THE WAY OF THE TREE OF LIFE
James E. Farrar
"So he drove out the man; and he placed
at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24)
Foreword
It is with a deep sense
of awe and gratitude that we approach so sublime a subject. "The way of the tree of life" is
the way that God has revealed in the Bible for the restoration of man to that
which Adam lost. This way is unfolded
by revelation with a wonderful simplicity and yet as we consider those things
which "angels desire to look into" we recognize that our minds are
dwarfed by the lofty principles established by the mercy of the Most High
God. This pamphlet is sent forth with
the intent that it might, in some small way, contribute to an understanding of
those things which moved the apostle Paul to exclaim, "O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out." (Romans 11:33).
James E. Farrar
May 1985
The
Provisional Redemption of the Fallen Sinners
"The
Judgment Was By One to Condemnation"
Faith
in Relation to Sacrifice
After the completion of
the creative work, Adam was charged with a specific commandment: But of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:17). The inspired
record relates how Adam, as a deliberate and conscious act, disobeyed this
divine law and partook of the forbidden fruit.
How was the original Edenic penalty "In the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die," satisfied? Adam did not die on the day in
which he sinned, as the original penalty implied. He lived to be 930 years old
(Genesis 5:5).
According to the
principles of comparing spiritual things with spiritual, it is necessary to
consider other passages of Scripture where this expression occurs in order to
get at its meaning. There is one incident in Scripture where the very form of
words used in Genesis 2 is used to describe another penalty for wrongdoing. When
Solomon ascended the throne of his father David, he was instructed by his
father to take vengeance on Shimei, the Benjamite who had grievously cursed
David at the time of Absalom's conspiracy. In a demonstration of his wisdom,
Solomon summoned Shimei and entered into an agreement with him. “And the king
sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in
Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. For it shall
be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou
shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die; thy blood shall be upon
thine own head. And Shimei said unto the king, The saying is good: as my lord
the king hath said, so will thy servant do” (I Kings 2:36-38).
After three years,
Shimei broke his agreement and left Jerusalem in pursuit of two of his servants
who had run away to Gath. Upon his return to the city he was confronted by the
king. “And the king sent and called for
Shimei, and saith unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and
protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and
walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? And thou saidst unto
me, The word that I have heard is good. Why then hast thou not kept the oath of
the LORD, and the commandment that I have charged thee with?” Shimei clearly
understood that the terms of his agreement required his death as the penalty
for disobedience on the day in which his breach was established. Accordingly,
Solomon immediately gave sentence. So the king commanded Benaiah the son of
Jehoiada; which went out and fell upon him, that he died (I Kings
2:42-43,46). In this instance there is
no uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the penalty, "In the day...thou
shalt surely die." It meant that
the offender would be put to death on the day of his transgression. By
reference to a concordance, it is possible to determine that the Hebrew
expression used to describe Shimei's penalty is identical with that used for
Adam's in the second chapter of Genesis. Did the penalty for Adam's
transgression, set out in the second chapter of Genesis, refer to an act of
execution by which he would be slain on the day of his sin? The textual
evidence points to an affirmative answer.
In most Bibles there is
an alternative marginal rendering supplied to the occurrence of the phrase,
Thou shalt surely die, in Genesis 2:17.
It is "dying thou shalt die." The conclusion that has been
inferred from this alternative translation of the Hebrew is that the penalty
had reference to a process that would end in death. The problem with this
explanation is that it is not a consistent translation of the Hebrew. Although
the Hebrew verb used to describe Shimei's penalty is identical, there is no
alternative marginal rendering suggested, and in this instance, it would not be
appropriate. Shimei was not sentenced to a process that would end in death -
his judgment was a sentence of execution or act of cutting off. The authors of
the marginal notes of Cambridge editions of the King James version evidently
recognized the inconsistency of their supplying the marginal note only to the
occurrence of the Hebrew idiom in Genesis 2:17, because they also append a note
to the preceding verse, explaining that the verb eat used there, literally
translated, means eating thou shalt eat (Genesis 2:16). Judging from the common
use of the Hebrew idiom in other parts of Scripture, Shimei's penalty being a
clear case in point, there is no reason why a special meaning should be attached
to its use in Genesis 2:17. Other examples of the use of this Hebrew expression
reinforce the conclusion that it has reference, not to a process, but to a
specific act of cutting off.
