(1 Cor. 15:47)

[Lees]

Adam here is declared as the 'first man'. No problem. He was the first man.

But Christ is declared here the 'second man'. Why? He was not the second man. He was way down the line in the count.

Do I have the answer? I don't believe I have yet an answer that completely satisfies.

Lees

 

[Fred]

Adam (and his sin) had a negative effect on all.
Christ (and his death and resurrection) had a positive effect on all (the elect).

 

[CrowCross]

Adam here is declared as the 'first man'. No problem. He was the first man.

But Christ is declared here the 'second man'. Why? He was not the second man. He was way down the line in the count.

Do I have the answer? I don't believe I have yet an answer that completely satisfies.

Lees

You can go here....bible hub commentaries.

Or here...Got Questions.

 

[Lees]

Adam (and his sin) had a negative effect on all.
Christ (and his death and resurrection) had a positive effect on all (the elect).

Which is true, and all would agree.

But why is Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

 

[Lees]

You can go here....bible hub commentaries.

Or here...Got Questions.

Well, yes...I can go a lot of places.

That doens't mean a lot of places have the answer.

This is a Christian forum, so I have asked here.

According to you, the category of "Bible Questions" needs to have a fine print warning of 'before you ask these questions go here first'

Lees

 

[Fred]

Which is true, and all would agree.

But why is Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

Christ (and his death and resurrection) had a positive effect on all (the elect).

 

[Lees]

Christ (and his death and resurrection) had a positive effect on all (the elect).

But why is Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

Well, yes...I can go a lot of places.

That doens't mean a lot of places have the answer.

This is a Christian forum, so I have asked here.

According to you, the category of "Bible Questions" needs to have a fine print warning of 'before you ask these questions go here first'

Lees

Dude, I presented you with places to go and read different opinions. I was trying to HELP you....not FIGHT you.

 

[makesends]

Adam here is declared as the 'first man'. No problem. He was the first man.

But Christ is declared here the 'second man'. Why? He was not the second man. He was way down the line in the count.

Do I have the answer? I don't believe I have yet an answer that completely satisfies.

Lees

Well, they are contrasted by number, as in, "In the first case, you have Adam, ..., in the second, Jesus Christ."

But also, and this is what comes to my mind, that Adam and Jesus were singular beings, in that neither were born of an earthly father, Adam 1st, Jesus 2nd. There are a couple of passages where this is dealt with by comparison and contrast of the two, and Jesus is called the 2nd Adam.

You may have seen the discussions revolving around (and around again) the use of the word "all" there

 

[Lees]

Dude, I presented you with places to go and read different opinions. I was trying to HELP you....not FIGHT you.

And I appreciate that. But I don't like going to a webb site and then presenting what they said as the answer. I can go to webb sites and commentaries, and blogs, etc. etc. in order to detrmine what the answer may be. But I have to be convinced in my own mind as to the truth of the matter.

Which is why I don't like being sent to a webb site. All that tells me is the one sending me to the site doens't have the answer.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Well, they are contrasted by number, as in, "In the first case, you have Adam, ..., in the second, Jesus Christ."

But also, and this is what comes to my mind, that Adam and Jesus were singular beings, in that neither were born of an earthly father, Adam 1st, Jesus 2nd. There are a couple of passages where this is dealt with by comparison and contrast of the two, and Jesus is called the 2nd Adam.

You may have seen the discussions revolving around (and around again) the use of the word "all" there

Yes, they are.

Good point. Neither were born of an earthly father.

Please consider this. Jesus is never called the 2nd Adam. He is called the Last Adam. A distinction which should be important. And, He is called the 2nd Man. Another distinciton that is important.

Lees

 

[makesends]

Yes, they are.

Good point. Neither were born of an earthly father.

Please consider this. Jesus is never called the 2nd Adam. He is called the Last Adam. A distinction which should be important. And, He is called the 2nd Man. Another distinciton that is important.

Lees

Good point. Hadn't thought of that. It is relevant to the text that he is called the last Adam, and not the second Adam, but he is contextually called the "second man", which speaks to the question you bring up.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45-48).

 

[CrowCross]

And I appreciate that. But I don't like going to a webb site and then presenting what they said as the answer. I can go to webb sites and commentaries, and blogs, etc. etc. in ordeer to detrmine what the answer may be. But I have to be convinced in my own mind as to the truth of the matter.

Which is why I don't like being sent to a webb site. All that tells me is the one sending me to the site doens't have the answer.

Lees

Do I have the answer? Perhaps so....perhaps not.

What i can do is go to commentaries and read what others have to offer...check out their thoughts and the biblical references they present that support their thoughts.

Why would you have a problem with that?

 

[Lees]

Do I have the answer? Perhaps so....perhaps not.

What i can do is go to commentaries and read what others have to offer...check out their thoughts and the biblical references they present that support their thoughts.

Why would you have a problem with that?

I thought I explained that in post #(10).

I have no problem with you doing your own study using any resources available. And through that study coming to your conclusion. If you don't come to your own conclusion, I have no interest in going to a link somewhere that apparently didn't do you any good.

Lees

 

[CrowCross]

I thought I explained that in post #(10).

I have no problem with you doing your own study using any resources available. And through that study coming to your conclusion. If you don't come to your own conclusion, I have no interest in going to a link somewhere that apparently didn't do you any good.

Lees

No problem. You asked as if you didn't know or understand. I only presented the commentaries to give you a place to understand what others thought. I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate that.

 

[Lees]

No problem. You asked as if you didn't know or understand. I only presented the commentaries to give you a place to understand what others thought. I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate that.

Please, don't apologize when you don't mean it.

Lees

 

[Eleanor]

But why is Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

Man = Adam.

Because all those of Adam share in his inheritance, and all those of Christ share in his inheritance.

 

[Lees]

Man = Adam.

Because all those of Adam share in his inheritance, and all those of Christ share in his inheritance.

What you say is true.

But wouldn't this be true of Christ as the 'Last Adam' and Adam as the first Adam?

And, just for the sake of argument, lets say number wise, from Adam, that Christ was the 30 trillioneth man born. Whatever number He was, God knows. Why doesn't God give that number instead of the 2nd Man? Wouldnt the same be true?

Lees

 

[Arial]

What you say is true.

But wouldn't this be true of Christ as the 'Last Adam' and Adam as the first Adam?

And, just for the sake of argument, lets say number wise, from Adam, that Christ was the 30 trillioneth man born. Whatever number He was, God knows. Why doesn't God give that number instead of the 2nd Man? Wouldnt the same be true?

Lees

Because he is comparing two different federal heads. Adam the federal head or representative of all who are born the natural way of procreation. Paul, I believe, is the one who referred us (humans) as being "of the dust.

Christ the federal head (representing) all who are in him through regeneratation.

 

[Arial]

But why is Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

Because the first man was of the dust and all other men came from him through natural birth. The second man was the first man born of a woman who was not also born of the dust (Adam). His Father is God, not Adam.