Did Adam Repent?

Status
Not open for further replies.

D. Paul

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.
 
I believe it is mentioned that he did in various extra-canonical books that the Jews had in Christ's time, but those are extra-canonical, so I don't know. :think:

Hmm...This could be relevant:

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.”
-Gen. 4:1(ESV)

And also...

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
-Gen. 4:25-26(ESV)

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 05:45:20 EST-----

The extra-canonical books to which I was referring are included in the pseudepigrapha. A quick google search on "pseudepigrapha adam" yields a number of Jewish works that existed among the Jews in the Apostles' time. The Book of Adam is one that comes to mind, wherein Adam does repent.

None of that proves that Adam repented, since these books are non-canonical and many of them are quite ridiculous. ;) What it does tell us is that it was probably common belief in Christ's time that Adam had repented.
 
Last edited:
Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.
 
Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.

Or by their mother, specifically to whom the covenant of grace was promised. (Gen. 3:15)

There is no mention of Adam repenting, but there is evidence of Eve believing the gospel promise. (Genesis 4:1, 25)
 
I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.

Evidence of Adam's faith may be gleaned from his subsequent affirmation of God's promise in his naming his wife Eve, the mother of all living; for God had just before designated that from her would come Christ, the source of life and head of all the living.
 
I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.

Evidence of Adam's faith may be gleaned from his subsequent affirmation of God's promise in his naming his wife Eve, the mother of all living.

Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.

Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11; but the first born of A&E (Abel) is listed as a man of faith; as the first "seed" (faithful) produced by the woman who was given the gospel truth. He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."
 
Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11
Nor are many other great saints of God who are spoken of in the Old Testament. This does not mean they were not men or women of faith. Why should we doubt that Adam and Eve's professions of the Lord's promise (Gen. 3:20, 4:1) expressed their faith in the true seed which the Lord had just mentioned, especially when the whole of the first several chapters of Genesis is so focused upon the promise of this seed?

Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.
Whence do you derive your confidence that he merely acknowledged physical lineage?

He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."
If you have acknowledged here that Eve had faith in the promise of the seed, would not she then be the first faithful, and not Abel?
 
Adam is not listed in Hebrews Chapter 11
Nor are many other great saints of God who are spoken of in the Old Testament. This does not mean they were not men or women of faith. Why should we doubt that Adam and Eve's professions of the Lord's promise (Gen. 3:20, 4:1) expressed their faith in the true seed which the Lord had just mentioned, especially when the whole of the first several chapters of Genesis is so focused upon the promise of this seed?

It is telling that Abel is the first mentioned. (Hebrews 11:4)

In that Godly lineage is delivered, as a rule, according to male lineage; omitting female participation, at all.

Acknowledgement of physical lineage, is not necessarily the acknowledgment of spiritual lineage.
Whence do you derive your confidence that he merely acknowledged physical lineage?

My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind.

Is there reason to believe that Adam named Eve as the mother of only those who will know spiritual life?

He was not the Savior she hoped for in faith, but he was indeed the first of the Godly lineage who would produce the promised "Seed."


If you have acknowledged here that Eve had faith in the promise of the seed, would not she then be the first faithful, and not Abel?

Good point.

And if your point is to be taken, why are not both Adam and Eve named as the "first" faithful?

Are we just to assume both A&E were faithful ("elect"), or are we to assume that Eve produced the first faithful seed ("elect"), according to and manifesting God's promise of His Covenant of Grace (versus any kind of performance of faithful works), in the person of Abel?
 
My point is Eve is named as the the mother of all physical mankind.
Which is simply an assertion. It requires demonstration.

Is there reason to believe that Adam named Eve as the mother of only those who will know spiritual life?
Yes, there is contextual reason. The naming of Eve, being a part of the curse/promise narrative, is intimately connected with the proceeding promise of the seed who was to come from her, who would reverse the curse and, by implication, bring in life. Adam has just been told that he will return to dust, and yet through the conquering seed yet live. There is a clear reason to separate the seed of the woman (which is to have true life), from the seed of the serpent (which shall not), which is established immediately prior to the naming of Eve. The subsequent Genesis narratives (for instance, Lamech's naming of Noah, or the explanation of the promise to Abraham) demonstrate how the promise was understood. It is fitting that Adam's pronouncement be understood in this light.
 
Well, I didn't say that. I simply stated that such is not the reason for her being named "Mother of all living." At least, it should not be seen as the chief reason. You asserted that she is so named because she is the physical mother of human kind. I think we should bow before a much greater and more sublime mystery which is contained in these words: that from Eve, or from the very woman who was deceived, shall come the promised seed, even as he came into the world very clearly and plainly by a woman who had known no man.
 
Adam has just been told that he will return to dust, and yet through the conquering seed yet live.

Dear friend,

What exact Scripture do you refer to, here?