(1) In reference to
Abimelech's taking of Sarah, Abraham's wife, the king of the Philistines was
warned, And if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die,
thou, and all that are thine (Genesis 20:7). The whole context in which this
warning was given leaves no doubt that Abimelech and his men understood that
they would be cut off by God if they did not give Sarah back to Abraham.
(2) After Manoah, the
father of Samson, and his wife had seen the angel of God, he said unto his
wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us,
he would not have received a burnt offering...(Judges 13:22-23). His wife's
comment leaves no doubt as to what he meant - he expected to be killed by the
Lord.
(3) When Saul
confronted his son, Jonathan, who had innocently eaten honey, not knowing his
father had cursed any man that ate any food before evening, he said, God do so
and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto
Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God
forbid; as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the
ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan,
that he died not ( I Samuel 14:44-45). Again, it is clear from the context that
it was Saul's intention to slay Jonathan but he was saved from that fate by the
intervention of the people.
(4) On another
occasion, when Saul declared his intentions, the objects of his wrath did not
escape. And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy
father's house. And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him, Turn,
and stay the priests of the Lord; because their hand also is with David, and
because they knew when he fled, and did not shew it unto me (I Samuel
22:16-17). Here it is clear that the expression, "Thou shalt surely
die," is equivalent to an act of execution or cutting off.
(5) Those to whom
Jeremiah prophesied were so troubled by his enunciation of the Divine purpose
that they sought to slay him. Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an
end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak unto all the
people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people took him, saying,
Thou shalt surely die...Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was
with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put
him to death (Jeremiah 26:8,24). Again, it is clear that when people gave
expression to their wish that Jeremiah "shalt surely die" they were
contemplating killing him.
From these further five
examples, the meaning of the Hebrew expression, "Thou shalt surely
die," is unmistakably clear. It generally has reference to a deliberate
act of cutting off and not to a process by which death would come from natural
causes. If this is the meaning of the idiom in nearly all of the other
instances in which it is used in Scripture, why should it not have the same
meaning in Genesis 2:17? It is our conclusion that the overwhelming weight of
Scriptural evidence supports the idea that Adam was told that cutting off would
be the consequence of his sin.
The strongest objection
that can be raised to this conclusion, and the reason why many shrink from it,
is that it does not appear, on the face of it, to be the penalty that was
visited upon Adam for his transgression. How, then, was the penalty carried out
in Adam's case? The decree, unto dust shalt thou return, pointed to the
eventuality of Adam's literal death, which became a fact nine hundred and
thirty years later. This, however, did not satisfy the Edenic penalty which
required an act of cutting off on the day of transgression. Was there any act
of cutting off on the day of transgression? And unto Adam and his wife did the
LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them (Genesis 3:21). In the provision
God made for the covering of Adam and Eve there was an act of cutting off - the
taking of the hide from these animals required their slaughter. This is the
clue to the solution of the problem presented by the Edenic penalty and a
necessary cornerstone in any attempt to explain how it was satisfied.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
How could the death of
animals have satisfied a penalty that had personal reference to Adam and Eve? In
order to answer this important question, it is necessary to reflect on the
significance of the animals that were slain to provide the covering for Adam
and Eve. These animals were figures of the sacrifice that God would provide
through His only begotten Son. The Spirit speaks of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). This testimony not only establishes
an express connection between the animals that were offered in sacrifice in
Eden and the Lord Jesus; it shows that in the mind of the Almighty the
connection was so certain that it was as if the Lord Jesus himself had been
