Atonement (Not PSA)

[JonC]

OK. I am going to try this again.

I have been asked a couple of times to present my belief. This is not a debate thread but a discussion for mr to explain my view and see where it may have problems.

I am NOT trying to change anybody's mind. Every person is responsible for their own views.

 

[JonC]

ABOUT ME

I held PSA most of my life. It is what we were taught in church. It is the view I held throughout seminary and my time preaching.

I gave a sermon on the Atonement. I was a Calvinist at the time. This was reflected in my sermon. I went to bed as normal but woke up Monday morning with the conviction I had leaned on my own understanding rather than God's Word.

I thought at first what was being challenged in my mind was election. But I realized it was much deeper.

I wrote out PSA (what makes the theory unique compared to other views) and corresponding passages. I erased passages that did not actually support the theory. Over the next couple of months my boards had no passages.

It was difficult but over the next two years I read Scripture for the actual words of God (consciously not reading PSA into the text).

If you asked me 1 year into it I probably would have wished PSA was actually in the Bible itself. Now I am grateful to read God's words without it as PSA was not merely an addition. It replaced what was actually given to us by God as His revelation.

 

[JonC]

Here is a summary of my belief. (It will take a bit as I am on an aeroplane and will work through it in steps).


CREATION OF MAN

God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed the breath of life into man; and man became a living being. God planted a garden in Eden. God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

God commanded Adam, saying that he could eat of any fruit of the Garden except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - for in the day that Adam eats from he will surely die.

God fashioned woman (Eve) from the rib of Adam.

THE FALL
The fruit of the forbidden tree was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The Serpent (Satan) was in the Garden. He tempted Eve to eat of the fruit, telling her she would not die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree in disobedience to God's command (a transgressions of the command).

 

[JonC]

CONSEQUENCE OF THE FALL

The eyes of Adam and Eve were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. They hid themselves from God because of their nakedness.

God said to the Serpent that he was cursed more than any beast of the field. God would put enmity between him and the Seed of the woman.

He (Christ) shall bruise the serpent (Satan) on the head and Satan shall bruise Christ on the heel.

To Eve God said that He would greatly multiply her pain in childbirth, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he would rule over her.

Because of Adam God cursed the ground so that he would toil to cultivate it until he returned to the ground, because he was taken to the ground and to it he would return. “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
Because Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil, God sent him out of the Garden so he would not eat from the tree of life and live forever.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

CONSEQUENCE OF THE FALL

The eyes of Adam and Eve were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. They hid themselves from God because of their nakedness.

God said to the Serpent that he was cursed more than any beast of the field. God would put enmity between him and the Seed of the woman.

He (Christ) shall bruise the serpent (Satan) on the head and Satan shall bruise Christ on the heel.

To Eve God said that He would greatly multiply her pain in childbirth, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he would rule over her.

Because of Adam God cursed the ground so that he would toil to cultivate it until he returned to the ground, because he was taken to the ground and to it he would return. “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
Because Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil, God sent him out of the Garden so he would not eat from the tree of life and live forever.

We have had disagreements regarding the "Coats of Skin" so perhaps we can clarify the significance of this part of the narrative?

We can contrast the "Coats of skin" as being a solution to the "nakedness" of which Adam and Eve now saw themselves. We could probably expound a good bit on this nakedness in that it represents the shame and guilt regarding their offense and the reason why they "Ran and hid" and sewed fig leaves together in order to cover themselves. Such has been typically presented as being man's attempt at covering his own sin and this is the reason why nakedness is associated with shame and why it is therefore socially unacceptable to run around in our "birthday suits!"

The coats of skin represented a few different things. First of all, it was a more effective and satisfying covering. Secondly, we can see God's mercy and forgiveness, and thirdly (and this is where we have disagreed) that God was demonstrating the means by which the one promised in Gen 3:15 would defeat the curse of sin and bring ultimate reconciliation. While it does not specify explicitly, it implies that an animal (or animals) had to die in order for Adam and Eve to receive these skins and to be clothed and it would be likely that God would slay these animals in their presence so they would have a clear understanding regarding the implications of what they had done (Rom 6:23). Some may argue eisegesis here but I believe this is consistent with the rest of the mosaic writings as we see the sacrifices of the patriarchs progress to the tabernacle and levitical priesthood and ultimately to the cross of Calvary.

