(1 Cor. 15:47)

[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.

And that could be. The term first man and 2nd Man simpy identify the first Adam and the Last Adam. But, doesn't that just explain the first Adam and Last Adam. In other words, why mention Christ as the 2nd Man, when what He is as the Last Adam is sufficient for explanation.

Couldn't (1 Cor. 15:47) have been written as this, "The first Adam is of the earth, earthy: the Last Adam is the Lord from heaven" ?

Let me ask this. Why is Christ called the 'Last Adam' and not the 2nd Adam?

Lees

 

[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.

I think I understand what you're saying. But wouldn't that make Christ a 'First Man' instead of a '2nd Man'?

The term '2nd Man' definitely ties Christ in the count to Adam.

Lees

 

[Arial]

I think I understand what you're saying. But wouldn't that make Christ a 'First Man' instead of a '2nd Man'?

The term '2nd Man' definitely ties Christ in the count to Adam.

Lees

When Adam is called the second man it is not referring to the second man ever. He is the second federal head. The first man---the physical father of all men. The second the spiritual father of those reborn (born again John 3) in him. They are born again of God. John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Arial]

And that could be. The term first man and 2nd Man simpy identify the first Adam and the Last Adam. But, doesn't that just explain the first Adam and Last Adam. In other words, why mention Christ as the 2nd Man, when what He is as the Last Adam is sufficient for explanation.

Couldn't (1 Cor. 15:47) have been written as this, "The first Adam is of the earth, earthy: the Last Adam is the Lord from heaven" ?

Do you always say the same thing in exactly the same way?

Let me ask this. Why is Christ called the 'Last Adam' and not the 2nd Adam?

Because the "last Adam" signifies there will not be a third, or fourth etc. Second Adam is more open ended.

 

[Lees]

Do you always say the same thing in exactly the same way?

Because the "last Adam" signifies there will not be a third, or fourth etc. Second Adam is more open ended.

Probably not. But, my words are not the Word of God. And I personally believe everything given in God's Word is for purpose. When it is both similar and unsimilar.

I agree 100%. The term 'Last Adam' indicates there will never be another 'Adam'. There will never be another representative of the human race, as Adam and Christ are.

And the term 2nd, as you observe, indicates a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.

Which means what concerning Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

 

[Arial]

Probably not. But, my words are not the Word of God. And I personally believe everything given in God's Word is for purpose. When it is both similar and unsimilar.

I agree 100%. The term 'Last Adam' indicates there will never be another 'Adam'. There will never be another representative of the human race, as Adam and Christ are.

And the term 2nd, as you observe, indicates a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.

Which means what concerning Christ called the 2nd Man?

Lees

Lee I already answered that question.

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.

You give the appearance of wanting an answer as though it were a really complex and difficult question, which it isn't. But respond to posts as though you have already decided you are going to consider any answer given as inadequate.

As to the first part of your post, Paul was not saying two different things when he said it two different ways. Each was used as was best for his purpose and the context, or simply the way he worded it as a preference at the time. That has nothing to do with it having a special meaning. I have never run across anyone in all my many years that ever thought the use of second man in one instance and second Adam in another, and last Adam in another was something that needed to be pondered for a hidden meaning in the distinctions. It seems the simple answer, which I gave you three different times and in three different ways, yet changed nothing of the meaning, was too easy or not complicated enough to be correct?

 

[Tambora]

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

I can offer some different perspectives to ponder that I have come across.

One perspective is that being 2nd was a higher position like many of the patriarchs being the second born but first in honored position, such as Isaac, Jacob, Ephraim.
1 Cor 15 tells us right after saying Christ was the 2nd that the natural was 1st and the spiritual was 2nd, indicating that the spiritual (2nd) was a higher position.

 

[Lees]

Lee I already answered that question.

You give the appearance of wanting an answer as though it were a really complex and difficult question, which it isn't. But respond to posts as though you have already decided you are going to consider any answer given as inadequate.