slain in Eden. The death of the animals per se did not satisfy the Edenic
penalty. The death of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom the animal sacrifices made
reference, did. One of the statements in the book of Hebrews is often wrongly
applied, in this connection, as an indictment of all animal sacrifice. For it
is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins
(Hebrews 10:4). This inspired testimony does not mean that animal sacrifices
were to no avail but that the animals themselves, apart from their typical
reference to the Lord Jesus, could not provide any covering for sin. There is
nothing in the blood of animals in its own right that can sanctify, and this,
explains the writer to the Hebrews, is why the sacrifice of Christ is so much
greater than they are. Their efficacy or standing in the sight of God is
derived from the sacrifice of the Lord to which they pointed in shadow. The
animal sacrifices in Eden provided a covering for the sin of Adam and Eve
because they were figures of the offering of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If the animals slain in
Eden were put, by a figure, for the Lord Jesus Christ, it is possible to
explain the necessity of his undergoing a sacrificial death. If the penalty for
sin that was made known to Adam before he fell meant that he was eventually to
succumb to a process that would take his life, why would it not have been
sufficient for the Lord Jesus to have experienced a natural death? The prophets
testify to the necessity of Messiah being cut off. For he was cut off out of
the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken
(Isaiah 53:8). And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut
off...(Daniel 9:26). The reason why it was necessary that the Lord Jesus be cut
off has to do with the first divine law that was delivered to Adam. Flesh must be cut off for sin. This was the
meaning of the original Edenic sentence. The requirements of this law were
satisfied by the death of the Lord Jesus who died, in a figure, when the
animals were slain by the Almighty to provide coats of skins for the first
transgressors. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is the great redemptive
principle, revealed in Eden, by which flesh can escape from the consequences of
sin and the certainty of the death which follows from transgression. Adam and Eve were the first beneficiaries of
this manifestation of divine mercy.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
The Provisional Redemption of the Fallen Sinners
The deliverance which
Adam and Eve obtained by the slaying of the animals spared them from the
immediacy of a death by cutting off. It
was not an absolute reprieve but a provisional one. It did not restore them to their position before God that they
enjoyed before they sinned; it provided for the possibility of such an ultimate
restoration. In the sanctification they
obtained by their identification with the sacrifice of the animals all of the
elements of God's dealing with man in relation to redemption are found. First, there was a confession on the part of
those seeking deliverance; second, there was a declaration of faith in the
divine promise which extended hope; third, there was provisional sanctification
through a divinely appointed ceremony; and finally, the sanctified ones entered
upon a new life of probation which would determine their ultimate standing
before the Almighty.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
After Adam and Eve
sensed the change in their condition occasioned by eating of the forbidden
fruit, they sought to hide from the presence of the LORD. They recognized
within themselves that sin made them unfit for fellowship with the Deity and no
longer desired His company. When Adam
was directly questioned as to whether he had transgressed the divine law, he
confessed his sin: The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the
tree, and I did eat (Genesis 3:12). Eve, in turn, when questioned, made
confession: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (Genesis 3:13). Before there
was any suggestion of divine interposition in mitigating the effects of the
original Edenic penalty, both of the fallen sinners openly confessed their
sin. From this we see that before there
can be any operation of divine mercy, there has to be an open acknowledgement
by man of his sin. He that covereth his
sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth them and forsaketh them shall have
mercy (Proverbs 28:13). The matter is stated even more expressly in the first
epistle of John where it is framed as a condition. If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness (I John 1:9). It
follows that, in the absence of confession, there can be no forgiveness.
