PDA

View Full Version : Gen 3:20-21



Clay Blucher
Sep 18th 2008, 04:43 AM
I'm currently taking a class on Biblical Theology. Coming to Gen 3, my professor makes a small note on these verses which just blew my mind. Hopefully I can present his view (as far as I understand it) and what I consequently take and add onto it. In case anyone is wondering my prof is Bruce Waltke at Regent College.

The text: (20) The man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (21) Yahweh God made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them.

The context: Right after the judgement in the garden.

The biggest problem is that it breaks the flow of the narrative I believe. The story either flows better by omitting v. 20 (and so the judgement continues into expulsion) or by moving v. 20 later so that it immediately precedes 4:1 (and after the expulsion). By moving it later, it would act as a summary statement for what it to follow (Cain and Abel cycle followed by Seth and then the generations of Adam). Assuming intentionality on the part of the author/redactor (which we always do!), the explanation for why this verse is here arises.

Dr. Waltke explains these two verses as such: they are evidence of Adam and Eve's salvation after the Fall. The promise for the defeat of the Serpent is given in 3:15. Adam acknowledges this promise and "shows his restoration to God by believing the promise that the woman would bear offspring that would defeat the Serpent."

I would add one thing at this point that I believe Dr. Waltke has missed. The ability to name is given by God to mankind so to control it. One will remember that God showed dominion over creation by naming it. Adam employed his dominion over animals and fauna by naming it. After the Fall mankind's dominion over creation is taken away, evidenced in that he must struggle for survival. One of the curses that the woman is given is that her desire would be for her husband, but also that her husband would rule over her. This dominion is evidenced by Adam naming his wife. Eve here submits to God's punishment, but in an ironic twist also displays her own faith in God's restorative plan by accepting her name and the meaning of it. Both Adam and now Eve are restored back to God by submitting to His justice and having faith in His redemptive plan of salvation for humanity.

Waltke continues by pointing out that v. 21 shows God's provision for His restored people. Waltke's purpose is to show that Adam's faith moves to God's provision, as evidence of a restored people to God. Although he does not use the terminology here, Waltke gives us a picture of the first covenant. As with other covenants, a prime feature of the covenant involves sacrifice. "Through the Lord's sacrifice, the alienated couple is restored to fellowship with Him and one another."

I would bring up a few issues. This covenant, if the term is correctly being applied of course, is not offered from God initially. God's provision is a reaction to something that the individual(s) have done. This would be different from both the Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants where God gives the promise to do something only if the covenant is kept. Abram will have many offspring if he will trust God to lead him out to the wilderness. Israel will be God's people if they will keep His Law. The Church will be considered the true Israel and God's people if they follow Christ. Rhetorically v. 20-21 does follow this pattern if and only if v. 15 is seen as a blessing for Adam and Eve. In other words, what is left unstated is that although the promise of the destruction of the Serpent and his offspring is given as a curse, it is a potential blessing for Adam and Eve since it would restore the human race by means of their offspring. In even simpler terms, trusting God is the basis for redemption; by putting forth a plan of redemption provided the means for Adam and Eve to put their trust in God. God is then the initiator of the covenant, although this point is extremely subtle. Should we expect anything less within this particular style of story-telling though?

What this intrusion of grace means is that the story must be broken up. It ends the section of curses, but not the larger narrative of the Fall. 3:22-24 then conclude the story by describing what happens as the aftermath: mankind is expelled from the Garden. But they are embodied with hope, once read properly. Although cursed by God, they have God's provision nonetheless. The story must be broken here so that the readers can follow the rest of the story with the hope that God's provision follows us out into the wilderness. The original audience of the Hebrews needed this hope. The implied audience of the Church today would also do well to keep this message of hope in the forefront of their hearts as well.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 18th 2008, 04:49 AM
It all sounds good to me. Did you have a question about it, or were you just sharing this?

timmyb
Sep 18th 2008, 01:38 PM
i don't think it was a matter of control... a name was a means of control.... but everything God did for man was all in an attempt to give us every opportunity to get to know him...

crawfish
Sep 18th 2008, 02:32 PM
Good post!

The concept of "naming", as believed by most of ancient Mesopotamia, was an assigning of purpose. When Adam named Eve, the implication was that she was to become the "mother of all living", not that she was. When Adam named the animals the bible shows man's authority over them.

