St. Paul refers to Jesus as “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). What does that mean, and why do we speak of Jesus as the new (or last) Adam?
1. Jesus Reverses the Curse of Adam
St. Paul describes the relationship between Adam and Christ in this aspect in Romans 5:12, 17-19, where he contrasts the two:
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned [….] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
And this dimension is interwoven throughout Jesus’ life and death. In a particular way, we watch Jesus go from the garden of Gethsemane to the “tree” of the Cross (to use the language of Acts 5:30, 10:39, Galatians 3:13, and 1 Peter 2:24) in order to redeem the sin of Adam at that first tree in that first garden. Here, the image of Christ as the new Adam is almost of an anti-Adam. In other words, inasmuch as Adam was sinful and disobedient, he is contrasted by Jesus’ perfect sinless obedience to the will of the Father.
2. Jesus is the Adam of the New Creation
Adam has a special place for all of us as humans, as our forefather. He’s the patriarch of all humanity, according to the flesh. But Jesus is our Patriarch in the faith, the protos of redeemed humanity. “Behold, I make all things new,” declares the enthroned Lamb (Revelation 21:5). And in a special way, His Resurrection truly is a new Creation. Easter Sunday is both the eighth day of the week, in the sense of bringing all creation to a new level; and it’s also “the first day of the week” (Mt. 28:1) in that it is the Day 1 of the new Creation. The Resurrection is also just the beginning of this new Creation, not the end, for Christ rose “that he might be the first-born among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). St. Paul describes this as part of a broader vision of the redemption of the cosmos in Romans 8:19-23:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
And in 1 Corinthians 15:35-38, 42-49, he expands on this in reference to the resurrected body in particular. In doing so, Paul uses two images: our bodies now as “seeds,” which after they lay in the grave, will rise again in a glorious way in their resurrected state (showing how the resurrected body is both the same body and unrecognizably better than it is currently); and talking about Jesus as the Adam of this resurrected / spiritual creation:
But some one will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. [….]
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Here, Christ isn’t the anti-Adam as much as Adam 2.0, the “Adam” of our final destination.
3. The New Eve… Mary and the Church
So what’s been missing in this discussion so far? Eve! We’ve talked about Adam, but Adam wasn’t alone in the Garden. So if Christ is the new/last Adam, both remaining faithful where Adam failed, and being the Patriarch of newer and better promises and a newer and better way of living, where is Christ’s “Eve”? Scripture points to two.
The first is the Church, the Bride of Christ. St. Paul alludes to this in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, when he says “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church also points to the connection between Eve being taken from the side of Adam, and the Church being born out of the Blood and Water flowing from the side of Christ:
766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.'” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.
And in Ephesians 5:25-33, St. Paul presents the relationship between Christ and the Church very much in this way:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Did you catch that? St. Paul is saying that Genesis 2:24, originally referring to Adam and Eve (and by extension to all husbands and wives) actually mystically refers to Jesus and the Church.
So that’s the first “new Eve.” The second is the Virgin Mary. That’s weird because she’s the mother of Jesus, right? Well, the new Eve isn’t a sexual thing (in either case). The earliest Christians were clear about the fact that Mary’s obedience counteracts Eve’s disobedience. Around the year 160, St. Justin Martyr wrote:
For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
Twenty years later, St. Irenaeus wrote:
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” [Luke 1:38] But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, [Genesis 2:25] […] having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.
A few decades later, Tertullian would write “As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.” Both Mary and Eve were faced with angelic visitations, of a sort: one from Gabriel and the other from the fallen angel Satan. Mary responded in obedience to God, while Eve disobeyed.
So that’s the way that Mary serves as a sort of “anti-Eve,” but how is she an “Eve 2.0”? By being the mother of all the living. In Genesis 3:20, Adam “called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” That is, he changed his wife’s name from “Woman” (his first name for her, Gen. 2:23) to Eve (“Mother”), because “she was the mother of all living.” It’s weird timing, because she’s not a mother yet, and because Adam and Eve are in the midst of getting kicked out of the garden. But if you look at the Cross, at the moment that the New Adam is reversing the curse, we find Him referring to His Mother like this when He entrusted her to John, the Beloved Disciple (John 19:26-27):
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
There it is, that same switch. And just as Eve was so-called because she was the “mother of all living,” so Mother Mary is so-called because she’s the mother of all those living in Christ. (Remember that St. John still had a mother, who was right there at the Cross while He’s saying this: Matthew 27:55-56).