It was following this
simple confession that the Almighty, when addressing the serpent, first
intimated that the lives of Adam and Eve were going to be prolonged, and not
immediately cut off. And I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15). In this first
divine promise concerning the destiny of the human race, the reference to
"the seed of the woman" spelled hope for the fallen sinners; for if
the woman was to conceive and bear children, and so ensure the perpetuation of
the race, she and her husband were going to be spared an immediate cutting off,
and granted the prolongation of their days. The reference to "the seed of
the woman" meant much more than a temporary reprieve from the sentence of
death because it pointed forward to one of Adam's race who would triumph over
sin. Adam and Eve could not know, however, from this promise alone, how they
could stand related to the victory that "the seed of the woman" would
obtain over sin.
In pronouncing judgment
upon the woman, more direct reference was made to her role as child-bearer.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16). Child-bearing was an
essential aspect of the woman's lot because from her would spring the one
appointed by God to triumph over sin and redress the effects of the Fall. There
is another principle evident in the sentence given upon the woman which might
be described as "the principle of inherited relationship." Without
any personal guilt for Eve's transgression, nor even sinning after her
similitude, all women have been obliged, in the sight of God, to occupy a
position of subordination to their husbands. This relationship accrues to the
woman without regard to her personal moral position; it is imposed by virtue of
birth. She does not have to sin or otherwise act in order to make it
operative. We emphasize the point
because the relationship of woman to man is an inherited one, and serves as a
pattern for the relationship of man to God, which is also inherited. This relationship
between man and woman is of broader application than simply the domestic
arrangements of life, in the relations between husbands and wives. The apostle
Paul makes reference to the events in Eden as the basis for arrangements in the
apostolic ecclesias, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed, then
Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in [the] childbearing...(I Timothy 2:11-14).
Under the auspices of feminism the modern tendency is to make no distinction in
the roles of men and women. Bible teaching is that the woman must defer to the man
on account of her preeminent involvement in the first sin, providing a clear
example of how ancestral sin has had an effect on subsequent generations. Woman
is not thereby disadvantaged as regards salvation. The apostle plainly states
that she may be saved through the childbearing, that is, through the redemptive
work of Christ.
Because individuals have
been so conditioned in our age to thinking about their rights, there is a
marked tendency among people of this world to suppose that, if there is a God,
He owes them His salvation. Not so. God's mercy, shown forth in the judgment He
gave upon the fallen sinners in Eden, was not in any sense obligatory or
binding upon Him. It was an act of
mercy to which man could make no inherent claim. There would have been no injustice in the Almighty visiting the
Edenic penalty upon Adam and Eve, cutting them off in the day of their sin, and
marking the end of His creative program.
It is well to keep this perspective in view whenever we think about
salvation.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
When the Almighty
addressed the man, He placed him under a curse for his sin. Because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy
sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return (Genesis 3:17-19). The Adamic curse which is here set forward is
different from the Edenic penalty.
Before Adam fell, when he was warned about the consequences of eating
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there was nothing said about the ground
being cursed, nor of the necessity of his labouring under such newly adverse
conditions for his very sustenance. It is not difficult to see why these
elements of the Adamic curse were not included in the forewarning given to
Adam. If we correctly understand the meaning of the penalty, In the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, as a reference to his cutting off in the
day of his sin, it would have been superfluous for the Almighty to elaborate
any other detrimental effects that would follow from his sin. It was only when,
through the interposition of divine mercy, this penalty was provisionally
satisfied in the slaying of the animals, and Adam was spared from immediate
destruction, that it was appropriate to specify other consequences which
followed from his sin. Why was the Adamic curse added, as it were, to the
Edenic penalty as the consequences of Adam's sin?
The straightforward
answer to this question is contained within the pronouncement of the curse
itself. It begins with the explanatory
word because and then makes reference to the act of transgression. Adam was told that the ground was cursed for
[his] sake. The Adamic curse has served as an ever present testimony, not only
to Adam but to all who have sprung from him, that the earth has been stricken
on account of sin. Under the affliction suffered as a consequence of the curse,
discerning men have recognized the wretchedness of their condition and have
appreciated the magnitude of the gracious remedy God has extended through
Christ.