This concept carries throughout the bible. Abram was renamed "Abraham" by God to signify his new role. Jesus named Peter and Paul in the same way.

Clay Blucher
Sep 18th 2008, 05:20 PM
It is just some theological musing. However, any criticism that may be brought up–good or bad–is always helpful of course. :)

Clay Blucher
Sep 18th 2008, 05:26 PM
Good post!

The concept of "naming", as believed by most of ancient Mesopotamia, was an assigning of purpose. When Adam named Eve, the implication was that she was to become the "mother of all living", not that she was. When Adam named the animals the bible shows man's authority over them.

This concept carries throughout the bible. Abram was renamed "Abraham" by God to signify his new role. Jesus named Peter and Paul in the same way.


I think this goes well beyond ancient Mesopotamian thought. I think it has much more Syrian/Egyptian significance of assigning control over the thing being named. God names creation because He controls creation. Not in the sense that He controls even the surd evil, but that even the surd (or natural) evil halts at the word of God (cf. Gen 1:3, and Jesus' calming of the storm narratives).

In the same sense, in naming His people, God is claiming authority over those people. They are now His people. I think this makes a lot of sense in the individual contexts of those individuals.

BroRog
Sep 18th 2008, 08:53 PM
The idea that the coats of animals skins are meant as expiation of sin is far fetched and a real stretch in my opinion. The animal skins have an obvious utilitarian value and without consecration, have no religious value. Sometimes clothing is just clothing.

As for the naming of the animals, I was taught that God had Adam name the animals so that Adam would need to study them, and in studying them he would come to realize his need for a mate. The creation of Eve came after that.

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 09:42 PM
I thought that perhaps you would find post #325 in the following thread of interest:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1681052#post1681052

ananias

SIG
Sep 19th 2008, 05:59 AM
A good exposition, I think.

Here is some commentary by David Guzik:

4. (20) The naming of Eve.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

a. Adam called his wife’s name Eve: Up to Genesis 3:20, the woman has never been called Eve. We are so used to saying “Adam and Eve” that we assume she already had her name. But to this point, she was called a female (Genesis 1:27), a helper comparable (Genesis 2:18), a woman (Genesis 2:22, 23), and a wife (Genesis 2:24, 25; 3:8). This does not mean God did not have a name for Eve, but we are told what the name is in Genesis 5:2: He called them Mankind.

i. The idea that the woman takes her name from the husband, and the idea that both genders are encompassed in terms like mankind, humanity, and chairman. Our use of these terms is not merely cultural, it is Biblical.

ii. A woman gains more of her identity from her husband than the man does from the wife. For this reason, women should take special care in which man they marry.

b. Because she was the mother of all living: Adam named her Eve, even though she was not a mother at all at the time. She was not even pregnant yet. Adam named her in faith, trusting God would bring forth a deliverer from the woman, because God said He would defeat Satan through the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15).

SIG
Sep 19th 2008, 06:00 AM
The idea that the coats of animals skins are meant as expiation of sin is far fetched and a real stretch in my opinion. The animal skins have an obvious utilitarian value and without consecration, have no religious value. Sometimes clothing is just clothing.

As for the naming of the animals, I was taught that God had Adam name the animals so that Adam would need to study them, and in studying them he would come to realize his need for a mate. The creation of Eve came after that.

The animal skins included the shedding of blood (for the first time in Scripture). I see this as VERY significant...

BroRog
Sep 19th 2008, 02:58 PM
The animal skins included the shedding of blood (for the first time in Scripture). I see this as VERY significant...

How so? Does God or Adam or Eve or the Serpent find it significant? Does the author of Genesis make any kind of editorial comment on it? Does anyone in the rest of the Bible make a comment regarding the fact that God made clothing from animal skins?

Mograce2U
Sep 19th 2008, 03:21 PM
Good study. But he omits what Adam naming Eve [life giver] entails in showing his response of faith to God's promise. Although the land would be cursed, they would be given life rather than death. Adam and Eve hid from God because they feared He was going to kill them for what they had done. But grace is given thru the substitionary atonement of the sacrifice and the birth of children ensures man will continue to live in the earth and populate it. And here too is the promise of a Redeemer to overturn the penalty for their sin and overcome the devil who caused it all.

grptinHisHand
Sep 19th 2008, 03:47 PM
How so? Does God or Adam or Eve or the Serpent find it significant? Does the author of Genesis make any kind of editorial comment on it? Does anyone in the rest of the Bible make a comment regarding the fact that God made clothing from animal skins?