Anyway, this is how I am seeing it. Let me know where you disagree.

And have a safe flight!

 

[JonC]

We have had disagreements regarding the "Coats of Skin" so perhaps we can clarify the significance of this part of the narrative?

We can contrast the "Coats of skin" as being a solution to the "nakedness" of which Adam and Eve now saw themselves. We could probably expound a good bit on this nakedness in that it represents the shame and guilt regarding their offense and the reason why they "Ran and hid" and sewed fig leaves together in order to cover themselves. Such has been typically presented as being man's attempt at covering his own sin and this is the reason why nakedness is associated with shame and why it is therefore socially unacceptable to run around in our "birthday suits!"

The coats of skin represented a few different things. First of all, it was a more effective and satisfying covering. Secondly, we can see God's mercy and forgiveness, and thirdly (and this is where we have disagreed) that God was demonstrating the means by which the one promised in Gen 3:15 would defeat the curse of sin and bring ultimate reconciliation. While it does not specify explicitly, it implies that an animal (or animals) had to die in order for Adam and Eve to receive these skins and to be clothed and it would be likely that God would slay these animals in their presence so they would have a clear understanding regarding the implications of what they had done (Rom 6:23). Some may argue eisegesis here but I believe this is consistent with the rest of the mosaic writings as we see the sacrifices of the patriarchs progress to the tabernacle and levitical priesthood and ultimately to the cross of Calvary.

Anyway, this is how I am seeing it. Let me know where you disagree.

And have a safe flight!

I think we have to look at what we know and then possible significances.

I know they made coverings of leaves while God provided clothing of animal skins.

From a practical point of view, given that God cursed the earth and Adam would have to work the ground, the change makes sence.

Symbolically I do see this as illustrating God's provision (similar to God making the clothes of the Israelites not wear out during the exodus from Egypt, and Jesus' words about not worrying about what to wear because God would provide).

I think we can both agree on that.

I have not thought much about it, but you are right that it showed Adam and Eve the significanceof death. This would have been their first encounter. It would also give them knowledge needed to survive outside of the Garden.

I would not be comfortable assigning to the event more significance because I could be just as likely reading back into the text. But if we are talking possibilities I agree.

Because of them death entered the world and indirectly because of them God would subject all creation to futility.

And I can see how they would understand this death was to provide for them.

Likewise the Israelites sacrificed animals as "gifts" of obedience but this also provided the blood the priest would use to make atonement for their sins.

And with the crucifixion the death of Christ was a necessity for us to be cleansed. I would even say it was necessary that the Jews be complicit in Jesus' murder (in a way the sacrifice system was a warning about what they were doing).

So yes, I can see God killing an animal to illustrate what man would do in the future. But I think saying it is a significance of the event rather than an illustration we might apply may be pushing it.

Got another hour and a half in the air.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I think we have to look at what we know and then possible significances.

I know they made coverings of leaves while God provided clothing of animal skins.

From a practical point of view, given that God cursed the earth and Adam would have to work the ground, the change makes sence.

Symbolically I do see this as illustrating God's provision (similar to God making the clothes of the Israelites not wear out during the exodus from Egypt, and Jesus' words about not worrying about what to wear because God would provide).

I am not against this and yes, these other passages you are citing definitely speak of God's provision as we are faithful in whatever God has called us to but seems a bit of a stretch to apply it here in Gen 3. The main theme here is the fall and redemption and we cannot get away from this nor should we. The skins certainly was a gesture of God's grace and I don't know if you were a "Covenant Theologian" back when you were a "Calvy" but I would say that the "Covenant of works" and "Covenant of Grace" seems to fit quite well here. Dispensationalists typically refer to this as the "Age of Innocence" and the "Age of Conscience" but both are looking at this from a redemptionist standpoint.

I have not thought much about it, but you are right that it showed Adam and Eve the significanceof death. This would have been their first encounter. It would also give them knowledge needed to survive outside of the Garden.

I am certain it would be an object lesson they would not soon forget!

And I can see how they would understand this death was to provide for them.

The cursed world was dramatically different from the one Adam and Eve knew in the garden. God would still provide and there is still grace but they have to live with the consequences of sin for the remainder of their lives.