And so in Revelation 12, we see the Mother of Jesus (an image likely symbolizing both Mary individually and the Church more broadly) at war with the serpent… an obvious allusion to Genesis 3 (this connection is made pretty explicit in Rev. 12:9). The passage closes on the line that “the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:17). So the new Eve (both Mary and the Church) is a true Mother of the Living, but living the sort of spiritual life which St. Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 15, the new spiritual life brought about by our New Adam, Jesus Christ.
Beautiful and masterful post! So many things to chew on that I need to read it over 2 or 3 more times to digest it well. Also, excellent quotes on the ‘New Eve’ from Justin, Tertullian and Irenaeus. And then, including in the post this quote from Rev. 12:16: “the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the REST OF HER OFFSPRING, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus”, was perfectly pertinent and genius.
For those who want an apologetic connection in the post which refutes Protestant doctrines such as ‘Sola Fide’, the same Rev. 12:16 quote above identifies the followers and brothers (offspring) of Christ, particularly, as ” those who KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of God”. Such a reference to ‘keeping the commandments’ as a particular mark of being the ‘offspring’ of the Church/Mary, is antithetical to the ‘alone’ part of Luther’s proclamation of ‘justification by faith ALONE’.
It is also worth mentioning in this regard that Jesus himself in the Gospel of John always calls his mother “woman” (at Cana and the crucifixion). As the new Adam, he is recognizing that Mary is like Eve before the sin for “woman” is exactly the title that the first Adam used when he named her. After the sin, the first woman was no longer virgin, immaculate or immortal and her role was diminished to that of being simply a mother. Thus, she is called Eve. The Virgin Mary then is recognized by Jesus himself as being the replacement for the first woman as he is a replacement for the first Adam, and by their humility and obedience the sins of the progenitors of the human race are overcome by the Divine Mercy. Thus, the Virgin Mary has not only the dignity of the first woman (immaculate, virgin, triumphant over death), but she is also mother of God (Jesus) and hence, as his mother, mother of the Church which is his body.
This is a beautiful and simple explanation of how cooperative Mary was (is) in salvation history. Her “yes” is our hope in that we, also being born human, but stained with sin, have Mary as a Mother to guild us towards her son, Christ our Redeemer. She is the perfect model for us towards humility, perseverance and holiness. Considering she was the Theotokos, spouse of the Holy Spirit and daughter of God the Father, was she more than what we were meant to be in Eve, before the fall?
Being a woman and a mother I can easily identify with her suffering and her great desire she has for our eternal happiness. I see Christ as “King” and Mary “Queen” God as “Father” and “ Holy Spirit” as God of “Light” which is “Trinity”.. yes, I know this is a very limited view..I am human and within my own limitations, God is not limited… He who is “Alpha and Omega” Omnipresent…
“the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:17).”
It seems that his quote refers more to the person of the blessed Mother of Jesus than it does to the Universal Church. And the reason is, if we substitute in the sentence “Universal Church” for “her” it would not make much sense, and would read:
“The dragon was angry with the Universal Church, and went out to make war on the rest of the Universal Church’s (her) offspring.”
If we read it this way we would then need to ask the question: Was Jesus one of these who is called/termed the “offspring”of the Universal Church? The answer should be obviously no. Jesus is not the offspring of ‘The Church’, He is only the offspring of Mary and God the Father. More precisely, He is the architect and builder of the Church, as he Himself said: “Upon this rock I will build My Church”.
So, it seems that this quote regarding the dragon, the woman, and the ‘rest of her’ offspring refers ONLY to the Blessed Virgin Mary when using the term “her”. The woman ‘clothed with the Sun’ is Mary glorified in heaven. Jesus is obviously one of her ‘off spring'(not one of the of offspring of The Church), and then the apostles and disciples to follow are her ‘offspring’ through adoption…as per the saying of Jesus on the Cross when He said to Mary, and referring to St. John the apostle: “Behold thy son”.
So, I don’t see a plausible reason to interpret the ‘Universal Church’ to be the ‘Woman’ referred to in this passage. How can Jesus be an ‘offspring’ of the Universal Church? Can He be the ‘offspring’ and also the architect/founder/creator/ builder of the Church at the same time?
Someone please correct me if I’m missing something, here?
Hi Al,
Well, you certainly present a logical conundrum, something my “D” grade in Intro Calc barely qualifies me to answer~!