What about Heb. 9:22? "...without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin..." The skins God clothed them with came only after the shedding of blood of the animals. We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ by HIS shed blood.
g

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 05:47 PM
...The text: (20) The man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (21) Yahweh God made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them.

The context: Right after the judgement in the garden.

The biggest problem is that it breaks the flow of the narrative I believe. The story either flows better by omitting v. 20 (and so the judgement continues into expulsion) or by moving v. 20 later so that it immediately precedes 4:1 (and after the expulsion). By moving it later, it would act as a summary statement for what it to follow (Cain and Abel cycle followed by Seth and then the generations of Adam). Assuming intentionality on the part of the author/redactor (which we always do!), the explanation for why this verse is here arises.

Dr. Waltke explains these two verses as such: they are evidence of Adam and Eve's salvation after the Fall...

A bit of a stretch for me. Not that I believe they were not Saved by God's Covering, but that the word "living" is applied in that sense (Salvation). Here's the problem with it as I see it:


1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.Here Paul, who is talking about resurrection, tells us that eventually everyone who has ever lived will be made alive again by Jesus Christ. In no way does my hermeneutics allow me to take this statement to say that since everyone is eventually resurrected, they will all be Saved for eternity. Some will experience a "second death". The passage in Genesis is talking about Eve being the mother of all who were physically born and lived on this earth. That's all. If you extend the sense of living past that physical life, then you are saying Eve would have the power to make them alive again...forever, which clearly she doesn't. And your hermeneutics would force you to if you apply the word to Salvation.

As far as why that verse names her, the first is to identify her as the first mother and therefore mother of all who would eventually be born. True, for without her there would be no Mary, and without Mary there would be no Jesus. The second reason is that if Eve's name is not mentioned there, then we would not know that she is the wife that Adam has sex with in Genesis 4:1. After that verse (4:1), Eve's name is never mentioned again in the entire OT!!! In the NT, Paul was the only one who referred to her (twice - 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13). Since that verse (3:20) explains Eve's relationship to Adam as wife, a name would have been required there first.

Sold Out
Sep 19th 2008, 05:56 PM
The idea that the coats of animals skins are meant as expiation of sin is far fetched and a real stretch in my opinion. The animal skins have an obvious utilitarian value and without consecration, have no religious value. Sometimes clothing is just clothing.


They do have religious value. God could have covered them with anything, yet chose to kill an innocent animal to 'cover their sin'....a picture of Christ - the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (Jn 1:29).

Jesus uses the parable of the wedding garment as a picture of salvation as well.

BroRog
Sep 19th 2008, 06:06 PM
What about Heb. 9:22? "...without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin..." The skins God clothed them with came only after the shedding of blood of the animals. We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ by HIS shed blood.
g

Yes, but couldn't we equally say, "Without the shedding of blood, clothing can't be made out of skins?"

Sold Out
Sep 19th 2008, 06:16 PM
Yes, but couldn't we equally say, "Without the shedding of blood, clothing can't be made out of skins?"

So why do you think God chose to kill an animal to cover them with skins as opposed to shaving a sheep and knitting them an outfit?

grptinHisHand
Sep 19th 2008, 06:21 PM
Yes, but couldn't we equally say, "Without the shedding of blood, clothing can't be made out of skins?"

:hmm: I do not get your meaning.
g

BroRog
Sep 19th 2008, 06:31 PM
So why do you think God chose to kill an animal to cover them with skins as opposed to shaving a sheep and knitting them an outfit?
If you're asking me to speculate, I would have to say that the choice of material is a matter of practicality given certain factors like: availability, environment, climate, and ease of cleaning. Now that you got me thinking about it, I would say that God wanted to give them something that would be durable so that clothing wouldn't be an issue until they figured out how to raise sheep and grow crops for themselves. I imagine that it would take several seasons of practice before they got it right.

Anyway, I could also point out that God made an entire universe out of nothing, I'm sure he could make Adam and Eve a buck skin pair of britches out of dirt, that is, if he felt he needed dirt.