We have to kill in order to survive and provide sustenance and every time you have had to kill in order to provide meat, clothing, shelter, or whatever, you would be reminded of this! Jerome posted some of Calvin's commentary regarding how the coats of skin were a reminder to Adam and Eve regarding the ugliness and severity of their sin and that these skins likely were not the most pleasent of things to wear and perhaps they even carried the stench of death. The scriptures do not say whether or how well God "Tanned and Preserved" the skins prior to making clothing for them! But yes, we are drifting into speculation here and need to be careful of this. I believe that Jerome was trying to refute something I had said but I thought that Calvin's comments actually gave some good insight that I hadn't considered before.

Of course another thing to note is that mankind was either vegan or vegetarian prior to the flood. God told Noah that he could eat meat in Gen 9: 3 and this is the first mention of a carnivorous diet meaning I am not sure how much was going on in the way of "animal sacrifices" prior to the flood.

Likewise the Israelites sacrificed animals as "gifts" of obedience but this also provided the blood the priest would use to make atonement for their sins.

I have heard you make mention of this a few times now. Would you say that the blood is what makes atonement or is it what the blood represents? I would go with the latter and here is why.

Leviticus 17:11 tells us that "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and we understand today from a scientific standpoint that it is the blood that brings oxygen and nutrients to our flesh. Without blood, we cannot live!

Exodus 12:13 says "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..."

The underlying Hebrew word is lə·’ō·wṯ (226) which according to Brown-Driver-Briggs means a sign, pledge, or token and when I think of a token, I often think of the old game rooms in malls back in the 70s/80s where the machines took tokens rather than quarters and you had to feed your dollars into a change machine in order to get these tokens. Of course a token tells the machine that you have paid the price but the token was a representative but not the actual currency that you had paid. In the same manner, the blood was token of the fact that a death had occurred, that a lamb had been slain in place the firstborn (substitutionary atonement once again, just cannot get away from it!) and the blood placed on the door and side posts was indication that a death had already taken place and the Angel of the Lord would pass on by. Hopefully this makes sense. I know nothing about Hebrew and am completely dependent on the tools here! Perhaps we have a Hebrew scholar who can chime in here and provide additional insight?

My ultimate point there is that the blood is a sign that a death has taken place. It would not be enough to just let some blood out of a lamb, bandage it up, and put its blood on the door. The lamb had to die.

And with the crucifixion the death of Christ was a necessity for us to be cleansed. I would even say it was necessary that the Jews be complicit in Jesus' murder (in a way the sacrifice system was a warning about what they were doing).

Everything from Gen 3:15 on pointed to Christ and his finished work of redemption! I was thinking about the reason why after his resurrection, retained the wound in his side and the nail prints in his hand. When we look upon them, we see grace, mercy, and the reason why we are able to stand before him as being joint-heirs with him! I don't think we will ever get over such a sight! What does a lost man see when he looks upon Jsesus's scars at the Great White Throne judgment? How about the Parable of the Vineyard in Mt 21:33-41 where the wicked husbandmen slew the son of the vineyard owner thinking they could take it for themselves? I believe they will look at those prints and see nothing but judgment, that they are just as guilty as if they themselves had driven the nails in Jesus's hands!

So yes, I can see God killing an animal to illustrate what man would do in the future. But I think saying it is a significance of the event rather than an illustration we might apply may be pushing it.

I am trying as best I can not to read into the passage more than what I should. As I have said, I am leaning mostly upon the progressive revelation we see as we dig further through the books of Moses.

Got another hour and a half in the air.

Isn't it cool how you can be online arguing theology at 35,000 feet in the air? We certainly live in intersting times!

 

[JonC]

I am not against this and yes, these other passages you are citing definitely speak of God's provision as we are faithful in whatever God has called us to but seems a bit of a stretch to apply it here in Gen 3. The main theme here is the fall and redemption and we cannot get away from this nor should we. The skins certainly was a gesture of God's grace and I don't know if you were a "Covenant Theologian" back when you were a "Calvy" but I would say that the "Covenant of works" and "Covenant of Grace" seems to fit quite well here. Dispensationalists typically refer to this as the "Age of Innocence" and the "Age of Conscience" but both are looking at this from a redemptionist standpoint.

I am certain it would be an object lesson they would not soon forget!

The cursed world was dramatically different from the one Adam and Eve knew in the garden. God would still provide and there is still grace but they have to live with the consequences of sin for the remainder of their lives.