So, I recommend a wonderful tome, “Our Lady and the Church” by Hugo Rahner, SJ., Zaccheus Press, 2004 (orig. 1961). The basic idea is that Mary is a symbol of the church, Mother of the church.
From the Foreword (from an unnamed medieval mystic quoted by Isaac of Stella, 1863): “Christ is one, and one alone: head and body. He is one: Son of the one Father in heaven, son of the one Mother on earth: two sonships, but one son. The head and members are more than one, yet one son: so Mary and the Church are two, yet one single mother, two virgins and yet one. Each is mother, each is virgin. Both conceived by the same Spirit, without human seed. Both bore to God the Father a child unblemished. The one, without sin, gave birth to Christ’s body, the other restored His body through the power of the remission of sins. Both are the Mother of Christ, but neither can bring Him to birth without the other….
And moreover whatever is said of God’s eternal wisdom itself, can be applied in a wide sense to the Church, in a narrower sense to Mary, and in a particular way to every faithful soul.”
Does this help?
Best,
Hi Margo,
After reading your quote from Isaac of Stella, I went back and read the whole chapter of Rev. 12 two times. And, now I know that the ‘conundrum’ regarding these mysteries will probably last for many more years to come. But, this has always been one of my favorite scriptures to ‘chew’ on.
Thanks for that gem of a quote from Isaac of Stella!
Best to you always.
Hi Al,
Yes, it is a good passage to chew! There is an entire chapter on Revelation in the above mentioned book. You will find it worthy of the price of the meal, I think.
I found myself chewing on the passage of the woman clothed with the sun. Think of Eve, finding herself naked, and how God fashioned clothing for her (and Adam too). So Mary, clothed with her son’s light, has fully ‘put on Christ.’
Do many interesting parallels! We will be kept busy for eternity, I believe.
Hi Al,
A few further thoughts: Are we forgetting the “rest” of her offspring? Perhaps this passage does not refer to Jesus. Instead, perhaps it refers specifically only to Mary’s/the Church’s other offspring. We, the Church, are Mary’s offspring because both Mary and the Church bring the image of Jesus to birth in us. Her soul doth magnify the Lord.
Jesus, in heaven now, is no Satan’s target since Satan forfeited his rights to that place. The church, however, is Satan’s fair game.
The rest of Mary’s offspring are both in and out of time and place (by virtue of our sacramental life, the real presence and protection of the Holy Spirit). The Church, the Body of Christ, is blessed and eternal because of our resurrected life of grace within and through Christ in the sacraments, in our Mystical body. Simultaneously, the church is materially bound and suffers. Full of sinful and fallen people–at war with the devil–the Body of Christ suffers until Mary’s immaculate heart triumphs and the heavenly city on the hill appears.
As you say, Jesus is not the offspring of the Church. He is the first offspring, the ‘other’ offspring of Mary. We are “the rest” of her/the Church’s offspring. Rev. 12:17 does not refer specifically to Jesus. How can it?
This is what I was thinking, that yes, we are, and the whole Church is…. the ‘rest of her offspring’. I was mainly trying to point out that Rev. 12 mostly seems to teach the ‘the woman clothed with the sun,’ was in all actuality to the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as compared to the Church Universal. If the Woman Was the Universal Church….as many say ‘the Woman’ is….then it would read that the Woman (Universal Church) clothed with the son was safe in the desert, and this angered the dragon….who left her to attack the ‘rest of her Children….meaning the Disciples of Christ/the Church past and present.
I was just wondering why so many people think that the “Woman” is ‘the Church’…..and not Mary herself? It actually seems that this passage is actually historical in nature, since it also includes that the dragon …’waited on the sand of the sea shore’. I think that St. John might be teaching something of the physical history of the Blessed Virgin, who he was in charge of, after the Lord’s resurrection. The Pharisees and the Jews, from every nation throughout the Roman Empire, were probably searching for her…knowing of her great significance regarding her relationship to the Messiah, her Son Jesus Christ. If they were also searching diligently for St. Paul…as is written in the Acts of the Apostles…then would we not think that she also was a primary target, a prize and prey beyond measure to be sought after for destruction?
And so, I think that St. John found a good hiding place for her, safe from the eyes of her enemies (the Dragon) and hints this to us by stating: “she was taken up on the wings of an Eagle”. This, I think, refers to himself, as we all know that this is the particular symbol of this Apostle, as we know by ancient Christian art. So, all of this looks like ancient Christian history to me, and that after the enemies of Christ knew that they could never find His mother, that is, that she disappeared (into hiding in the desert)…then they focused on other of the apostles, and warned all the synagogues throughout the Roman Empire to be on the look out for boats that might be bringing apostles and disciples of Christ to their shores. They were fearing an invasion of Christians throughout the entire Empire…and which actually happened.