But I'm not trying to be smart here. The sole reason for my comments in this thread is to get us to focus on the text and see them through fresh eyes. If it turns out that, indeed, God killed an animal for some symbolic statement regarding sin, I am willing to believe it. Right now I don't see it, but I'm open to hearing other people make a case for it.

:)

BroRog
Sep 19th 2008, 06:38 PM
:hmm: I do not get your meaning.
g

Hi G. :)

My question is meant to get at the purpose behind God's act to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Was God being practical? Or did his provision mean something beyond the practical?

Folks here are suggesting that God killed an innocent animal in order to provide some kind of expiation of sin for Adam and Eve. Had this been the case, I would have expected a fire, an alter, a ceremony or something that would indicate to the reader that the sacrifice went beyond the practical provision of warmth and protection from thorn bushes. (Genesis 3:18)

Nothing like a good pair of leathers to keep a naked man and woman from being stuck while clearing out the thorns.

grptinHisHand
Sep 19th 2008, 07:00 PM
Hi G. :)

My question is meant to get at the purpose behind God's act to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Was God being practical? Or did his provision mean something beyond the practical?

Folks here are suggesting that God killed an innocent animal in order to provide some kind of expiation of sin for Adam and Eve. Had this been the case, I would have expected a fire, an alter, a ceremony or something that would indicate to the reader that the sacrifice went beyond the practical provision of warmth and protection from thorn bushes. (Genesis 3:18)

Nothing like a good pair of leathers to keep a naked man and woman from being stuck while clearing out the thorns.

Then, that being what you are looking for, what I was saying in my earlier post: go back to Hebrews 9:22. I believe it wasn't for the 'expiation of sin to Adam and Eve' - but as a 'type of Christ' or example of what Christ would do on the cross. That it would take spilled blood to cover sin.
What I have been taught, what I firmly believe. Perhaps my wording isn't clear, but there it is.
g

Sold Out
Sep 19th 2008, 07:18 PM
But I'm not trying to be smart here. The sole reason for my comments in this thread is to get us to focus on the text and see them through fresh eyes. If it turns out that, indeed, God killed an animal for some symbolic statement regarding sin, I am willing to believe it. Right now I don't see it, but I'm open to hearing other people make a case for it.



Fair enough. It's not a heaven or hell issue anyway:D

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 07:35 PM
The idea that the coats of animals skins are meant as expiation of sin is far fetched and a real stretch in my opinion. The animal skins have an obvious utilitarian value and without consecration, have no religious value. Sometimes clothing is just clothing.

As for the naming of the animals, I was taught that God had Adam name the animals so that Adam would need to study them, and in studying them he would come to realize his need for a mate. The creation of Eve came after that.

As already said, the death of the animals for skins is the sacrifice you are looking for. And the "religious value" comes with the establishment of the covenant being made. Rainbows would have no religious value except that they represent a covenant unto themselves.

I agree that Adam had to name the animals to see that none of them were appropriate for his own mate. But part of the command from God to humanity was to rule over creation as well. So while the naming of animals makes sense in its context of chapter 2, it also serves the purpose of showing pre-fall humanity's dominion over the animals.

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 07:50 PM
A bit of a stretch for me. Not that I believe they were not Saved by God's Covering, but that the word "living" is applied in that sense (Salvation). Here's the problem with it as I see it:

Here Paul, who is talking about resurrection, tells us that eventually everyone who has ever lived will be made alive again by Jesus Christ. In no way does my hermeneutics allow me to take this statement to say that since everyone is eventually resurrected, they will all be Saved for eternity. Some will experience a "second death". The passage in Genesis is talking about Eve being the mother of all who were physically born and lived on this earth. That's all. If you extend the sense of living past that physical life, then you are saying Eve would have the power to make them alive again...forever, which clearly she doesn't. And your hermeneutics would force you to if you apply the word to Salvation.

As far as why that verse names her, the first is to identify her as the first mother and therefore mother of all who would eventually be born. True, for without her there would be no Mary, and without Mary there would be no Jesus. The second reason is that if Eve's name is not mentioned there, then we would not know that she is the wife that Adam has sex with in Genesis 4:1. After that verse (4:1), Eve's name is never mentioned again in the entire OT!!! In the NT, Paul was the only one who referred to her (twice - 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13). Since that verse (3:20) explains Eve's relationship to Adam as wife, a name would have been required there first.