We have to kill in order to survive and provide sustenance and every time you have had to kill in order to provide meat, clothing, shelter, or whatever, you would be reminded of this! Jerome posted some of Calvin's commentary regarding how the coats of skin were a reminder to Adam and Eve regarding the ugliness and severity of their sin and that these skins likely were not the most pleasent of things to wear and perhaps they even carried the stench of death. The scriptures do not say whether or how well God "Tanned and Preserved" the skins prior to making clothing for them! But yes, we are drifting into speculation here and need to be careful of this. I believe that Jerome was trying to refute something I had said but I thought that Calvin's comments actually gave some good insight that I hadn't considered before.

Of course another thing to note is that mankind was either vegan or vegetarian prior to the flood. God told Noah that he could eat meat in Gen 9: 3 and this is the first mention of a carnivorous diet meaning I am not sure how much was going on in the way of "animal sacrifices" prior to the flood.

I have heard you make mention of this a few times now. Would you say that the blood is what makes atonement or is it what the blood represents? I would go with the latter and here is why.

Leviticus 17:11 tells us that "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and we understand today from a scientific standpoint that it is the blood that brings oxygen and nutrients to our flesh. Without blood, we cannot live!

Exodus 12:13 says "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..."

The underlying Hebrew word is lə·’ō·wṯ (226) which according to Brown-Driver-Briggs means a sign, pledge, or token and when I think of a token, I often think of the old game rooms in malls back in the 70s/80s where the machines took tokens rather than quarters and you had to feed your dollars into a change machine in order to get these tokens. Of course a token tells the machine that you have paid the price but the token was a representative but not the actual currency that you had paid. In the same manner, the blood was token of the fact that a death had occurred, that a lamb had been slain in place the firstborn (substitutionary atonement once again, just cannot get away from it!) and the blood placed on the door and side posts was indication that a death had already taken place and the Angel of the Lord would pass on by. Hopefully this makes sense. I know nothing about Hebrew and am completely dependent on the tools here! Perhaps we have a Hebrew scholar who can chime in here and provide additional insight?

My ultimate point there is that the blood is a sign that a death has taken place. It would not be enough to just let some blood out of a lamb, bandage it up, and put its blood on the door. The lamb had to die.

Everything from Gen 3:15 on pointed to Christ and his finished work of redemption! I was thinking about the reason why after his resurrection, retained the wound in his side and the nail prints in his hand. When we look upon them, we see grace, mercy, and the reason why we are able to stand before him as being joint-heirs with him! I don't think we will ever get over such a sight! What does a lost man see when he looks upon Jsesus's scars at the Great White Throne judgment? How about the Parable of the Vineyard in Mt 21:33-41 where the wicked husbandmen slew the son of the vineyard owner thinking they could take it for themselves? I believe they will look at those prints and see nothing but judgment, that they are just as guilty as if they themselves had driven the nails in Jesus's hands!

I am trying as best I can not to read into the passage more than what I should. As I have said, I am leaning mostly upon the progressive revelation we see as we dig further through the books of Moses.

Isn't it cool how you can be online arguing theology at 35,000 feet in the air? We certainly live in intersting times!

I was going to go through quickly and respond, but I want to give your post (and you) well deserved respect.

I am back at work, and on nights. So I should have time to digest your post and respond. I suspect we will agree on much.

I hope you don't mind going through this slowly. Top often, I think, we simply hitour points and never get to the meat of the doctrine (the why we believe what we believe). I believe we all know the cliffs notes and slogan passages. But I enjoy looking deeper than the surface arguments.

 

[JonC]

I am not against this and yes...

Isn't it cool how you can be online arguing theology at 35,000 feet in the air? We certainly live in intersting times!

I agree that the main theme in our discussion is the Fall and redemption. But I do not think that this is the main theme of Genesis 3:21. We can use the imagery, but there is nothing in the verse or the surrounding passage to indicate that it is about redemption.

I guess the thing is we can use it as an illustration but not a doctrine (it would be an error to build a doctrine out of God making Adam and Eve garments of skin, except that God met the needs of Adam and Eve). It would be different if other passages looked back to this event and found the same significance.

So I am not saying that you are wrong in your conclusion (that an animal had to be killed and that Adam and Eve would have faced the reality of death necessary for their survival), just that we cannot have confidence that this is inherently a significance of the verse itself.