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 10:05:15 EST-----

I think we should bow before a much greater and more sublime mystery which is contained in these words: that from Eve, or from the very woman who was deceived, shall come the promised seed, even as he came into the world very clearly and plainly by a woman who had known no man.

I am loathe to bow to mystery.

Eve was promised a faithful seed who would crush the head of the devil, which was the first gospel promise of grace from God.

There was nothing mentioned to Eve about the seed being produced by a virgin. Those revelations came later.

Eve simply believed that one of her male offspring would reverse the curse of sin. And she apparently taught her children of this promise, which one of the first sons (Abel) believed according to personal faith, and evidenced by his practice of right worship.
 
Originally Posted by TeachingTulip
Dear friend,

What exact Scripture do you refer to, here?

1.) That man still shall physically die is established by Gen. 3:19.
2.) That the promised seed as a collective head shall defeat death as his own is established by Gen. 3:15.
3.) I have already stated that I think it clear that, considered in the general thrust of the first chapters of Genesis, 3:20 shows Adam's appropriation and acceptance of this promise.
There seem to be many evidences of this. One is that we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain; when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.
 
Eve was promised a faithful seed who would crush the head of the devil, which was the first gospel promise of grace from God.
Amen.
There was nothing mentioned to Eve about the seed being produced by a virgin. Those revelations came later.
Nor have I ever so claimed. I did, however, point out the scriptural parallel between the two, evident to us know who can consider the harmonious whole of scripture. It might be worth pointing out, however, that several of our most honored Reformed exegetes do see Adam and Eve understanding the virgin birth from this first promise.
Eve simply believed that one of her male offspring would reverse the curse of sin. And she apparently taught her children of this promise, which one of the first sons (Abel) believed according to personal faith, and evidenced by his practice of right worship.
Again, Amen. Eve believed the promise. We have here all the elements of the glorious gospel of God -- the promised Christ who will reverse the curse and bring in the blessing of God; the belief of this promise; and the walking according to its rule, or teaching our house in the things of God.
 
we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain;

I would dispute this on the basis of the teachings of Romans 5:12.

All humans are the sons of man; Adam; imputed with his sin.



when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.

Only those gifted with faith in the promised Son of God (the last "Adam") are listed as the faithful, beginning with Abel. (Hebrews 11:4)

My argument being, spiritual anti-thesis between the first Adam as federal head of all sinful mankind and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) as federal head of all the faithful elect of God, MUST be maintained.
 
we have a distinct division of two classes of people in Gen. 6 -- the sons of God and the daughters (sons) of men (see 1 John 3). It is worth noting that, when the ungodly line (the sons of men, or the seed of the serpent/devil) is delineated, it begins not with Adam, but with Cain;

I would dispute this on the basis of the teachings of Romans 5:12.

All humans are the sons of man; Adam; imputed with his sin.

This seems to have little bearing on the discussion; for, at least, in one sense (and arguably the pre-eminent sense) it is most plain that the world is divided into the Sons of God and the Sons of Men/serpent/devil (see, for example, Gen. 6:2 and 1 John 3:10 which plainly expounds upon Gen. 3 and 4).


when the "sons of God" are listed, it begins not with Seth, but Adam.

Only those gifted with faith in the promised Son of God (the last "Adam") are listed as the faithful.

My argument being, spiritual anti-thesis between the first Adam as federal head of all sinful mankind and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) as federal head of all the faithful elect of God, MUST be maintained.

I don't see why anyone would dispute this. But this doesn't mean, for the purpose of maintaining the antithesis, Adam must be reprobate. In fact, most Reformed exegetes (who developed the idea of the two federal heads) understood the naming of Eve to be a token of Adam's faith.

Further, you have already granted that Eve believed the promise and taught her children in the way; I am not sure upon what evidence you base that, which concomitantly disallows Adam's belief of the promise.
 
most Reformed exegetes (who developed the idea of the two federal heads) understood the naming of Eve to be a token of Adam's faith.

I know, but I do not see any evidence of Adamic faith clearly taught in Scripture.

Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?

I reject that notion. Such would not be a covenant of grace, at all!

What evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited or evidenced prior to God freely bestowing His promise of grace to Eve?

Rather, God's promise of grace to Eve is founded strictly on God's predetermined will to reverse the evil effects of the devil's temptations and Adam's resultant sin, for His own glory in the Person of His Son.
 
Originally Posted by TeachingTulip
Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?
Not in anyway! Such would not even make logical sense, for how can faith precede the promise upon which it rests? God promised grace through the Seed; Adam believed and rested upon the given promise. So to ask "what evidence of Adamic faith is exhibited prior to God freely bestowing his promise" is not a right question -- for there could certainly be no faith prior thereunto.
 
Originally Posted by TeachingTulip
Plus, does not such interpretation make the promise of grace to Eve to be a reward of Adam's faith, somehow?
Not in anyway! Such would not even make logical sense, for how can faith precede the promise upon which it rests?