I have just a couple problems with your counter-explanation. Firstly, I never intended to imply that we are just talking about post-death salvation. If that is what you got from the post, I do apologize. I think there is a very practical reason for seeing salvation as being both a post-death event and within the immediate context of the scene. In Gen 2:17, another troublesome verse in and of itself, God says that "on/in that day you will die." We may speak of spiritual death, but there is no contextual clues to suggest that this is what is being talked about. To count out physical death, as I believe it is talking about in 2:17, is to misunderstand the type of salvation in 3:20-21. By believing in God's promises, Adam and Eve are saved from the immediate judgment of death on the day that they ate. They have been alienated from God (spiritual death), but they live to mate another day.

Secondly, while it is important to see how little Eve is used in the Biblical narrative, I believe you are still left with problems by your explanation. By your reasoning, Eve may be named in 3:20 in response to the curses (specifically, the curse towards her in 3:16 and Adam's acceptance of his role). But what then do you do with v. 21? How does the role of animal skins play into the narrative scheme? Certainly by way of covenant. But I see no reason to have the implication that salvation of any type comes through acceptance of God's curses. Instead it must be a display of faith for redemption that must be the basis for salvation.

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 08:03 PM
...In Gen 2:17, another troublesome verse in and of itself, God says that "on/in that day you will die." We may speak of spiritual death, but there is no contextual clues to suggest that this is what is being talked about. To count out physical death, as I believe it is talking about in 2:17, is to misunderstand the type of salvation in 3:20-21...

This helps me because now I am seeing the foundation of your position, However, I again cannot agree. When Adam sinned, did he die physically on that day?

The passages may seem to be confusing but that is because Adam and Eve were the first to experience (saw their nakedness, attempted to hide) the spiritual death before they experienced physical. After Adam, we all received it the minute we were born. The "on that day" applied to them for the day they sinned. For us, there was no prior warning. We had no choice. The only "path" I see in these passages is on to the solution for Adam's problem.

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 08:11 PM
Hi G. :)

My question is meant to get at the purpose behind God's act to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Was God being practical? Or did his provision mean something beyond the practical?

Folks here are suggesting that God killed an innocent animal in order to provide some kind of expiation of sin for Adam and Eve. Had this been the case, I would have expected a fire, an alter, a ceremony or something that would indicate to the reader that the sacrifice went beyond the practical provision of warmth and protection from thorn bushes. (Genesis 3:18)

Nothing like a good pair of leathers to keep a naked man and woman from being stuck while clearing out the thorns.


Seeing better your purpose for writing, I am more blessed for sure. I will disagree with you though still. The Christ sacrifice did not have a fire, alter, or ceremony, and we still understand it as the expiation of sin. I fail to see how these symbols are signs of a covenant. What is always the sign for a covenant is blood: Gen 8:20, 15:9, 22:13, and of course Christ. I do not doubt that God could have made these animal skins ex nihilio, but it seems more likely that if this had been the meaning, the text would make specific mention of it. As it is, we should that the skins are provided by sacrificed animals. And no doubt that this offering is practical, but I do not believe it diminishes the sacrificial intent as well. After all, the sacrifices in the temple were also used as practical meals for the priests. Although the text leads towards the conclusion of practicality, it is underlined with this theme of sacrifice. This theme is not hidden, but is displayed wonderfully once we understand covenant correctly.

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 08:21 PM
This helps me because now I am seeing the foundation of your position, However, I again cannot agree. When Adam sinned, did he die physically on that day?

The passages may seem to be confusing but that is because Adam and Eve were the first to experience the spiritual death before they experienced physical. After Adam, we all received it the minute we were born. The "on that day" applied to them for the day they sinned. For us, there was no prior warning. We had no choice. The only "path" I see in these passages is on to the solution for Adam's problem.

