evil. And I certainly see no value in religion of this kind. Atheism is preferable. But I believe because there is a better understanding of sin as self-destructive habits. And it is demonstrable that self-destructive habits do exist.

All this proves is that you have an imagination by which you insert some law into the story. But I don’t think that is what the story was about at all. I think God was dealing with the self-destructive habit of blaming others for anything which happens you don’t like. God rejected Cain’s offering because He hoped Cain would overcome this bad habit. But as we see throughout the Bible and history, the hope God has for people is often disappointed.

Only shows that God takes the corrective approach in guiding living things towards what He desires. There is no mention of law and disobedience in this story either. Just because you like adding it to the story doesn’t prove anything.

1 Like
25

Reading an article on Psalm 15, I stumbled upon this book in a footnote:

Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, by Leonhard Goppelt.

Goppelt begins with a brief survey of the various definitions of typology to determine how it is distinguished from allegory, with which it is often confused. After this introductory chapter, Goppelt divides his work into three parts: Typology in Late Judaism, Typology in the New Testament, and Apocalypticism and Typology in Paul. In his survey of late Judaism, Goppelt examines both Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism to determine the place of typology in their literatures. Turning to the New Testament, Goppelt looks first at the portrayal of Jesus Christ in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Elements of this portrayal are Jesus as the Prophet, as the Son of David and Lord, and as the Son of Man. Goppelt finds each of these characterizations typologically related to the Old Testament. Similarly, in his next chapter on the church as portrayed in the Synoptics and Acts, Goppelt finds a number of typological relationships between the people of God in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament.

Goppelt next examines the Pauline epistles for Paul’s use of Scripture in general and for his view of Christ and the church. Goppelt here appends brief treatments on 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. In following chapters Goppelt deals with Hebrews, the Gospel of John, and finally apocalypticism and typology in Paul. Here he also examines traditional approaches to the relationship between the Old Testament and the New, the origin and legitimacy of the typological approach, and the relationship between typology and the historical-critical method.

Amazon.de

This sounds very interesting. I hope to buy it. Will keep you updated if I do!

2 Likes
26

I think the only way to look at this issue is to make sure you are using as narrow a context as possible.

Thus, it is plausible to argue that Adam and Jesus are “similar” since both represent G-d making a “human” body. Is Adam Christ, or is Christ Adam…not really. It is also difficult to answer because we have to look at Adam also within the context of The Fall. We have no idea, what Adam “would” have been if he had not “fallen” with Eve, and their eventual descendants.

27

So only magical golems are human beings created by God and the rest of us are just animals produced by biology? No I will never agree to that kind of thinking. Every human being is a creation of God because biology and evolution is how God creates human bodies.

But take the magical anti-science creationism out of this (where the creation of human beings requires an inheritance of ideas from God) and we essentially agree. Human beings are more than just bodies. The human mind and what we believe is far more important and in this sense both Adam and Jesus are indeed an example of God creating human beings from which all coming afterwards derive their existence as children of God.

This agrees far better with the Biblical facts because Jesus did not father any biological children. This is not about altering the gene pool, but about changing the way we think and behave.

28

Only to those unable to think for themselves.

God is good; that’s all that’s required for there to be good. Thus going against or contrary to God, being apart from the good, is evil. No law required.

Which is linked to the birth of Christ, not to the Garden.

Whatever is not of faith. Also, missing the mark. Third, falling short.

It isn’t; you should really stop saying that.

29

Im ignoring your statement about satan going to war in heaven over Christs birth…if you honestly want to run the risk of strangling yourself by trying to debate that, ill gladly tackle it, but start a new thread.

Now in response to the statement you made ive quoted above…

Your statement “sin is whatever is not of faith” is highly misleading

Sin is trangression of the law.1 john 3.4
And the wages of sin is death. Romans 6.23.

Judgement and Salvation are two absolutes…how you manage to conflate them in that way is incorrect.

You think that someone of faith cant sin?

Btw…whilst on the topic of the so called Mosaic law being first introduced at Sinai, i dont suppose you have realised the significance of Exodus 4.24-26

24Now at a lodging place along the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched it to Moses’ feet. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said.
26So the LORD let him alone. (When she said, “bridegroom of blood,” she was referring to the circumcision.

Clearly Moses transgressed BEFORE Sinai and that means that the idea the law didnt exist prior to Sinai is bullocks.

The point is that even Moses was supposed to uphold the covenant God had made with his forefathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). He knowingly failed to do this, fortunately Zipporah, ironically who was midianite and not jewish, immediately recognised the issue and circumsized their son…Moses very nearly paid for his mistake with his life.

