How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

[Darrell C]

Yes, the relationship was broken (and Adam cast out of the Garden where he had been placed). Do you find any significance in Scripture teaching that Adam was not created in the Garden but was placed there and given charge of Creation?

Not really. I view the Garden as an Old Testament picture of New Jerusalem. This is a place that bridges God's Realm (Heaven) with Man's Realm (the physical earth).

This is where God dwelt among men on earth, which was then a necessity because Adam had not yet (and I preface this with I lean heavily towards this position, but am not dogmatic) been brought into eternal union with God. He had not yet sinned thus created the condition we are born into, which required Reconciliation between God and Man. So while Adam's creation resulted in the greatest man who ever lived apart from Jesus Christ, we have an advantage over Adam in that we are brought into eternal union with God and made one with him.

I did notice you mention that before, so I would ask, do you see a significance in it?


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Not really. I view the Garden as an Old Testament picture of New Jerusalem. This is a place that bridges God's Realm (Heaven) with Man's Realm (the physical earth).

This is where God dwelt among men on earth, which was then a necessity because Adam had not yet (and I preface this with I lean heavily towards this position, but am not dogmatic) been brought into eternal union with God. He had not yet sinned thus created the condition we are born into, which required Reconciliation between God and Man. So while Adam's creation resulted in the greatest man who ever lived apart from Jesus Christ, we have an advantage over Adam in that we are brought into eternal union with God and made one with him.

I did notice you mention that before, so I would ask, do you see a significance in it?


God bless.

Yes, I do see the Garden (and the act of God placing Adam in the Garden) as significant. The idea of a “garden temple” is common in ANE belief, specifically that the temples of that period offered a sacred space that symbolically paralleled many aspects of the Garden of Genesis. and I do not believe by accident.

I view the Garden as the first Temple, where God’s presence existed alongside men in such a way that men could be with Him and worship Him (the function of a temple). Carrying this a step further, Adam’s disobedience was not a move from one type of nature to another, but rather evidence that Adam (and mankind) lacks the nature required to be in the presence of Holy God. God’s command to Adam served the same purpose as the Law to Israel – it demonstrated man’s righteousness in relation to God’s righteousness. Men choose to worship the image of God (in man) rather than God.

 

[Aaron]

I don't believe that Adam was created equal to God. I believe that men were created as human beings with a human nature. They are created, as you say, "a little lower than the angles".

Is it possible that a descendant of Adam could not sin? Yes, of course it is. It is not a matter of nature but a matter of will. Is it possible that a descent of Adam would not sin? No, of course not. Men sin and fall short of the glory of God. We have Adam's nature. The exception being Christ who took upon Himself human nature yet remained obedient to the Father in all things.

But the fiction of Adam falling before the Fall and that fallen nature being passed on to us as sin is more akin to Marvel than Scripture.

Well, Paul says differently. The carnal mind, iow, the natural man, is at enmity with God and cannot be subject to His law.

Any further discussion on this will hinge on Romans 8:7. You're going to Genesis with a host of erroneous and arbitrary assumptions. So let's discuss what Christ's Apostle said about the nature of man.

 

[Aaron]

I don't think Scripture will bear that out..

I was simply stating the conclusion of JonC's statements. That is not my conclusion.

 

[JonC]

Well, Paul says differently. The carnal mind, iow, the natural man, is at enmity with God and cannot be subject to His law.

You partially right (which is the beginning of just about every decent heresy). What Paul actually says is:

Romans 8:1-8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You are wrong that you imagine Paul is saying anything differently than I’ve been trying to get you to understand. Just as Adam set his mind on the flesh and sinned, so also do we set our mind on things of the flesh and sin.

Any further discussion on this will hinge on Romans 8:7. You're going to Genesis with a host of erroneous and arbitrary assumptions. So let's discuss what Christ's Apostle said about the nature of man.

This is, perhaps, the root of your error. You seem to have extracted Romans 8:7 from Paul’s letter to the Romans and interpreted that verse out of its own context to suit your mythology. And then you turn around and declare that all Scripture has to offer hinges on your interpretation of that one verse removed from the whole.

 

[JonC]

I don't think Scripture will bear that out. It is clear he was judged a sinner by his actions and suffered the consequences of his sin, losing communion with God and access to the Tree of Life, thus death entered the world and was passed on to his descendants..

I was simply stating the conclusion of JonC's statements. That is not my conclusion.

In post # 41 Aaron offered Romans 3:23(a) as proof of inherited sin and guilt because the verse says “all men have sinned”. My response (post # 42) was that Aaron was taking one part of the verse out of its context. Paul was not speaking of inherited guilt but rather that all men (both Jews and Gentiles) sin and fall short of the glory of God. We fall short by human nature (we sin), not by inherited guilt. And I posted Romans 3:19-26.