So, again, I think that this probably refers to some history that St. John wanted to tell of the Blessed Virgin before her death and assumption into heaven. ‘The woman clothed with the Sun’ might have transfigured in the presence of John on occasion, even as Jesus did on the Mount of the Transfiguration, with Moses and Elijah, and of which he was an eye witness. Off all people John himself would understand what it was to be “clothed with the sun”, after witnessing the event at Mt. Tabor. Only, this time it was Mary who was transfigured and not Jesus and the patriarchs.
Anyway, as said, I like to chew on these thoughts and try to understand the symbolism better.
Best to you always Margo. You are a woman of deep wisdom and spirituality…as your comments in almost every one of Joe’s posts prove to be true.
….And please correct me if you think I’m ‘off track’ on these opinions regarding ‘The Woman’….the “rest of her offspring”…and St. John the apostle (her adopted son, and chosen protecter, after the ascension of Jesus into Heaven). Do you think this might be a reference to Mary’s physical history that wasn’t included in the Acts of the Apostles, but that John wanted to reveal, shrouded in this symbolic story of the ‘Woman and the Dragon’?
Hello Al,
I certainly do not think you are off track in your opinion of this passage. It is perfectly reasonable and logical. I respect and hold in high regard such ability. I do not share it, try as I may to acquire and own the same skill! I intuit much but often do not slow down enough to step-by-step analyze. I agree. As you say, ‘the woman’ here certainly could represent the material history of John helping Mary keep safe from persecution. As soon as I admit this, however, an “okay, but, and/or” creeps into my thinking.
As clear and logical a thinker and writer as Augustine was, his explanation of how Mary could simultaneously be a member of Christ’s mystical body at the same time that she was the mother of its head seems almost ‘inconceivable.’ With God, is anything impossible? Lumen Gentium of VCII takes the maternity of Mary to be similar to the maternity of the Church which grows the body of Christ. This too seems odd, doesn’t it?
There is the ‘wilderness.’ As Mary sought refuge in the wilderness, as the Israelites did also, doesn’t our Church membership seek the same? We look for God in the world, redeemed and victorious if we but keep the commandments to the end of time, and we find Him most particularly in our RC Church, in the Eucharist. At the same time, we are also snared, tempted, and sometimes trapped or persecuted by that same river poured forth from the mouth of the dragon. The time of Mary is the time of our Church and our time too.
So, Al, the long and short of my thinking is: “NO! You are not wrong.” I simply see that I sit down to a feast when I allow an expansive and mysterious ‘chew’ of this passage. When I see the parallels between Mary and the Church, when I see the passage as a perspective of God’s illimitable time, my vision seems more ‘apocalyptic,’ as it includes a longer history (perhaps this is a function of my chronological age?)/ That’s just me, but I appreciate (perhaps almost envy) the ‘male’ logic and clarity of thought which you and other gents display here. Always very helpful, insightful, and good.
Best to you too, Al, always. One day.
Spiritually speaking, true Christians never need to consider age. We should always be children, always learning, always interested in life, always growing in our knowledge of God.
St. Clement of Alexandria has a very inspiring treatise relating to this subject called “The Paedagogus”. Here is a quick selection:
Chapter 5.
All Who Walk According to Truth are Children of God
That, then, Pædagogy is the training of children (παίδων ἀγωγή), is clear from the word itself. It remains for us to consider the children whom Scripture points to; then to give the pædagogue charge of them. We are the children. In many ways Scripture celebrates us, and describes us in manifold figures of speech, giving variety to the simplicity of the faith by diverse names. Accordingly, in the Gospel, the Lord, standing on the shore, says to the disciples— they happened to be fishing — and called aloud, Children, have you any meat? — addressing those that were already in the position of disciples as children. And they brought to Him, it is said, children, that He might put His hands on them and bless them; and when His disciples hindered them, Jesus said, Suffer the children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. What the expression means the Lord Himself shall declare, saying, Unless you be converted, and become as little chidren, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; not in that place speaking figuratively of regeneration, but setting before us, for our imitation, the simplicity that is in children.”