When I was a Calvinist I did not accept Covenant Theology. I viewed the actual biblical covenants as significant, and the manner in which God dealt specifically with men towards whom the biblical covenants applied. But Covenant Theology goes far beyond what the Bible allows. Dispensationalism originated as a Calvinistic doctrine (many do not realize this). Isaac Watts is known as the “father of Dispensationalism”, and it was from him that John Darby (known as the “father of modern dispensationalism) a Plymouth Brethren, developed his view. I believe covenants and dispensations are important, but I question the necessity to use either as a criteria to evaluate the relationship between God and man throughout redemptive history.

But more to your point, the killing of animals were important in making covenants (not only divine covenants but covenants between men as well).


I think that the more significant aspect is not the clothing but the fact that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden. It was not inappropriate until their eyes were opened and they came to know good and evil. Does this go to conscious or an age of innocence? Children may run around naked, but in the Bible it is sinful to look upon one another’s nakedness (the exception of husband and wife relationship). The clothing covered their nakedness.

But I do not want to make too much about that, as it is my own ideas rather than what is actually in the Bible. That said, we can (I believe) use this to illustrate the covering of sin that would come when the Law is introduced. I just would not be comfortable saying that this is the intent of the actual text.

When I speak of sacrifices being “gifts” of obedience I am referring to two things – passages that link obedience to blessings (like Deut 28; 1 Sam 15) and the ancient Hebrew idea that offering sacrifices to God was a “gift” of obedience to God (demonstrating obedience).

This is called “atonement”, but it is not the type of sacrifice that makes amends. It was not for sins that had been committed. It was devotion to God reflecting a state of being reconciled (being atoned, or at one, with God).

When it comes to atoning for sins, the people offered a sacrifice of atonement. They killed the animal (shed it’s blood). The priest took the blood inside the Tabernacle and applied it to and around the alter. This application of blood is referred to as the priest “making atonement for the sins of the people”.

Yes, I believe that the blood itself was a symbol. I believe that the blood symbolizes life. With Christ’s blood this Life is what cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We are given life in Christ, a newness of life. The old is gone and it is this life that will carry on past the grave while the flesh (the old man, the guilty man) perishes.



I agree that the blood is a sign that death has taken place. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. BUT I believe that the significance of the blood is not as a sign of death but of life.

I do not think it unrelated that Scripture associates the blood with life.

 

[JonC]

What do you make of death in Genesis 3? I think this is important as well. God describes this death as “returning to the ground”, returning to dust, “for dust you are and to dust you shall return”. I believe this defines death in verse 17. God told Adam that in the day he eats of the fruit he will surly die. Many have reworded the passage in English to indicate that he would die on the day he eats of the fruit. But that is not what the English actually states.

More importantly, that is not the Hebrew. In the day, dying you shall die. How do we interpret that and why?

Obviously Adam did not die on the day he ate of the fruit. So do we read one’s theology into it? Or do we look for explanations from the actual text?

I say the latter. In the same passage death is defined as a physical death (returning to the ground, returning to dust). “In the day” could mean a change in ages. But it could also mean that Adam would surely die (that death would be a certain conclusion because dying he would die, death entering the world at that moment in time).


That said, I see two important issues related to the Atonement.

The first is death, or the wages of sin (the death sin produces). This is the result of a "mind set on the flesh". Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God as they give into the desires of the flesh which results in sin, which in turn begats death. We see this in the Garden with Adam eating of the fruit that was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirable to make one wise.

The second is man "missing the mark" to be right with God. Man, with his "eyes opened", "knowing good and evil" from the standpoint of sin, cannot be in that unique state Adam first enjoyed in the Garden. We see this as God expelled Adam from the Garden. In the new "Garden" (when God again dwells with man in this unique relationship, in His kingdom, the wicked will have be destroyed (there will be no place for wickedness in God's new creation. The wicked will be judged and condemned (they will be casted into the Lake of Fire, the "Second Death".

The two issues that the Atonement must address is physical death that sin produces as its wage under the power of Satan (the Adversary) AND the wickedness that separates man from God's righteousness which results in the judgment of the "Second Death".