If Adam and Eve were
provisionally sanctified by the coats of skins, after the curse was pronounced,
why was the effect of the curse not removed then? There are other examples in
the Bible where sin was forgiven without erasing the consequences of that sin.
One of the clearest illustrations is provided by David, who was told by the
prophet Nathan, after the confession of his adultery with Bathsheba, the LORD
also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die (2 Samuel 12:13). The
forgiveness of his sin was not the end of the matter. Howbeit, because by this
deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die (v. 14). The child, who
was personally innocent of the transgression, suffered the effects of sin. Stricken
by God, it perished on the seventh day. Why did God permit the child to linger
between life and death for seven days before cutting it off? The situation caused great anguish to David
but undoubtedly worked to his benefit.
While he fasted for seven days, it was a time for sober reflection on
his sin and his relationship to the Almighty, moving him to intense
supplication. When the ordeal was over, he went to the house of the LORD to
worship, something the seven preceding days had prepared him for. Is it not possible to imagine how, on a
larger scale, the Adamic curse has prepared those who are exercised by it for
the seventh millennial day when they might go up to the house of the LORD to
worship?
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
"The Judgment Was
By One to Condemnation"
How is Adam's race
affected by the Adamic curse? It inherits a cursed condition without regard to
its personal moral standing before God.
It is not necessary that members of the Adamic race personally commit
transgression in order to be placed under the operation of the curse. It is a fact of human existence from the
moment of birth. This principle can be
readily grasped by considering the relation of the Jews to the curses of the
Law of Moses. One of these curses for disobedience pertained to the scattering
of the Jews from their ancient land:
And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of
the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, even wood
and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the
sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling
heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in
doubt before thee...(Deuteronomy 28:64-66). Subsequent generations of the
Jewish people, who were born in the lands of the Gentiles, stood related to
this curse from the moment of their birth. While they had no personal
culpability for the transgressions of their ancestors, they nevertheless
suffered the effects of that ancestral sin.
It is exactly the same kind of relationship that the human race bears to
Adam and his sin.
The principle that a
man's relationship toward God is inherited is well established in the
Scriptures. Consider the case of the
children of Lot: An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation
of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the
congregation of the LORD forever: Because they met you not with bread and with
water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired
against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee
(Deuteronomy 23:3-4). Even those
Ammonites and Moabites who were ten generations removed from the original
incidents which gave rise to the divine ban on their entering the congregation
of the LORD were affected by this law.
Hereditary position before God has an important bearing on the
relationship which men have towards Him.
If this is a true principle in respect of the lesser sins committed by
the Ammonites and the Moabites, how muchmore must it pertain to the original
sin by which the human race fell from divine favour.
This is the express
testimony of the Spirit. In the fifth
chapter of Romans, the relationship of the entire human race to Adam's
transgression is clearly set forth.
Through the offence of one many be dead;...the judgment was by one to
condemnation;...by one man's offence death reigned by one;...by the offence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...By one man's disobedience
many were made sinners (v. 15-19). The
entire human race was brought into condemnation by Adam's transgression. "Condemnation" in the original Greek, as in English, is
a judicial term, or a word with a legal connotation, importing the idea of an
adverse verdict (Strong's Concordance). This sentence, passed upon Adam in the
Garden, included the whole human race in its scope. The sentence was the Adamic
curse which not only established the law of sin and death as the governing
principle of human nature, but separated man from fellowship with his Maker on
account of that fallen nature. Man is
not born in a neutral position before God; he is condemned already on account
of Adam's sin. This is why there was no
injustice in the death of the child that was born to David by Bathsheba. While the child was personally innocent, it
was born into a state of condemnation on account of Adam's sin; in the language
of Scripture, it was made a sinner on account of Adam's disobedience and died
under the inherited operation of the law of sin and death.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
Faith in Relation to Sacrifice
After the judgment had
been given forth by God upon Adam, how did he respond? And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because
she was the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20). This response of Adam is not a mere incidental detail but a
declaration of his faith in the divine promise. He understood that God was not going to slay him for his sin
right then and there; and that Eve, as a consequence, would be enabled to
conceive seed, leading in time to a particular male descendant who would gain
the victory over sin. Adam, therefore,
believed the promise. Following this
confession, Adam and Eve were the subjects of a divine ceremony of
sanctification. Unto Adam also and to
his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them (Genesis
3:21). Just as the coats of skins from
the sacrifices provided a covering for their nakedness that was acceptable unto
God, the covering provided by the antitypical Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, is
sufficient to take away the sinful condition of the human race. There are two important
principles to note in respect of this covering. Right at the very beginning of God's dealings with fallen man, it
was offered on the basis of faith in the divine promise. Sacrifice, apart from faith, could not avail
the offer or anything before God.
