[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I'm not justifying Adam's sin. I'm saying he did what he had to do. Think of it, if he doesn't eat of the tree, what happens now? He had to do it.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The sin is bad and Adam was cursed for it. But it depicts the extreme situation God was in when he faced his fallen bride-to-be. Now let me be very clear about this: God did not sin. But God, like Adam, made a decision of awesome proportions. He would put on the flesh. I don't know what this flesh really entailed but I know it wasn't the flesh of the resurrected Christ. It was truly in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

The parallel is the awesome, terrible choice before both Adam and God. They both chose rightly, even though it cost them both their lives and reputations.
SC

Dear SC,

You certainly have made a heroic and passionate effort to explain Adam’s action as a type of Christ’s redemptive act of putting on the flesh so he could die in our place.

I would like to be persuaded by you just so we could be on the same page as believers , but your arguments are too over the top for me. I have to come back to my rule of thumb which is to try my best to stay with what the Bible says and to examine interpretations in the light and context of the whole body of scripture. An accurate interpretation should be a fit throughout.

Try as I may I cannot shut out hearing in what you write that Adam's action (sin) is being glorified, even though you insist you are not doing this. The Bible says that if a man sins and suffers for it, there is no glory in this. It says that what is acceptable to God is patiently bearing suffering when there is no sin. I have to conclude that an interpretation that can be construed as glorifying sin, which yours easily can, is a not a good one. What Adam did was not acceptable on any level.

What biblical footing is there to say that Adam just had to do it? What biblical support is there for Adam just having to sin? Should Adam have sinned so grace could abound?

You asked what would have happened if he didn’t sin. I’m sure we’d all like to know that. I for one wish he had made the choice not to sin. I think God could have handled that just fine. I don’t think the result would have been near as bad as the one we were born into.

The result of the choice Adam made was of awesome proportions, and they weren’t good, since in Adam all die. Take a look at world history for the evil and suffering that has come to all men as a result of his choice. Nothing to glory about there.

I can see in the Bible that Adam’s transgression was a figure for us in this way: it shows us the power of one man's disobedience to bring death and suffering to billions of people. Paul used this figure to convince us that, in the same way, Christ’s obedience had the power to bring life to all mankind. This is not my interpretation, but what the Bible says about Adam’s transgression being a figure.

I agree that what Adam did cost him his reputation, as it should have. However, Christ did not “lose” his reputation. The Bible says he freely chose to make Himself of no reputation.

Furthermore, Christ’s putting on the flesh in order to die on the cross for our sins was ordained in the foreknowledge of God. It was not a stop gap decision God “rightly” made when he was faced with the sin problem after the fact. There is no parallel in what Adam did.

Also, Adam being a type of Christ laying down his life for the church had already taken place (Gen. 2:21-22, where God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam...). This was clearly before Adam’s monumental decision to sin. The type occurred, as is fitting to the picture, when Adam was still sinless.

As for Jonah, the Bible says he was a figure because he was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights. It doesn’t say anything about his disobedience being a part of that figure.

I thank you for the clarity this argument has brought to me as I have been searching out the scriptures to see what is true.

I love the Bible and its typology as you do. I learned about the existence of typology from Witness Lee and am thankful for that. I now believe he was way too free in his interpretations and was not governed by the Bible’s interpretations as he should have been. That got us in a lot of trouble (as support for deputy authority for example). I’m working hard to break free from loose interpretations, so I just can’t buy into yours on this.

Thankful Jane