Featured God clothing of Adam and Eve

AMEN!... Brother Glen

 

There are so many spiritual applications to this verse and the question. Beginning with the works of Adam and Eve not being good enough for God to accept. That mans works can never equal God's work on the behalf of man. That God loved Adam and Eve enough to kill an innocent member of creation (animal) to provide a covering for their sin. Ultimately the skin was just a covering and though provided by God it was a type of that which was to come, the sacrifice could not replace Jesus Christ, but was simply a type of Jesus. Innocent blood could only cover sin ultimately it would take the blood of an innocent sinless human to take away the curse of sin and reunite a holy God and his fallen people.

Thanks for the reminder of what we have in Christ.

thjplgvp

 

How could the true God -- not a pagan god -- do what the OT prophets say He did not desire and what Jesus affirmed He did not desire?

 

Mr.Rebel would you mind stating what exactly God and Jesus did not desire? Your statement is not very clear and difficult to discern and I see no other post by yourself on this thread to indicate where your comment came from.

Thanks

thjplgvp

 

Two examples. OT prophet -- Hosea 6:6, and affirmation by Jesus in NT -- Matthew 9:13

 

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

It would seem that you are suggesting that a sacrifice is not needed and that only mercy is acceptable to God or Christ. I believe the difficulty addressed here is that we are not speaking of God substituting his sacrifice for sin with mercy but that in relation to the law its intent was for people to fulfill the spirit of the law by showing mercy to others.

It is my understanding that Jesus demonstrated this clearly through the duration of his earthly ministry. Have no dealings with the Samaritans Jesus showed mercy instead of the letter of the law. Stone the woman for adultery Jesus showed mercy and not the letter of the law. Don't touch the defiled Jesus showed mercy and touched the leper. The law declared that gentiles not be given any attention and to be despised and yet the gentile woman said Lord even the dogs lick the crumbs of their master and Jesus showed mercy.

The way to God has always been through the sacrifice of the innocent hence Jesus died for the ungodly but the way to humanity has always been through mercy. Therefore I see no contradiction in the OP with your statement. Genesis still offers us rich typology but Jesus offers mercy which is exactly what God showed Adam and Eve.

Thank you for responding Rebel.

 

It's clear to me, and thus I believe, that God did not desire or require blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins or put humans in right relationship with Him. This is affirmed by the OT prophets and by Jesus Himself. The idea of a blood sacrifice to appease an offended deity is a pagan concept.

Thank you for the civil discourse.

 

it was my privilege.

thjplgvp

 

Heb_9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

 

The law was not given until far after the events in Genesis 3. There is no mention of the shedding of blood in Genesis 3. The Bible simply says, "God made coats of skin". The rules and procedures for sacrifices and offerings were spelled out in great detail in subsequent books of the Pentateuch. I would suppose if this were an animal sacrifice there would be a mention of it. Also, if an animal sacrifice was involved in these coats God made, there is the strange occurence where God is offering a sacrifice to Himself.

 

Umm...did you read the post I responded too?

Second, The shedding of blood for sin is an eternal precept not just limited to the law. Whether it was in the law or not has no bearing on whether or not God sacrificed any animal here in Genesis.

God having sacrificed the animal himself is not a problem either nor is it strange. What is important is that the one who does it must Meet the standard of God. God certainly meets His own standard. This is no better expressed than in Revelation chapter 5.

The lack of mention of it is not an issue either. What is clear is that revelation has been progressive over the years. A prime example of this is the mystery of the church. However, v. 15 is prophetic in what was to come even though it was not, at that time, laid out in detail.

 

Better reread Hebrews 9:22.

How about the fact that the verse in Genesis 3 does not mention animal sacrifice? I'd say that has a bearing on whether or not there was a sacrifice!

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

Genesis 3:21 sets a precedent for a sacrifice.
Genesis 4 sets the example to be followed.
At regular intervals both Cain and Abel were to bring animal sacrifices and present them to the Lord. This is well before the Law. Did they begin this practice, or did God begin it. God was not offering anything "to Himself." He was offering a sacrifice "on behalf" of Adam and Eve. Blood had to be spilt. Atonement had to be made. The price of sin had to be paid. Otherwise they could not live a righteous and forgiven life. What was the purpose of the skins?

 

Read between the lines... Could God have made coats of skin without an offering?... Sure!... But where is the lesson or illustration in that?... A sacrifice was made!... A sacrifice is implied and God made the sacrifice and just because you don't understand it does not mean it did not happen... The way I understand scripture blood was shed and an animal died in the making of the skins to cloth Adam and Eve... I like to believe that the coats made were taken from a Ram... That was the animal that was caught in the thicket that Abraham offered in the place of his only son Isaac a type and shadow of Jesus Christ... Knowing that Adam and Eve realized that a living animal that Adam gave a name to had to be slain to cover his nakedness and his wife Eve also there would be a greater emphasis to follow God even though they lost their place in the Garden Of Eden... Those are my thoughts... Brother Glen

 

I agree that it's a beautiful illustration. It makes sense in the long term view of things that there was blood shed. But it's just not in the scripture. I have a feeling when I get to Heaven that I will know that it was a sacrifice and it just wasn't explained fully in Genesis.

If one is a literalist as to the timeline of Genesis then the first thing to die in God's creation was an animal that God killed to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. So, death was good, right? So often we hear as a rebuttal to evolution that there was no animal death prior to the fall, that death is not good and God said his creation was good. If we hold to the skins made for Adam and Eve as being a sacrifice, then the first creature to die was killed by God. Sort of puts the whole "death is not good" argument to rest.

 

...or you'll realize the wisdom, yea the genius, in giving us reason and cause to meditate on these things and to search the scriptures to see if they be so. Absolutely the best time ever spent in our brief stay in this realm.

 

AMEN!!!!... Brother!... Brother Glen

I Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

Look that verse was posted in response to what Rebel said which is off topic to what you are addressing. Please do not conflate the two.

Well you are certainly welcome to ignore the rest of what I said but it doesn't help your position. It would help you to study hermenuetics. Further the only scholars you will find that will agree with you will be liberal ones.

 

Hosea 6:6. Matthew 9:13