Actually I do not use Gen 2 as my foundation. Instead I offer it up as an explanation to better understand the narration of events in Gen 3. The problem with 2:17 is precisely that they did not physically die on the day they sinned. I believe it to be fallacious to discount that this warning was just about physical death as well as spiritual death on the basis that physical death did not occur. Might we not postulate another reason why God did not condemn Adam and Eve to physical death on that very day? On that includes both a salvation from the immediate physical death sentence, but also includes the immediate condemnation of being spiritually alienated from God? The curses I believe fulfill this second part, and the explanation given in Gen 3:20-21 as I have given it fulfills the first part. Indeed it takes an explanation from outside the text (spiritual death) to describe the singular verse of 2:17 (which certainly seems to be talking about either just physical death or both physical and spiritual death), than to see how the text plays out in in the tension between the promised punishment and then the actual punishment received.

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 08:25 PM
...But what then do you do with v. 21? How does the role of animal skins play into the narrative scheme?...

The covering of their sin was appropriate in the OT because until the Cross, that's all that could be done, not just a covering, but also a washing of the flesh with blood (the animal God sacrificed). Does not the entire scope of the Mosaic Law point out the same exact thing?

Once Jesus came and died, sins were no longer just "covered" and the flesh was no longer just cleansed by the offering of blood. Sins were actually taken away, forgiveness was perpetual and the very conscience itself was cleansed, not just the flesh temporarily.

Adam and Eve were Saved by faith in the Promise of 3:15 and the resulting actions in their lives, just as all other OT saints were.

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 08:27 PM
Actually I do not use Gen 2 as my foundation. Instead I offer it up as an explanation to better understand the narration of events in Gen 3. The problem with 2:17 is precisely that they did not physically die on the day they sinned. I believe it to be fallacious to discount that this warning was just about physical death as well as spiritual death on the basis that physical death did not occur. Might we not postulate another reason why God did not condemn Adam and Eve to physical death on that very day? On that includes both a salvation from the immediate physical death sentence, but also includes the immediate condemnation of being spiritually alienated from God? The curses I believe fulfill this second part, and the explanation given in Gen 3:20-21 as I have given it fulfills the first part. Indeed it takes an explanation from outside the text (spiritual death) to describe the singular verse of 2:17 (which certainly seems to be talking about either just physical death or both physical and spiritual death), than to see how the text plays out in in the tension between the promised punishment and then the actual punishment received.

I edited my prior post and added the proof of their spiritual death (hiding-sense of guilt, seeing nakedness). Thus I see the passage as supporting the idea they died spiritually that day.

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 08:51 PM
I edited my prior post and added the proof of their spiritual death (hiding-sense of guilt, seeing nakedness). Thus I see the passage as supporting the idea they died spiritually that day.


I do not believe I ever denied that they died spiritually that day. I encourage such thought and am eager to see more insight into the narrative as you have given!

My point is that it is erroneous to think that the promise of condemnation in 2:17 is just about spiritual death just because spiritual death occurred. Certainly the explanation of Gen 3:21 as I have provided, if seen in terms of 2:17, explains why they did not physically die that day. There could be no hope against spiritual death, since it was an immediate consequence of sinning. But physical death–if not immediately discounted as an option–might still be valid punishment that faces them that day. Certainly God's promise in 3:15 seems ridiculous if they were going to die later that day, but this subject ridiculousness is rejected by seeing the infusion of grace that happens within 3:21. Again, although not a primary motivator for my original essay, surely seeing how 2:17, particularly the threat of physical death, continues to overshadow the rest of the narrative until 3:21 leads me to conclude that Adam and Eve are restored on some level with God. It is on the basis of their faith in God's plan, but the consequence is that God's plan will be carried out because they will not have died that day.

Clay Blucher
Sep 19th 2008, 08:55 PM
The covering of their sin was appropriate in the OT because until the Cross, that's all that could be done, not just a covering, but also a washing of the flesh with blood (the animal God sacrificed). Does not the entire scope of the Mosaic Law point out the same exact thing?

Once Jesus came and died, sins were no longer just "covered" and the flesh was no longer just cleansed by the offering of blood. Sins were actually taken away, forgiveness was perpetual and the very conscience itself was cleansed, not just the flesh temporarily.

Adam and Eve were Saved by faith in the Promise of 3:15 and the resulting actions in their lives, just as all other OT saints were.


But in covering their sin, as God does, does this not also correlate with the Mosaic Law's function of establishing a restoration between God and the people? I fail to see how this is any different from what I have proposed in my original post, especially considering your sentence is something that I could not have said better myself.

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 12:03 AM
I would say it does not establish restoration, but rather a means of restoration.