Im reminded of Samuels statement to King Saul many many years later…to obey is better than to sacrifice. God had commanded and Moses did not obey. Law and the wages for failing to keep it were very much in play long before the Exodus and Sinai.

30

It’s not my statement, it’s straight from scripture.

Where do you get that notion?

He transgressed the Abrahamic covenant. You can’t read the Mosiac law back into any passage you please!
And if it did exist before Sinai, then the scripture is wrong that says “The Law came through Moses”.

1 Like
31

I just quoted scripture to you that defines sin.

I will post the definition again…this time FROM BOTH TESTAMENTS.

1 John 3 :4 (KJV) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law

Jeremiah 24:5 (NLT)
The earth suffers for the sins of its people, for they have twisted God’s instructions, violated his laws, and broken his everlasting covenant.

Notice that there are two parts above…in answer to your other misinterpretation (you have a lot of weird doctrines that are misinterpreted), Gods covenant is everlasting. That means that is has existed for as long as our highly intelligent and all-knowing creator has had the ability to think up such things.

The biblical explanation is that the 10 commandments, given on tablets of stone, were a reminder that God is love (hence the notion of them being called “Gods law of love”).

The law given on tablets of stone were a reminder simply because the entire group of Hebrews in Egypt knew only the Egyptian way of life. That is the secular influence that they had lived for 400 years (you clearly forget this simple fact). If you believed in the literal Exodus you would understand the very real dilemma there but as you do not, there in lieth the root cause of error in your theology on this subject.

God is love and His law is a reflection of that in that when we keep the law, which sinners obviously cannot do, we become the image of Him. That’s the whole point of Creation. That God created us in His own image we were not created sinful or sinners. It was only the ancient serpent Satan who brought temptation here. You seem to think sin and salvation are part of the evolutionary process, however, biblically that is a false theology.

And since only you appear to believe that God is still learning from his stuff ups in creation, it is only you who invoke these crazy beliefs.

As ive said before, you are intentionally conflating two absolutes into a single theological definition. The absolutes are Judgement and Salvation.

Conflating those two into a single definition in the way you do is errant theology and here’s why…

  1. Its only the wicked who face Judgement. The righteous who walk in boldly before the throne are deemed righteous because they are already justified by the cloak of Christ’s righteousness which happened at conversion. That is the whole idea of righteousness by faith. We, “those who keep the commandment and have the faith of Jesus”, are Justified by Christ’s atonement on the cross and our belief in its sufficiency for the wages of sin. Justification means - JUST AS IF I had died as punishment for my own sins!

  2. Those of faith still sin.

The death we all face as a result of sin corrupting the world…that is not the eternal death that Christ died on the cross to save the Saints from. That is the natural consequence of what happens to the whole creation as a result of the corruption of sin. The bible says “all creation groans under the weight of sin”, however, this is very different from the eternal death that forms the notion of righteousness by faith that Christ died on the cross for.

So those who face judgment have already been condemned.Those of faith walk right on by and through those “pearly gates”. That’s the point Paul is making there. there is no biblical statement at the second coming that says those who are dead in Christ are then sent to judgment…they are gathered together in the air with the righteous living to meet their creator in the sky and taken immediately to heaven.

It is only the wicked who die twice in the judgment…not the righteous. The second death is specifically for the wages of sin (unless you can find me an array of bible texts that says something different?)

Now before i end this…

you continue to go down this rabbit warren concerning the Mosaic law and the covenant. What you simply fail to comprehend is that all of this only became necessary because of Sin…PERIOD!

Sin is quite simply “TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW”!!! Satan and his angels broke the law when they rebelled in heaven, Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed Gods command to “not eat of the tree of the tree in the middle of the garden”.

The Bible says “sin entered this world through one man, Adam”. If there is no law in heaven transgressed by Lucifer and his angels, and no law in place in the Garden of Eden, then you have absolutely no standard by which judgement can be applied in either of the above.

That means both Lucifer and Adam are neither sinful nor unrighteous for sins committed prior to the law at Sinai!

That also means Pharoah cannot have been punished for hardening his heart…what law did he break for which atonement must be made?

Atonement is only made on behalf of Israelites for breaking the 10 commandments (unless you want to claim the entire Old Testament Sanctuary Service model was only for the Jews to conduct sacrifices in order to buy Adam and Eve out of Purgatory?). So the fact remains, whilst the 10 commandments are only recorded on “paper” (so to speak) at Sinai, they clearly existed for thousand of years prior to that date (indeed id say eternally actually).

32

Romans 14:23.

