God clothing of Adam and Eve

[evangelist6589]

Was reading my book on Christology "Jesus Christ Our Lord" and you know there is a spiritual significance in Gen 3:21 that is more than just the obvious. Can anyone guess as to what the deeper hidden meaning is behind Gen 3:21? Note if this turns into a debate on Cal vs. Armin or eschatology I am out of here.

 

[InTheLight]

It depends on how one interprets "God made coats of skin".

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[annsni]

I don't know why you even brought up C vs. A because I don't see how that would come into this discussion at all - except you bring it up.

As for your question, this was the first shedding of blood for sin.

 

[Jerome]

God had them make their clothing of animal skins, a degrading display of their being vile sinners.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I don't know why you even brought up C vs. A because I don't see how that would come into this discussion at all - except you bring it up.

As for your question, this was the first shedding of blood for sin.

Yes, that. And the fact that their own efforts to deliver themselves from nakedness (sin) was pathetically unprofitable and for naught.

 

[InTheLight]

I don't know why you even brought up C vs. A because I don't see how that would come into this discussion at all - except you bring it up.

As for your question, this was the first shedding of blood for sin.

Like I said, it depends on how one interprets "God made them coats of skin."

There is not one word in the text about shedding of blood, or animals for that matter.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Revmitchell]

As for your question, this was the first shedding of blood for sin.

That's right!

 

[DHK]

It had nothing to do with nakedness and shame. They were already clothed with fig leaves. That was sufficient enough for both warmth and modesty as far as they were concerned, for they felt no shame after that. As far as warmth was concerned they lived in a perfectly controlled green-house like climate. It was never too hot and never too cold. It had never rained. There were no storms. The climate was perfect every day of the year.
That leaves only one reason: "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."

 

[InTheLight]

.
That leaves only one reason: "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."

And where in the text in Genesis 3 is there any mention of shedding of blood?

 

[JonC]

Was reading my book on Christology "Jesus Christ Our Lord" and you know there is a spiritual significance in Gen 3:21 that is more than just the obvious. Can anyone guess as to what the deeper hidden meaning is behind Gen 3:21? Note if this turns into a debate on Cal vs. Armin or eschatology I am out of here.

I would think it something along the lines that God would supply that which would cover their sin (their spiritual nakedness), and provide a righteous covering through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

And where in the text in Genesis 3 is there any mention of shedding of blood?

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

(ISV) The LORD God fashioned garments from animal skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

(CEV) Then the LORD God made clothes out of animal skins for the man and his wife.

Other translations (though they be more similar to a paraphrases) purposely translate it as "animal skins" and for good reason. That is where the skin or hide came from. Thus the question arises. Did God take the hide of animal and then leave it without any skin or hide? Or, did he use the blood in a sacrifice? Since all sacrifices followed, starting from Cain and Abel onward, and were accepted only if they were blood-sacrifices, we may safely assume that this animal was sacrificed as a precursor to the entire sacrificial system of Israel and ultimately a picture of the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I've preached it before as picture of the sinner being covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who was slain for our sins.

 

[evangelist6589]

I would think it something along the lines that God would supply that which would cover their sin (their spiritual nakedness), and provide a righteous covering through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

Bingo! Well done.

 

[InTheLight]

Other translations (though they be more similar to a paraphrases) purposely translate it as "animal skins" and for good reason. That is where the skin or hide came from. Thus the question arises. Did God take the hide of animal and then leave it without any skin or hide? Or, did he use the blood in a sacrifice? Since all sacrifices followed, starting from Cain and Abel onward, and were accepted only if they were blood-sacrifices, we may safely assume that this animal was sacrificed as a precursor to the entire sacrificial system of Israel and ultimately a picture of the sacrifice of Christ.

Since God just created everything out of nothing why couldn't He simply make the animal sound out of nothing.

I would not "safely assume" anything.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[JonC]

Since God just created everything out of nothing why couldn't He simply make the animal sound out of nothing.

I would not "safely assume" anything.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

Yes....this is the BB….there are no safe assumptions. Those animal skins could have been synthetic and only called ‘animal skins” as a concession for the understanding of such an ancient audience (like anthropomorphisms).

 

[DHK]

Since God just created everything out of nothing why couldn't He simply make the animal sound out of nothing.

I would not "safely assume" anything.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

Because I would "safely assume" that when God said he created all things in six days and on the seventh day he rested that he meant what he said. He had already ceased from from carrying out his act of creating.

 

[kyredneck]

I would think it something along the lines that God would supply that which would cover their sin (their spiritual nakedness), and provide a righteous covering through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

I agree and so does Pink. The blood was shed to acquire the skins which signify the imputed righteousness of Christ.

 

[Alcott]

I wonder just what kind of skins they were. Bear, so they would be bear without being bare? Rabbit, so they could hop down the bunny trail out of the garden? Deer, so they would remember what a dear existence they forfeited? Yak, so they won't listen to just any vile creature yacking at them any more? Fur, so they would know they were putting their children a mighty fur piece from righteous? Cow, because there's no use crying over spilled milk? Goat, because......

 

[JonC]

I agree and so does Pink. The blood was shed to acquire the skins which signify the imputed righteousness of Christ.

I believe it was Pink (maybe F.F. Bruce) that provides a good detail about the blood being shed. I am not completely sold on all of the implications, but it does show God's continued concern, compassion, and care for man even after the Fall. God would have been just to have ended mankind in the Garden.

 

[kyredneck]

It's another of those marvelous types.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_05.htm