Second, it was necessary that there be a personal identification with
the sacrifice, which was accomplished, in the case of Adam and Eve, by their
putting on the covering. This was the
sanctification ceremony by which the original Edenic sentence of death was
averted from immediate application to themselves.
How did Adam and Eve
stand to benefit from the promise of Genesis 3:15 concerning a seed who should
come and triumph over sin? The answer
is provided by the sacrifice. It is
necessary to connect the promise of Genesis 3:15 with the animals that were
slain to provide the covering described in Genesis 3:21. Though personal
identification with the sacrifice, which served as a figure of the righteous
seed who should come, God was prepared to extend the benefits of the victory of
the seed of the woman to fallen man.
Literally, the covering was put on by Adam and Eve; symbolically, those
who are sanctified by God are clothed with the perfect righteousness of His
Son, and through this means their sin is taken away. This is termed the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ in the inspired exposition of the apostle Paul (Romans 3:22). The whole of the fourth chapter of Romans
elaborates on this concept of the imputation of righteousness in exchange for
faith in the divine promises. Fallen
man is not personally righteous before God and never can be by his own
efforts. Where, however, men manifest
faith in the divine promises, God is prepared to account them righteous. But in whose righteousness, then, do they
stand? Not in their own for it is most
imperfect. They are accounted righteous
with the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ; it is his
righteousness that is imputed to them.
This is precisely what the coats of skins symbolized - taking the
perfect righteousness from the sacrifice that was slain and giving it to fallen
man as a covering for sin. For God to
effect this transaction, however, it is necessary for the beneficiary to have
faith in the promises of God. This
basis of the plan of redemption was laid down in Eden after the Fall.
In the fifth chapter of
Romans it is made plain that there is an equivalence between the relationship
of the race to Adam's sin and the relationship of the redeemed to Christ's righteousness. They are similar in respect of the federal
principle by which the consequences of each man's work - Adam and Christ - have
affected men. They are dissimilar because
of the very different consequences each federal head's work has held for the
race. Adam's legacy was death; Christ's
benefit was the grace of life. The language of Romans 5 makes reference both to
the similarity and dissimilarity: But not as the offence, so also is the free
gift. The sum of the matter is
contained in verses 18 and 19: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came
upon all men to condemnation - the entire creation was cursed on account of
Adam's sin - even so - on an equivalent principle – by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. The righteousness of Christ has been made
available by God for the potential benefit of all men in delivering them from
the consequences of Adam's sin. For as
by one man's disobedience many were made sinners - through Adam's transgression
the entire race was constituted or accounted by God as sinners - so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
On an equivalent basis, God is willing to make men just or righteous -
that is, they will be regarded as such in His sight - on account of their
relationship to His son.