But no doubt Adam has an explanation for rewriting this part of the Bible too.

Yep. Looks like it is based on picking and choosing passages in different translations which sounds a little like his own theology.

The variations in 1 John 3:4 between translations seems to greater than usual and almost none of them are saying what Adam claims. It is not about what sin is but what sin does. Paul explains that God brought the law to help teach us about our sin. So yeah we can see our sin in the transgression of the laws. But Jesus explained quite thoroughly how we have all kinds of sin which has absolutely nothing to do with the breaking of any laws (like in Matthew 5). Thus by Jesus’ own words, transgression of the law is a complete failure at defining what sin is.

Once again we are left with the impression that Adam seeks to erase the NT and Jesus and turn back the clock to the OT when the lawyers and legalists reigned supreme.

33

20240904_215636
20240904_2156361920×1440 73.6 KB

Found a secondhand copy online! I hope I can find some interesting bits that pertain to this discussion.

34

Just a thought. Adam could also be seen as a type of Christ in that Eve is the church created out of Adam. Eve the chosen people, sin first. Adam follows his bride eating her sin and falling under the curse of Gods wrath. Notice Adam as head is cursed to death for sin, not Eve. Adam then blesses Eve naming her the mother of all Living (redeemed people). It’s like he took the curse of death and she gets to live.

1 Like
35

Yeah right…so why dont you first read Romans 14.12?

12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God

Nothing worse than someone not understanding the context of the scripture they quote!

Read the whole chapter next time.

36

And yet what was both their punishment? Death!!!

Eve wasnt rewarded. Genesis makes that very clear. Let me remind you what God actually said to her…

Gen3:16 To the woman He said:

“I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth;

in pain you will bring forth children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Btw how can i say even Eves punishment was death?

Well thats easy,

If you wanna claim Christ died only for the sins of men…???
You see the problem there dont you? Read the women taken in adultery…the law stated she was to be stoned to death! So even women are to receive punishment under the law. Righteousness and grace also apply to women as Christ clearly demonstrated in this text.

37

Context is important.

But even worse are those pretends a passage says something which it doesn’t say. It is also amazing to me how far away you look for some so called context, and yet nothing in Romans 14:12 justifies your claim that Romans 14:23 is misleading.

Why don’t we look at the whole context, which is Paul speaking of people using the eating of food offered to idols or not eating it as a pretext for judging others.

13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

None of this is about obedience to a set of laws. It is, in fact, about the misuse of some set of laws in opposition to the love and regard Christians should have for one another. This is totally in line with what Jesus said, that all the law depends on love for God and love of ones neighbor – that love is what it is really about. And in this Paul is making it crystal clear that it is not about obedience to laws. Paul agrees with those who say the food is not unclean, but rebukes those touting this for putting it ahead of their love for others.

Thus St. Roymond is certainly NOT taking this out of context but quoting entirely according to the context and so your efforts to subvert scripture and change it back into the legalism of the OT erasing the teachings of Jesus and Paul is a false teaching. We are well warned about those who do that by Paul and others.

1 Like
38

I’m not claiming anything dogmatic. I am simply looking at the text Christological. How is the narrative in genesis displaying gospel themes. Christ says the OT is about Him. in what ways. I agree with NT Peter says the waters Noah’s ark archetype baptism, do the same here.

Adam has a bride eve
Christ has a bride the church

Eve is the mother of all living
The church is the mother of all eternally living

Eve was created out of Adam
The church was created out of christ

Christ side was pierced signify death and save/create the church
Adam side was pierced and made eve the mother of the living

there are many more

2 Likes
39

I enjoy reflecting on how Noah’s Ark was a symbol of salvation and new birth foreshadowing Jesus. Something seen by Augustine but often not recognized today:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XV.26.html

1 Like
40

You don’t get to ignore plain statements of scripture because you like others better.

There’s little point discussing with you when you repeatedly lie and rely on your own lies for your arguments.
You have been corrected on this multiple times. Why is it you exalt the Ten Words above God the Son yet refuse to honor them?

More lies that you keep repeating:

If the Mosaic covenant only became necessary because of sin then it is not eternal.

False. I told you scripture’s definitions of sin that show that no law is required: whatever is not of faith (i.e. trust in and faithfulness to God) is sin; whatever falls short of the glory of God is sin Scripture gives multiple definitions of sin yet you ignore them in favor of one that fits your notions.

False. Try actually reading what the scriptures say about sin: whatever is not of faith; falling short of God’s glory; missing the mark; these are three that you ignore.

Definitely. At best, he makes the Law supreme and Jesus a mere tool of the Law.

1 Like