Although probably due to oversight or imagination (I'm sure unintentional), Aaron's post of my conclusion is dishonest to what was actually posted.

 

[percho]

Yes, I do see the Garden (and the act of God placing Adam in the Garden) as significant. The idea of a “garden temple” is common in ANE belief, specifically that the temples of that period offered a sacred space that symbolically paralleled many aspects of the Garden of Genesis. and I do not believe by accident.

I view the Garden as the first Temple, where God’s presence existed alongside men in such a way that men could be with Him and worship Him (the function of a temple). Carrying this a step further, Adam’s disobedience was not a move from one type of nature to another, but rather evidence that Adam (and mankind) lacks the nature required to be in the presence of Holy God. God’s command to Adam served the same purpose as the Law to Israel – it demonstrated man’s righteousness in relation to God’s righteousness. Men choose to worship the image of God (in man) rather than God.

I understand that the first man Adam brought sin into the world. I understand that that sin brought death to all men. However I ask; Was Adam the source of sin?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Did the sin of the devil predate the creation of Adam. Is death the result of sin?

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Gen 2:8 Why?
Who else was in the garden? Was God testing the man. Did Adam's fall surprise God? Was Adam's fall the plan of God?

Forasmuch then as the children (Of Adam made a little lower than the angels) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus Christ born of woman) 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; Hebrews 2:14

God was out to get Satan the devil therefore he laid down the foundation of the world (system) and created man in his own image for the purpose of Emmanuel, the Son of God, born of woman. Foreordained before the foundation of the world.

I do not believe Adam fell, I believe Adam did exactly what God knew Adam would do toward the purpose of God destroying the devil.and his works.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What sin would you charge the newborn with?

Or the babe in the womb?

We see one instance where we see one filled with the Spirit from the time of birth:

I don't charge anyone with anything.
However, the Bible is pretty clear, not only Psalm 51 but also Psalm 58:3.
Moreover, is this not what we observe? A little child has to be taught everything: how to be clean, how to hold a knife and fork, how to talk. Yet no one has to tell a child, "Now Johnny, this is how you tell a lie; you think of something that isn't true and then say it as if it is," or "now then little Jennie, this is how to be selfish; you keep you toys and don't let your sister play with them." They do these things without any help at all, because they have a fallen, sinful nature.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why does it follow that we "must" have inherited anything from Adam?
Why assume something had to occur before Adam could sin?
Maybe, we simply have the capacity to make choices, just like Adam, and like him.....we all sin?

Very briefly, because if Adam was created sinful, it would mean that God made him like that and so is the Author of evil. If he was created sinless, something must have happened to change that position.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are misapplying what the passage in Genesis actually states. The first Chapter tells us that all of Creation was good. This was prior to the “Fall” (prior to Adam’s sin and prior to God subjecting Creation to “futility”).

Close but no cigar! God pronounced creation 'good' before the creation of Adam. After the creation of Adam, He pronounced it 'very good.' So the arrival of Adam actually improved creation. Now if Adam was created as just a regular guy and if 'those who are in the flesh [i.e sinful nature] cannot please God,' then how could creation with him in it be 'very good' and since Adam came straight from the hands of God, how is God not the author of evil?

The reason that you believe the verse is speaking to Adam’s nature is because you misunderstand sin to be something within the nature of man rather than an act of the will.

It is both those things. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.' Men sin of their own volition, but because they have wicked, unbelieving hearts. Now: did Adam have such a heart when he was first created? 'The carnal mind is enmity against God.' Did Adam have such a mind when he was first created?

The reason we disagree is that I view a consistency in Scripture where you view a dichotomy between pre-fallen Adam and post-fallen Adam. This is not present in Scripture.

I think you'll find it is.

Jesus teaches us that the fruit bears witness of the tree. Adam’s transgression of God’s command reveals human nature when compared to God. If Adam indeed had a "perfect nature" and if our nature dictates whether or not we will sin, then Adam would not have sinned. Adam, like us, had a human nature. And this is the only way Scripture (which is our authority) deals with nature - "flesh" and "spirit". Adam sinned and fell short of the glory of God because he was human. We sin and fall short of the glory of God because we are human. Adam, just like us, needed a spiritual birth.

You need to read my post #98 again. Adam was not made perfect; he was made sinless, but not impeccable. And creation was not called 'perfect' by God, but 'very good.' If Adam needed a new 'spiritual' birth then he was a 'natural man [who] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'

Again I ask, if Adam was created a sinner, how could God have pronounced the creation 'very good' and how is He not the Author of evil?