Indeed.


God promised grace through the Seed;

My sticking point, is that the promise was given specifically to Eve and to her seed; not to Adam's seed, per se.



Adam believed and rested upon the given promise.

There is no Scripture that says so, or gives Adam credit for exhibiting such faith.

Adam is only held accountable for bringing death and sin upon the human race. Romans 5:12
 
God promised grace through the Seed;

My sticking point, is that the promise was given specifically to Eve and to her seed; not to Adam's seed, per se.
That's absolutely right! It was promised to the seed of the woman, not the seed of the man; for Christ is not the seed of Adam, but of Eve. But all who believe in Christ are members of his body, and are mystically that seed, being included in Him their head, for all who are baptized [believe] into Christ have put on Christ. There is nothing which in anyway prevents Adam from, spiritually, being considered a member of the seed of the woman.

Adam believed and rested upon the given promise.

There is no Scripture that says so, or gives Adam credit for exhibiting such faith.

Adam is only held accountable for bringing death and sin upon the human race. Romans 5:12

This we have already been over; I think there is much evidence that Adam exhibited such faith.

But what more would you like Adam to be held accountable for? I have not made him accountable in anyway for bringing in the promise. No one will contest this statement you have offered.
 
Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.

Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.

In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 11:31:45 EST-----

TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!

Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.
 
I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.

Yes, and I was probably around 17 or 18 years of age when God in His goodness granted me repentance ;)
 
Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.

Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.

In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 11:31:45 EST-----

TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!

Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.

It's hard to exhibit faith when you're offering the wrong stuff.

It was mentioned in Genesis that their offerings differed as to the substance, I think this was mentioned for a reason.
 
If Adam did have repentance and saving faith, would that make any difference toi the vital distinction between being "in Adam" or "in Christ"?
I'm not making a point, just asking, because I don't see clearly.
It rather makes the idea of being in Adam seem less calamitous!
 
It's hard to exhibit faith when you're offering the wrong stuff.

It was mentioned in Genesis that their offerings differed as to the substance, I think this was mentioned for a reason.

You are reading a lot into the text. Both Cain's and Abel's offerings have their counterparts in the Levitical system, so it is hard to say that Cain's offering was the "wrong stuff."

I think it is much better to look at it the way Genesis 4 does. Cain clearly had a heart problem that manifested itself in envy and anger, culminating in murder.

From a typological point of view, we might think that Abel's sacrifice was superior, but the NT doesn't focus on the typology, it focuses on the hearts.

-----Added 10/13/2009 at 10:46:22 EST-----

If Adam did have repentance and saving faith, would that make any difference toi the vital distinction between being "in Adam" or "in Christ"?
I'm not making a point, just asking, because I don't see clearly.
It rather makes the idea of being in Adam seem less calamitous!

I'm not sure that it would, Jenny. Being "in Adam" or "in Christ" is a covenantal relationship. Adam could be "in Christ" in that he was redeemed.
 
Also note that Adam's sons knew how to give proper sacrifice to the Lord (though Cain transgressed this), and perhaps learned this sacrificial system from their father.

Hmmmm. I am not all sure we know that. Heb. 11:4 attributes the superiority of Abel's offering to his faith, not the offering itself.

"By faith Abel offered to God . . ."

An offering made apart from faith, is worthless. Faith is the context and teaching of Hebrews 11:4. Abel is the first listed as being a man of faith. God Himself testifies of Abel's "righteousness," which means Abel was indeed saved by faith in God's promises.

In any even, regardless of whether Adam repented, my hope is in the Second Adam.

My "thank you" was in response to this statement.


TT, I would add that the seed of the Woman was a spiritual, not physical lineage. Adam could have been of the seed of the Woman, though not descended from her. For that matter, Adam could be in Christ and not in Adam!

???

Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry. :)

Either way, it is significant to me that God clothes both Adam and Eve at the end of chapter 3, in effect antoning for their sins with the blood on an innocent animal.

God provided A&E with temporal atonement; however the blood of the animals did not accomplish remission of their sin. God made this provision in order to allow for A&E to produce all of humanity as decreed and commanded. (Genesis 1:28)

The sin of Adam did not, nor could not thwart the will and purposes of God.
 
I am reading a booklet on the Trinity and in it, the author makes the statement "...after Adam repented.."

Was Adam granted repentance as we know it? Interesting.

Is the actual act of repenting spoken of for many of Biblical people? Did Peter repent after denying our Lord? Is there a record of Paul repenting? Did Solomon? Please do not hear what I am not saying, I am not saying repentance is optional.. What I am saying is recording the saints repentance seems to be optional.
 
TeachingTulip;700973 Eve is the mother of all the human race; the spiritual Seed promised her was the Christ. The latter part of your statement does not compute with me . . . sorry. :)[/QUOTE said:
The promise of Gen. 3:15 has more than one reference. I believe it points to all of the righteous, but ultimately points to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top