Jesus as the Second Adam in Pauline Theology: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Gordon Fee’s Argument

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

Gordon D. Fee’s (1934–2022) magisterial Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study offers a detailed and methodologically rigorous treatment of Paul’s understanding of Jesus Christ as the Second Adam. This conception, which threads through Paul’s epistles both explicitly and implicitly, serves not only to ground Paul’s soteriology but also to reinforce the apostle’s conviction that Jesus was genuinely human. Fee contends that while Paul does not develop a systematic Christology in the modern sense, his theological references, especially those concerning Adam typology and Christ as the divine image, form a coherent vision of Christ as both truly God and truly man. This essay explores Fee’s exegetical treatment of Adam-Christ typology, Christ as the bearer and restorer of the divine image, and the apostle’s broader presupposition of Christ’s authentic humanity.¹

New Creation as the Framework of Adam Christology

Fee rightly locates the point of departure in Paul’s “new creation” theology, drawing especially from 2 Corinthians 5:14–17, Galatians 6:14–16, and Colossians 3:9–11. In these passages, Paul articulates a sweeping transformation wrought by Christ’s death and resurrection. In 2 Corinthians, the apostle declares that because of Christ’s atoning death, no one should henceforth be regarded “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα). Instead, participation in Christ makes one a “new creation,” marking the eschatological inbreaking of divine renewal.²

In Colossians 3, Paul connects this new humanity with the restoration of the image (εἰκών) of God. Those who belong to Christ are being renewed “according to the image of the one who created him” (3:10), a statement which alludes to the language of Genesis 1:26–27 and places Christ at the center of both creation and re-creation. Fee argues that Christ’s identification with the divine image not only links Him with the original act of creation (cf. Col 1:15–20) but also affirms His function as the head of the new creation.³

Explicit Adam-Christ Analogies

Fee identifies three Pauline passages that explicitly contrast Christ and Adam: Romans 5:12–21, 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, and 15:44–49. In all three, the analogical structure assumes Christ’s full humanity, yet in no case does Paul elaborate a comprehensive Adam-Christ typology as a theological system. Rather, the comparisons are functional, emphasizing the soteriological effects of Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemptive work.⁴

In 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, Paul states: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” The analogy is straightforward: Adam introduced death, Christ introduces resurrection life. In 15:44–49, the comparison is extended to the nature of bodily existence. Adam is the “earthly man,” Christ the “heavenly man.” While the terminology of ψυχικός (natural) and πνευματικός (spiritual) has led to confusion, Fee clarifies that Paul is not contrasting material with immaterial, but rather life adapted to the present age versus life adapted to the eschaton.⁵

In Romans 5:12–21, the analogy shifts focus from death and life to sin and righteousness. Adam is portrayed as the one through whom sin and death entered the world; Christ is the one through whom grace and righteousness abound to life. Throughout, the repeated term ἄνθρωπος (human being) underlines the anthropological framework. Fee rightly stresses that Paul’s logic assumes Christ’s true humanity, for it is precisely as a man that He undoes the ruin wrought by Adam.⁶

Christ as the True Image of God

Building upon the Adam typology, Fee turns to passages where Paul describes Christ as the image (εἰκών) of God. He interprets these references as implying, if not always explicitly stating, a contrast between Christ and Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:49, the believer is exhorted to bear the image of the “heavenly man,” just as they have borne the image of the “earthly man.” The hortatory subjunctive (“let us bear”) in the best manuscript tradition, Fee argues, accentuates Paul’s ethical thrust: believers must now live in accordance with the transformed life to which they are destined.⁷

In 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 4:4–6, Christ is presented as the unfading bearer of divine glory and the one into whose image believers are being transformed. While this passage emphasizes Christ’s divine radiance, the implication of His humanity remains intact, for only one who is truly human can serve as a model for human transformation.⁸

Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15 further underscore the dual nature of Christ’s image-bearing. In Romans, believers are predestined to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” who is called the “firstborn among many brothers.” This familial language, embedded in Jewish messianic expectation, affirms both the divinity and the humanity of Christ. In Colossians 1:15, Christ is the εἰκών of the invisible God and the firstborn of all creation, indicating not only His role in creation but also His embodiment of the divine image as the incarnate Son.⁹

Finally, Colossians 3:10 completes the thematic arc. The divine image, once distorted in humanity through sin, is now being restored in the people of God through union with Christ, the true image-bearer. This re-creation is rooted not in mere moral improvement but in participation with Christ in His death and resurrection.¹⁰

Philippians 2 and the Image-Form Distinction

Fee devotes considerable attention to Philippians 2:6–8, particularly in addressing the widespread conflation of μορφή and εἰκών in contemporary scholarship. He contends that μορφῇ θεοῦ (“form of God”) cannot be equated with εἰκών, which Paul elsewhere uses to describe Christ’s incarnate identity. Rather, μορφή here refers to Christ’s preexistent status as truly divine, while the incarnational movement involves taking the “form of a servant” and being born in human likeness.¹¹ The distinction is crucial for preserving the theological integrity of both Christ’s divinity and His humanity.

Paul’s Knowledge of the Historical Jesus

In the final sections, Fee addresses the claim that Paul was disinterested in the historical Jesus. He rebuts this position by cataloguing Pauline references to Jesus’ earthly life, including His birth (Gal 4:4), Davidic lineage (Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8), crucifixion (1 Thess 2:14–15), familial relationships (Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5), and teachings (1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23–25). Though Paul’s primary concern is soteriological, his epistles are undergirded by a deep awareness of Jesus’ historical reality.¹² For Paul, Jesus' humanity is not an abstraction or theological addendum but the necessary condition for His mediatorial and redemptive work.

Conclusion: A Truly Human Divine Savior

Fee concludes by affirming the thoroughly presuppositional nature of Christ’s humanity in Paul’s writings. Paul assumes the full humanity of Jesus in order to explain His work as Savior and Lord. Christ's identification with humanity is not peripheral but central to Paul’s gospel. This includes not only His solidarity in incarnation and obedience unto death but also His sinlessness and transformative lordship. Fee’s analysis convincingly demonstrates that Pauline Christology is not merely high or divine but deeply incarnational: the exalted Lord is the crucified man Jesus, the Second Adam, through whom the new creation has begun.¹³

---

Endnotes

1. Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 513.

2. Ibid., 514–515.

3. Ibid., 516–517.

4. Ibid., 517.

5. Ibid., 517–518.

6. Ibid., 518–519.

7. Ibid., 519–520.

8. Ibid., 520–521.

9. Ibid., 521–522.

10. Ibid., 522–523.

11. Ibid., 523.

12. Ibid., 524–527.

13. Ibid., 528–529.