 

[JonC]

Close but no cigar! God pronounced creation 'good' before the creation of Adam. After the creation of Adam, He pronounced it 'very good.' So the arrival of Adam actually improved creation. Now if Adam was created as just a regular guy and if 'those who are in the flesh [i.e sinful nature] cannot please God,' then how could creation with him in it be 'very good' and since Adam came straight from the hands of God, how is God not the author of evil?

It is both those things. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.' Men sin of their own volition, but because they have wicked, unbelieving hearts. Now: did Adam have such a heart when he was first created? 'The carnal mind is enmity against God.' Did Adam have such a mind when he was first created?

I think you'll find it is.

You need to read my post #98 again. Adam was not made perfect; he was made sinless, but not impeccable. And creation was not called 'perfect' by God, but 'very good.' If Adam needed a new 'spiritual' birth then he was a 'natural man [who] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'

Again I ask, if Adam was created a sinner, how could God have pronounced the creation 'very good' and how is He not the Author of evil?

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. Adam was not created a sinner, he was created a human being (a man).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. Adam was not created a sinner, he was created a human being (a man).

Thanks for that. It's right up there with the pope being Roman Catholic and what bears do in the woods.
You said that Adam 'needed a spiritual birth.' Is that still your view?

 

[JonC]

Thanks for that. It's right up there with the pope being Roman Catholic and what bears do in the woods.
You said that Adam 'needed a spiritual birth.' Is that still your view?

Yes. I believe that Adam, even before the fall, lacked the "righteousness of God" and would prove to need a Savior. This is evident in Adams disobedience.

 

[percho]

Yes. I believe that Adam, even before the fall, lacked the "righteousness of God" and would prove to need a Savior. This is evident in Adams disobedience.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. Adam was not created a sinner, he was created a human being (a man).

Amen Brother!

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15 46
Adam has not yet experienced the afterward.

Adam was created of the flesh. He could have said, after God told him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "I am of the flesh, sold under sin".

Relative to the word carnal. As Red said relative to the word, rehabilitated, "To me, it's just a made up word"

A made up word to express what men thought rather than what the word of God said.

 

[Aaron]

You partially right (which is the beginning of just about every decent heresy). What Paul actually says is:

Romans 8:1-8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You are wrong that you imagine Paul is saying anything differently than I’ve been trying to get you to understand. Just as Adam set his mind on the flesh and sinned, so also do we set our mind on things of the flesh and sin. This is, perhaps, the root of your error. You seem to have extracted Romans 8:7 from Paul’s letter to the Romans and interpreted that verse out of its own context to suit your mythology. And then you turn around and declare that all Scripture has to offer hinges on your interpretation of that one verse removed from the whole.

Blah, blah, blah.

Paul is contrasting those with and without the Spirit. To be without the Spirit is to be carnally minded. No one without the Spirit can be anything but carnally minded.

The carnal mind is at enmity with God. It will not submit to God's law, and it cannot. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. That's the nature of the those without the Spirit.

It's no more complicated than that.

Seems we've reached an impasse. If you won't listen to Paul or Christ when they speak on the matter, what can I do?

 

[JonC]

Blah, blah, blah.

Paul is contrasting those with and without the Spirit. To be without the Spirit is to be carnally minded. No one without the Spirit can be anything but carnally minded.

The carnal mind is at enmity with God. It will not submit to God's law, and it cannot. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. That's the nature of the those without the Spirit.

It's no more complicated than that.

Exactly. Part of the issue is that you translate Scripture as "blah blah blah"...until you find something interesting that may fit your ideas. The only two natures mentioned in Scripture are the "flesh" and the "spirit". Good to see you finally abandoning this "superman" philosophy and returning to the Word.

The fact is that your theory is foreign to Scripture (I was expecting you to mention the Yggdrasil at any time). But trying to prove your mythology through Scripture you have disproved it. That's the beauty of Sola Scriptura. It removes "you" from the equation.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you return to the Bible. Hopefully you'll decide it is enough and stay away from "old wives tales", "vain philosophies", and superstition. Good luck.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. I believe that Adam, even before the fall, lacked the "righteousness of God" and would prove to need a Saviour. This is evident in Adams disobedience.

So Adam was 'in the flesh.' Now since 'they that are in the flesh cannot please God,' You must believe that Adam did not please God when he tended the Garden, nor when he named the animals. You must also believe that God created Adam with a heart that is 'desperately wicked.' [That Adam needed a Saviour after he fell into sin is not at issue]

I shall be grateful if you will address these points and also some others that I made in post #130. Thank you.