For more, here is the New Advent link:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
– Al
Another beautiful passage from the same source (Clement) above:
“In contradistinction, therefore, to the older people, the new people are called young, having learned the new blessings; and we have the exuberance of life’s morning prime in this youth which knows no old age, in which we are always growing to maturity in intelligence, are always young, always mild, always new: for those must necessarily be new, who have become partakers of the new Word. And that which participates in eternity is wont to be assimilated to the incorruptible: so that to us appertains the designation of the age of childhood, a lifelong spring-time, because the truth that is in us, and our habits saturated with the truth, cannot be touched by old age; but Wisdom is ever blooming, ever remains consistent and the same, and never changes. Their children, it is said, shall be borne upon their shoulders, and fondled on their knees; as one whom his mother comforts, so also shall I comfort you. Isaiah 66:12-13 The mother draws the children to herself; and we seek our mother the Church. Whatever is feeble and tender, as needing help on account of its feebleness, is kindly looked on, and is sweet and pleasant, anger changing into help in the case of such: for thus horses’ colts, and the little calves of cows, and the lion’s cub, and the stag’s fawn, and the child of man, are looked upon with pleasure by their fathers and mothers. Thus also the Father of the universe cherishes affection towards those who have fled to Him; and having begotten them again by His Spirit to the adoption of children, knows them as gentle, and loves those alone, and aids and fights for them; and therefore He bestows on them the name of child. ”
*****************************
Best to all.
Hi again, Al. The beauty of our correspondence? Tangents. You and I should never run out of subjects and viewpoints, I think! Thank you for the quotes from Clement.
Did you know that Protestants tend to take the position that ‘the woman’ represents the church–and only the church? For them, the woman in no way represents Mary. This is not my position? I see the ‘woman’ as preeminently Mary. Protestant disallowance of ‘the woman’ as Mary circumvents and completely disregard the logical contradistinction of Mary to Eve as mothers of the (physical) and (spiritual) living. Just as Luther took issue with certain portions of scripture, Protestants cut the meanings from the Fathers and early church who always saw ‘the woman’ in Rev. as Mary.
The Fathers are also the ones who originated the idea that the woman Mary in scripture, particularly in Rev. represents more than herself. Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Clement, Isidore, the two Gregories, Epiphanius, Ephrem. Perhaps Joe would do an article on the woman as Mary and as the Church, using the Fathers to support that thesis.
In the meantime, here’s another slant. The ‘woman’ and her male child could in the first verses represent Mary, her first born son, and the two of them together bringing about the first (Catholic) church. The woman and her ‘other children’ in the later verses could represent the other Christians and the other churches, that invisible (Protestant) body. This interpretation could have some validity because it recalls Jesus’ reference to other flock (John 10:16). Who are they of that ‘other flock’?
Best always, Al.
Hi Margo,
“Who are they of that ‘other flock’?”
Maybe the same people who were raised from their graves at the time of Jesus’ death, after the earthquake, those that appeared to many in Jerusalem? They certainly followed Him as sheep following a Shepherd, out of their graves.
Or maybe others of prophets,t patriarchs or holy folk, such as Moses and Elias who were capable of communicating with Jesus even as He lived in the flesh, such as the angels did also?
There are many mysteries, but with scriptures such as these it teaches us that the love and power of God is deep, broad and probably far beyond our ability to comprehend.
And regarding Mary, also, I think only Jesus Himself will ever know the degree of both her union with God and her spiritual glory and excellence. These things are beyond our comprehension…in the same way, maybe, that a frog isn’t able to comprehend Dante. But that’s not to say that we can’t try.
Best to you.
Joe,
sorry for going off on a tangent, but in speaking of Adam, could we make the case that Luther repeated Adam and Eve’s original sin, in the sense that by claiming the superiority of personal interpretation of Scriptures he wanted to “be like God, knowing good and evil”, without having to submit to an higher authority (the Church)?
The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1Corinthians 15:45). This is today’s Christ, if we avail ourselves of Him through simple faith and unconditional trust. It’s not complicated.
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, was not talking about Jesus’ resurrection. Paul was talking about our resurrection. He was telling us about the natural body and the spiritual body. Paul was answering a potential question of “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”. Paul says, ‘if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”. Right after saying that he gives the two Adam’s, showing us our spiritual and natural body that was in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The spiritual body is the soul. That’s what Paul was saying.
The teaching on this subject is wrong. When you look at the verse in the Greek, which God had me do. It shows what I have explained to be true. I have a website and I break it down showing readers the verse in the original Greek.
https://www.thediscoveriesofagape.com/post/the-last-adam-is-adam