As to the first part of your post, Paul was not saying two different things when he said it two different ways. Each was used as was best for his purpose and the context, or simply the way he worded it as a preference at the time. That has nothing to do with it having a special meaning. I have never run across anyone in all my many years that ever thought the use of second man in one instance and second Adam in another, and last Adam in another was something that needed to be pondered for a hidden meaning in the distinctions. It seems the simple answer, which I gave you three different times and in three different ways, yet changed nothing of the meaning, was too easy or not complicated enough to be correct?

That's fine. If you're satisfied with your answer, well and good.

I do think the terms have meaning. The term 'second Adam' is never used. It is always the Last Adam, for the reasons you already pointed out. To say Christ is the 'Second Adam' implies there will be a third, fourth, etc. The term 'Last Adam' secures the finality of the two representatives of the human race. There will be no more.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I can offer some different perspectives to ponder that I have come across.

One perspective is that being 2nd was a higher position like many of the patriarchs being the second born but first in honored position, such as Isaac, Jacob, Ephraim.
1 Cor 15 tells us right after saying Christ was the 2nd that the natural was 1st and the spiritual was 2nd, indicating that the spiritual (2nd) was a higher position.

That is true. God can be so strange sometimes. It is like Him to reject the first and bless the second. Joseph tried to fool Jacob placing his sons in the position he wanted the blessing to go to. But, can't snow job the snow man. And Jacob crossed his arms and blessed the second born. (Gen. 48:10-20)

And yes, the blessing has gone to the 2nd Man.

Lees

 

[Tambora]

That is true. God can be so strange sometimes. It is like Him to reject the first and bless the second. Joseph tried to fool Jacob placing his sons in the position he wanted the blessing to go to. But, can't snow job the snow man. And Jacob crossed his arms and blessed the second born. (Gen. 48:10-20)

And yes, the blessing has gone to the 2nd Man.

Lees

Yep, we can also see in scripture that one could be called firstborn without literally being 1st born in sequence.
Jacob/Israel (and David and Ephraim) were called "firstborn" and none of them were born 1st in sequence.
(Ex 4:22, Ps 89:27, Jer 31:9)

And at the same time we can view the literal 1st born in sequence as being special also because of the culture, as in that culture the 1st born in sequence was granted a higher honor, and Jesus was literally 1st born in sequence.

Long story short, to be of the body of Christ doesn't depend on your status, it doesn't matter what literal sequence you were born, or being Jew or Gentile, or slave or free, etc.
All are welcome to come to Him.

 

[Lees]

Yep, we can also see in scripture that one could be called firstborn without literally being 1st born in sequence.
Jacob/Israel (and David and Ephraim) were called "firstborn" and none of them were born 1st in sequence.
(Ex 4:22, Ps 89:27, Jer 31:9)

And at the same time we can view the literal 1st born in sequence as being special also because of the culture, as in that culture the 1st born in sequence was granted a higher honor, and Jesus was literally 1st born in sequence.

Long story short, to be of the body of Christ doesn't depend on your status, it doesn't matter what literal sequence you were born, or being Jew or Gentile, or slave or free, etc.
All are welcome to come to Him.

That is true. And any who come to Christ are brought into the count, into the number of those 'in Christ'.

Thus Christ being called the 2nd Man, indicates there will be others to follow. A third, fourth, fifth, etc. Which might possibly mean God counts only those who are redeemed, which must bring Christ back to the 2nd Man position, for all are counted in Him. The unredeemed are not counted.

Lees

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
In the beginning "Adam" wasn't a personal name, rather, it was a species name,
sort of like h.sapiens.

● Gen 5:2 . . Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their
name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The Hebrew word translated Adam just simply means a human being, viz: mankind.

So then, I think we can safely assume that 1Cor 15:47 is telling us that although
Jesus' body has undergone some remarkable improvements, he is still a human
being rather than some sort of alien creature that nobody ever heard of before.
_