again talking about an individual. By the end of Romans 5:14 he has added a third perspective: Adam as a pattern or antitype. We can see then that Paul uses Adam on a number of levels in Romans 5, but one of them is as an archetype. Nevertheless, here the archetypal use is connected to the fall, not to his forming.
First Corinthians 15 is the other most extensive treatment of Adam by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15:21 Paul observes that death came through a man and, in so doing, addresses Adam as an individual who is acting. But in 1 Corinthians 15:22 he expands his vision to the archetypal level: “as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive.” Our status as being “in Adam” treats Adam as an archetype, though still a historical figure. We are all “in Adam.” We are not all “in Christ,” but those who are also experience life in that identity.
Paul returns to discussion of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 as he compares and contrasts “the first man” (also called the “earthly man”) Adam to “the last Adam” (also called “the second man” and “the heavenly man”). From the variations that are used, we can see that “second” is the same as “last” and therefore does not focus on actual numeration value. That is, Jesus was neither the second man in time and history, nor was he the last man in time and history. First Corinthians 15:48-49 brings the discussion to the point Paul has been making throughout the passage: both Adam and Jesus are archetypes with whom we are identified. These verses also must be discussed with regard to historicity and human origins, but those are topics for other chapters to investigate. In 1 Corinthians 15, then, we can see that Paul is treating Adam as an archetype representing mortal humanity. This use is similar to what was proposed for Genesis 2 since the archetypal connection to dust was human mortality. Paul has followed the lead of Genesis here.
In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, it is not Adam to whom Paul refers, but Eve: “Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray” (2 Cor 11:3). Paul is not suggesting here that all the Corinthians are archetypally represented by Eve. Instead, she serves as an illustration of what Paul wants to avoid happening at Corinth. She is neither archetype nor antitype. Furthermore, Paul’s use does not suggest that Eve was ontologically deceivable, only that she serves as an exemplar—a warning for the people at Corinth and for all of us.
In Paul’s letter to Timothy, we encounter one of the most complicated treatments of Adam and Eve. In 1 Timothy 2:13-15, Paul refers to the order of creation as being the opposite of the order of deception: Adam was created first; Eve was deceived first. We are only interested here in the question of the role that Adam and Eve are being given. Unlike Paul’s use of Eve in 2 Corinthians, where the fact that she was deceived served as an illustration for all, her situation is now applied to the women of Ephesus. Likewise, Adam is used to make a comment about the role of the men at Ephesus.
Three main options present themselves for understanding Paul’s use of Adam and Eve in the point he is making about Ephesus: (1) archetypal, (2) ontological and (3) illustrative. If his comments were archetypal, he would be saying that all men were formed first as Adam was formed first, and all women were deceived in Eve even as she was deceived. Nothing in the passage, in Paul’s thinking or in logical assessment suggests this is true. The ontological view could be seen as an extension of the archetypal. If this is what Paul is doing, he is suggesting that man by his created nature is first, and woman by her created nature is deceivable. Therefore, men not only should be first, but it is their nature to be so. Women are inherently deceivable, and cautions should therefore be taken. This is an extreme position, but it is not without adherents
First Corinthians 15 is the other most extensive treatment of Adam by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15:21 Paul observes that death came through a man and, in so doing, addresses Adam as an individual who is acting. But in 1 Corinthians 15:22 he expands his vision to the archetypal level: “as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive.” Our status as being “in Adam” treats Adam as an archetype, though still a historical figure. We are all “in Adam.” We are not all “in Christ,” but those who are also experience life in that identity.
Paul returns to discussion of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 as he compares and contrasts “the first man” (also called the “earthly man”) Adam to “the last Adam” (also called “the second man” and “the heavenly man”). From the variations that are used, we can see that “second” is the same as “last” and therefore does not focus on actual numeration value. That is, Jesus was neither the second man in time and history, nor was he the last man in time and history. First Corinthians 15:48-49 brings the discussion to the point Paul has been making throughout the passage: both Adam and Jesus are archetypes with whom we are identified. These verses also must be discussed with regard to historicity and human origins, but those are topics for other chapters to investigate. In 1 Corinthians 15, then, we can see that Paul is treating Adam as an archetype representing mortal humanity. This use is similar to what was proposed for Genesis 2 since the archetypal connection to dust was human mortality. Paul has followed the lead of Genesis here.
In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, it is not Adam to whom Paul refers, but Eve: “Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray” (2 Cor 11:3). Paul is not suggesting here that all the Corinthians are archetypally represented by Eve. Instead, she serves as an illustration of what Paul wants to avoid happening at Corinth. She is neither archetype nor antitype. Furthermore, Paul’s use does not suggest that Eve was ontologically deceivable, only that she serves as an exemplar—a warning for the people at Corinth and for all of us.
In Paul’s letter to Timothy, we encounter one of the most complicated treatments of Adam and Eve. In 1 Timothy 2:13-15, Paul refers to the order of creation as being the opposite of the order of deception: Adam was created first; Eve was deceived first. We are only interested here in the question of the role that Adam and Eve are being given. Unlike Paul’s use of Eve in 2 Corinthians, where the fact that she was deceived served as an illustration for all, her situation is now applied to the women of Ephesus. Likewise, Adam is used to make a comment about the role of the men at Ephesus.
Three main options present themselves for understanding Paul’s use of Adam and Eve in the point he is making about Ephesus: (1) archetypal, (2) ontological and (3) illustrative. If his comments were archetypal, he would be saying that all men were formed first as Adam was formed first, and all women were deceived in Eve even as she was deceived. Nothing in the passage, in Paul’s thinking or in logical assessment suggests this is true. The ontological view could be seen as an extension of the archetypal. If this is what Paul is doing, he is suggesting that man by his created nature is first, and woman by her created nature is deceivable. Therefore, men not only should be first, but it is their nature to be so. Women are inherently deceivable, and cautions should therefore be taken. This is an extreme position, but it is not without adherents
Similar Books