As we go forward my argument is that mirroring the death and judgment it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. The physical death produced by sin as a wage under the power of Satan is specifically addressed in Christ's death as He bore humanities sin (the Word was made Flesh). But having physically died God the Father judged Him as righteous, raised Him to life, gave Him a name anove every name. On the cross, then, God was reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting sin against Him. Yes, Jesus was flesh. Yes, He was made to be sin. But He was sinless, righteous. But He was justified and became a "life giving Spirit".

Our individual atonement is in Christ, for in Him there is no condemnation, we die to the flesh and are made alive in Him, the old goes away and the new comes, we are made new creations in Him, and we will be comformed to His image. How does this happen? God set forth His Son as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. By "His blood" I do not mean His death (although it is certainly by His death that Atonement is possible) but His Life which is recieved by faith. Christ Himself.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I agree that the main theme in our discussion is the Fall and redemption. But I do not think that this is the main theme of Genesis 3:21. We can use the imagery, but there is nothing in the verse or the surrounding passage to indicate that it is about redemption.

I admit that I am somewhat of an impatient reader. I like to "watch the move" first and then read the novel and this somewhat skews the way I see things as I read through the narrative somewhat knowing what lies ahead because I am reading the book through the filter of the established plot-line of the movie! In other words, what I am reading at the beginning of a book has already been "colored" with what I know to be coming a few chapters later and I therefore concede that this is where much of my understanding of Gen 3 is coming from. Not saying this is wrong but I am admitting that I am more of a Systematic Theologian than a Biblical Theologian who would view things strictly from the viewpoint of the author and comparing what he has written only with his other writings or whatever he may have had at his disposal. In other words, a biblical theologian would not look to Romans 5 or 1 Cor 15 in order to understand Gen 3 as a systematic theologian would. I believe both are important but we should understand the distinctions.

I am trying to view and represent this as best I can primarily from what I understand regarding all the writings of Moses. We cannot know for certain whether Moses wrote Genesis before or after the other books although a quick AI query says it is traditionally believed Moses wrote Genesis first and if this is the case, was he experiencing "progressive revelation" as he wrote or did he already possess a clear understanding of atonement when he penned Gen 3? In other words, are we able to apply our understanding of Ex 12:13 and Lev 17:11 to what is written in Gen 3:21?

If I recall correctly, I believe you view the coats of skins as being God's provision and of course we look at the many different ways such a provision entails. Provides for a covering, protection, etc. You made mention of Joseph's "coat of many colors" and I couldn't help but laugh as I considered perhaps God made those skins for special "Sunday go to meetin' clothes" and they wore the fig leaf aprons the rest of the week?

I guess the thing is we can use it as an illustration but not a doctrine (it would be an error to build a doctrine out of God making Adam and Eve garments of skin, except that God met the needs of Adam and Eve). It would be different if other passages looked back to this event and found the same significance.

From the standpoint of biblical theology, I am not sure we are formulating doctrine but we are observing theological truths although I am not sure how we would distinguish between the two. We clearly see illustrations, types, and anti-types but we also need to be careful with the way we use such in order to properly understand what has been written. The "Fundamental Baptist" crowd I used to run with would take such to some incredible extremes and would be greatly revered for their insight!

So I am not saying that you are wrong in your conclusion (that an animal had to be killed and that Adam and Eve would have faced the reality of death necessary for their survival), just that we cannot have confidence that this is inherently a significance of the verse itself.

Fair enough. We also do not have enough information yet to understand any significance regarding the offerings of Cain and Abel although I can see a "substitutionary atonement" illustrated with Abel's offering of the firstling of his flock. The scriptures do not even say whether Abel slew and offered it as a sacrifice. It is assumed because this is the way that sacrifices were offered through the entirety of Moses's writings. RC Sproul points out the fact that there were also meal and grain offerings but such are not connected with atonement for sin as is the blood of bulls and goats. We must also point out that no where in the passage does it say that their offerings was intended as being an actual "sin offering" or whatever. What we can understand is that God saw the motives and intention of their hearts and that God is looking for that "broken and contrite spirit" but now I am interpreting this passage with scriptures outside of the writings of Moses again!

When I was a Calvinist I did not accept Covenant Theology....

I believe that both Covenant and Dispensational theology are man's humble attempt at understanding God's plan through the ages. Both are helpful at times but each have their own shortcomings and we should acknowledge this. I like how Covenant Theology provides better continuity showing God's plan through the ages to redeem HIS PEOPLE from all ages from every tribe, tongue, and shows his promise to Abraham and his dealings with the nation of Israel as means to that end.

