[zeek]

I know Glad's article was supposed to clear up our muddled thinking, but Glad says, " Paul therefore alludes to Gen 5:3 in order to assert that Christ functions typologically as an Adamic figure (vv. 45-47) by passing on his image to believers or ‘‘sons’’ (vv. 49-52; cf. Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 4:6-7)." Isn't that backwards? According to Paul's typology, events, persons or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. So Glad should have said that Adam functions typologically as a Christ figure. Christ is the antitype not the type. This is confirmed in Romans 5:14 where Paul calls Adam "a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come", i.e. a type of Christ.