BroRog
Sep 20th 2008, 01:03 AM
Seeing better your purpose for writing, I am more blessed for sure. I will disagree with you though still. The Christ sacrifice did not have a fire, alter, or ceremony, and we still understand it as the expiation of sin. I fail to see how these symbols are signs of a covenant. What is always the sign for a covenant is blood: Gen 8:20, 15:9, 22:13, and of course Christ. I do not doubt that God could have made these animal skins ex nihilio, but it seems more likely that if this had been the meaning, the text would make specific mention of it. As it is, we should that the skins are provided by sacrificed animals. And no doubt that this offering is practical, but I do not believe it diminishes the sacrificial intent as well. After all, the sacrifices in the temple were also used as practical meals for the priests. Although the text leads towards the conclusion of practicality, it is underlined with this theme of sacrifice. This theme is not hidden, but is displayed wonderfully once we understand covenant correctly.

It's just that I don't see the "underline" as you call it. In the flood narrative, for instance, God's covenant with mankind to never bring a flood on the earth takes up a couple of paragraphs in which he indicates that it is a covenant and he gives the rainbow as a confirmatory sign. In Genesis 3, we simply have a statement that God acted as Adam's couture.

I suppose if an implied significance was to be found in the clothing, one could see the clothing as a symbolic barrier to intimacy between God and human kind. After all, this would resonate with our experience with each other. That is, beside the fact that we need clothing to survive the elements, we also need clothing to cover our genital region, which is a part of our body we reserve for our most intimate relations. My wife, my parents, my doctor, and my football coach are the only people who have seen mine.

And if Adam and Eve wore clothing to avoid being seen by God, it must be pointed out that God can see into my soul, which is even more intimate than my genital region. But perhaps symbolically, clothing represented a form of mental and spiritual separation between Adam, Eve, and the Father of lights. I imagine that Adam and Eve had always known they were naked. But they hadn't felt so exposed until eating the forbidden fruit.

Nonetheless, if we say that the clothing has symbolic meaning related to the blood of the animal, and that the clothing symbolically, and perhaps literally represents a barrier of shame between God and the first couple, we know that the blood of Christ remains the antithesis of the first sacrifice in that the first sacrifice afforded a barrier between God and man, while the last sacrifice removed all barriers to God. Rather than be a parallel picture of the cross, the two stand in sharp contrast to each other.

BadDog
Sep 20th 2008, 01:23 AM
Clay,

If you have Dr. Waltke as your prof, you are indeed privileged! IMO he is the foremost Genesis authority today. (Though I like Dr. Freuchtenbaum - sp - also.) He has an interesting "not initial chaos" theory that I like, and generally agree with. My particular view of Genesis 1 takes into account relativity theory (I majored in physics), but I like what he says.

He is also one of the foremost apologists regarding creation and who has carefully researched other cultures regarding sociology and beginnings.

So take good notes!

BD

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 03:37 AM
BD--Arnold Fruchtenbaum?


I'm big into symbolic types and pictures in Scripture. Some say these types are not valid unless Scripture Himself says so. I don't agree.

Perhaps it was their shame (sin) God was covering. It is possible they were clothed in light (having been made in God's image), but lost that light when they sinned, and became "naked."

I do see in Genesis 1-3 the greatest "concentration" of symbolism. Since this is the beginning, everything that happens has the greatest (eventual) meaning. Studies here are endlessly rich.

And then there's Revelation....

BadDog
Sep 20th 2008, 04:07 AM
BD--Arnold Fruchtenbaum?


I'm big into symbolic types and pictures in Scripture. Some say these types are not valid unless Scripture Himself says so. I don't agree.

Perhaps it was their shame (sin) God was covering. It is possible they were clothed in light (having been made in God's image), but lost that light when they sinned, and became "naked."

I do see in Genesis 1-3 the greatest "concentration" of symbolism. Since this is the beginning, everything that happens has the greatest (eventual) meaning. Studies here are endlessly rich.

And then there's Revelation....Sig,

Yes, I think that's the spelling... took Israelology and Genesis through him.

But Dr. Waltke is fabulous! (Been around for awhile too.)

BD

threebigrocks
Sep 20th 2008, 10:23 PM
God clothed them in self righteousness which they had brought upon themselves at the moment they ate the fruit.