 

[JonC]

So Adam was 'in the flesh.' Now since 'they that are in the flesh cannot please God,' You must believe that Adam did not please God when he tended the Garden, nor when he named the animals. You must also believe that God created Adam with a heart that is 'desperately wicked.' [That Adam needed a Saviour after he fell into sin is not at issue]

I shall be grateful if you will address these points and also some others that I made in post #130. Thank you.

Until death entered the world no one needed a Savior. You completely miss the mark on what nature is (and the nature of sin). The heart of man is wicked, but again this is in relation to God. You can complain that God made Adam a little god who fell day long but that won't make it true.

Simply, Scripture tells us something your philosophy can't accept. I already said that I'm not interested in exploring theoretocal hypotheses.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I do see the Garden (and the act of God placing Adam in the Garden) as significant. The idea of a “garden temple” is common in ANE belief, specifically that the temples of that period offered a sacred space that symbolically paralleled many aspects of the Garden of Genesis. and I do not believe by accident.

I view the Garden as the first Temple, where God’s presence existed alongside men in such a way that men could be with Him and worship Him (the function of a temple). Carrying this a step further, Adam’s disobedience was not a move from one type of nature to another, but rather evidence that Adam (and mankind) lacks the nature required to be in the presence of Holy God. God’s command to Adam served the same purpose as the Law to Israel – it demonstrated man’s righteousness in relation to God’s righteousness. Men choose to worship the image of God (in man) rather than God.

Interesting. In large part I think we could see that in the Garden, but I will comment on a few things you say, beginning with we do not see any mention of Temples that I can recall in the period of Adam through Noah. Of course, been a while since I spent serious time in Genesis, so let me know if I am forgetting anything.

Adam’s disobedience was not a move from one type of nature to another, but rather evidence that Adam (and mankind) lacks the nature required to be in the presence of Holy God.

Which is to say the same thing, essentially. This states he had a nature which was sufficient to be in God's presence, then didn't.

And this is the issue I see that would work against that: we are still speaking of a temporal context.

In other words, we see God coming into man's presence (on earth), rather than man coming into God's presence (in Heaven).

And all "temples" prior to the creation of the Temple of God currently in existence, the Body of Christ, were but figures/parables/shadow of the reality of man coming into God's presence:


Hebrews 9:7-9
King James Version (KJV)

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


And the difference between man entering into God's presence and God entering into the presence of men (which occurred somewhat frequently) is huge.

Consider the reason why men now go into God's presence (the implication being they did not prior to Christ):


Hebrews 9:23-24
King James Version (KJV)

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


So the sum total would be that even if we viewed the Garden as a Temple for Adam, it still lies within the framework of shadow/figure/parable, and no matter how great that might have been, it doesn't hold a candle to the reality of the opposite, men coming into God's presence in His realm.

God’s command to Adam served the same purpose as the Law to Israel

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement and think sometimes people do not understand that God's Word is in view in regards to His command to Adam and Eve, and is no less meaningful than the written Word.

God’s command to Adam served the same purpose as the Law to Israel – it demonstrated man’s righteousness in relation to God’s righteousness.

Not sure I can fully agree with this in the context you give it, simply because we haev a different economy between God and Man in his pre-fallen state as opposed to his fallen state. In the fallen state arose the need for remission of sin, atonement, and Reconciliation. This was not an element of God's relationship to man prior to Adam's sin, which resulted in the loss of fellowship with God, and access to what presumably extended physical life, the Tree of Life.

Men choose to worship the image of God (in man) rather than God.

I don't really see Adam's sin as an issue of worshiping something other than God, though some view him "worshiping his wife." We can't really go beyond what we are told which is that Eve was deceived, gave to Adam to eat, and at that point they were aware that their fellowship with God had changed. I speculate that Adam chose to share the fate of his wife when he learned she had disobeyed God, knowing that the death penalty was the consequence. The text is not clear enough to be dogmatic in charging Adam with knowledge he was eating of the forbidden fruit (until after he ate of it). He is charged with sin, though, so if we assume he did eat with knowledge, we have to wonder why a man as great as he would do so.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In post # 41 Aaron offered Romans 3:23(a) as proof of inherited sin and guilt because the verse says “all men have sinned”. My response (post # 42) was that Aaron was taking one part of the verse out of its context. Paul was not speaking of inherited guilt but rather that all men (both Jews and Gentiles) sin and fall short of the glory of God. We fall short by human nature (we sin), not by inherited guilt. And I posted Romans 3:19-26.

Although probably due to oversight or imagination (I'm sure unintentional), Aaron's post of my conclusion is dishonest to what was actually posted.

Ok, gotcha.

I still go back to the issue of separation from God being the condition imposed on Adam's descendants. We sin because we are separated from God, and have no option to meet the righteous requirement of God. I think you are right in that Adam fell short as well, and that is just how he was created.


God bless.