I guess I am coming at things from a diffferent direction than you and just wondering what "baggage" you may still be carrying from your Calvinistic years. I came from a hard-core "dispy" and "anti-Calvinistic" mindset to where I am today. I am not sure whether I have drank all of the "Calvinistic Kool-Aid or whether I am actually a "real Calvinist" these days. I know that many of the Dispensationalists (MacArthur, Ryrie, and Chafer specifically) were either Calvinist or leaned strongly in this direction but I see many problems how they could be consistent in their Calvinism and also believe in the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church where God "Takes out his Church" but leaves much of his elect to go through the "Great Tribulation" and to me, it seems as if there has to be two if not three different "raptures" in order to make everything work! Maybe its just my limited understanding here and perhaps someone a little more knowledgeable could chime in and shed some light?

Interesting about Isaac Watts though. I will have to look into this. Paul Enns in his Handbook of Theology tries to paint Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine (!), and even Jonathan Edwards as being proponents of dispensational theology but what I see may be reflective of historical premillennialism, not the dispensational system as it is know of today. Seems that everyone throughout the history of the church made certain "divisions" between time periods and I do not beleive you could not do this.

But more to your point, the killing of animals were important in making covenants (not only divine covenants but covenants between men as well).
......

I believe it is safe to say that these "coats of skin" were definitely emblematic of the "covenant of grace" that God was making with Adam plus I see here a strong picture of grace reconciliation, and restoration with this gesture.

But I do not want to make too much about that, as it is my own ideas rather than what is actually in the Bible. That said, we can (I believe) use this to illustrate the covering of sin that would come when the Law is introduced. I just would not be comfortable saying that this is the intent of the actual text.

One if the wonderful things regarding the scriptures is that there so many different applications and nuances one may observe and explore! Perhaps even Moses went back and re-read some of the scrolls he had written and thinking "Wow! I never saw that before!"

When I speak of sacrifices being “gifts” of obedience I am referring to two things – passages that link obedience to blessings (like Deut 28; 1 Sam 15) and the ancient Hebrew idea that offering sacrifices to God was a “gift” of obedience to God (demonstrating obedience).

This is called “atonement”, but it is not the type of sacrifice that makes amends. It was not for sins that had been committed. It was devotion to God reflecting a state of being reconciled (being atoned, or at one, with God).

I believe we have to understand this in context with someone who is a beliver, who is "In the covenant" and can therefore see such relational aspects here regarding "gifts of obedience" and "sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving."

We understand that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS (Heb 10:11) and just in case there is an "Ultra-Dispy" that happens to be reading this, neither could they take away sins in the OT (Isa 1:10-15; Psa 51:14-19).

But these sacrifices and offerings certainly meant something to those making the offerings did they not?

I would look at it in the same manner as we would the Lord's Supper today. There is nothing "magical or mystical" concerning the elements but when we partake, we REMEMBER what Christ did whereby we are standing in communion with him today!

When it comes to atoning for sins, the people offered a sacrifice of atonement. They killed the animal (shed it’s blood). The priest took the blood inside the Tabernacle and applied it to and around the alter. This application of blood is referred to as the priest “making atonement for the sins of the people”.

I do not think it unrelated that Scripture associates the blood with life.

I am in full agreement with you here. The life of the flesh is in the blood meaning that without it, we are dead and with it, we live! That the "Blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin" speaks of its life-giving power. We are having the Lord's Supper with our church tomorrow so thank you for this reminder!

 

[JonC]

I admit that I am somewhat of an impatient reader. I like to "watch the move" first and then read the novel and this somewhat skews the way I see things as I read through the narrative somewhat knowing what lies ahead . . .

I have also noticed we have to read Genesis with hindsight. We can gain much from trying to understand how a passage would be taken by an Old Testament audience but at the same time we have the full revelation of which the Old Testament is but a shadow.

I do not agree that Abel's sacrifices were substutionary. Reading the passage there seems to be no such indication. And looking forward both the sacrifice of Able and of Cain appear to be "first fruits" offerings (an example of the burnt offering and the grain offering).

The reason I say this is the sin amd guilt offerings have yet to be introduced. With Abraham it was a burnt offering.

I believe Cain's offering was rejected not because it was a grain offering but because of Cain's disobedient heart.