Do the apparently sparse
and incidental details in the third chapter of Genesis warrant the conclusions
that we have drawn from them? To answer
this question, it is useful to refer to the fourth chapter of Genesis and
consider those things which occurred in the lives of the next generation. Concerning Abel it is recorded that, in
contrast to his brother Cain who brought of the fruit of the ground, he also
brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to
his offering: But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect (Genesis
4:4-5). How did Abel know that
acceptable worship before God required the offering of lambs? The covering of the skins set a pattern of
how man was to approach unto God. The
writer to the Hebrews declares that Abel had understanding when he offered his
sacrifice. By faith Abel offered unto
God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he
was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead yet
speaketh (Hebrews 11:4). On the basis
of his faith, Abel was accounted by God as righteous. These events which occurred subsequent to the sanctification of
Adam and Eve in the garden substantiate the significance of the coats of skins.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
If Adam and Eve were
sanctified by the covering provided by the coats of skins, and provisionally
cleansed by the shedding of animal blood, why were they afterwards driven from
Eden? And the LORD God said, Behold,
the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever...Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to
till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims, and a flaming sword, to keep the way of the tree of life (Genesis
3:22-24). They were exiled from the
Garden because as long as they were in an imperfect condition they were unfit
to partake of the tree of life and had to be denied the opportunity. God ordained that salvation was to be
predicated, not only on a sanctifying ceremony by which a relationship to the
righteousness of Christ was established, but also on a life worthy of that
righteousness. These two necessities
for salvation have been appropriately termed "positional" and
"practical" righteousness.
Adam and Eve obtained this "positional" righteousness, which
comes through relationship to Christ, when they put on the coats of skins. "Practical" righteousness could
not exist in a being in which no character development had taken place - time
was required for that work. To
determine, therefore, whether Adam would serve the flesh instinct now at work
in his fallen nature, or seek the great salvation promised by the living God,
he was sent forth from the Garden "on probation."
Concerning this
arrangement for human existence conceived by the Almighty, the apostle Paul
testifies, For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creation itself
also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God (Romans 8:21-22; the marginal rendering of
"creation" has been put for "creature"). The human race was made "subject to
vanity" on account of Adam's sin and "subject to hope" on
account of God's mercy. It was under
these two mutually antagonistic influences that Adam was sent forth from the
Garden to form his character. This
mortal life, therefore, has been granted to men to determine whether or not
they are of the sort the Father is seeking to worship Him.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
Are the principles of
redemption under which we live today any different from those by which Adam was
provisionally sanctified and placed on probation? In the dispensation before Christ came, animal sacrifice was ordained
as the arrangement by which men and women could stand related to the positional
righteousness of Christ through faith.
Although in this age the divinely appointed means is different, it is
precisely analogous. We obtain
relationship to Christ through baptism: For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:17). The use of the words "put on"
takes our minds back to Eden and the coats of skins that were "put on"
by the fallen sinners as a covering.
The idea of sin being taken away by means of a covering is set out
plainly by the apostle Paul: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of
the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered (Romans
4:6-7).
There is another
testimony that holds a key to understanding the parallel significance between
the coats of skins put on by Adam and baptism.
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,
in putting off the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses...(Colossians 2:11-13).
There is an important
principle expressed in this testimony: In whom [that is, in Christ] also ye are
circumcised...by the circumcision of Christ...buried with him in baptism. The apostle teaches that through means of
baptism, believers participate in the circumcision of Christ. This is not a reference to the circumcision
of Christ that was carried out on the eight day according to the Law of Moses,
because it is described as the circumcision made without hands. It is a reference to his death by which
flesh was cut off - slain - for sin. By
baptism the cutting off of Christ's flesh is accounted as the cutting off of
the believer's flesh. It is according
to this redemptive principle that Adam also was accounted as having been slain
on the day of his transgression.
Through the sacrifice which provided the coats of skins in Adam's case,
and through baptism in ours, there is a typical or figurative participation in
the death of Christ.
In both of these
passages which we have examined that refer to the forgiveness which comes
through baptism, there is a dual reference to sin. In Romans 4:7 the citation from the Psalmist reads, Blessed are
they [1] whose iniquities are forgiven and [2] whose sins are covered. Similarly, in Colossians there is a
reference to the believer being "dead" before baptism on two
accounts: [1] in your sins and [2] the uncircumcision of your flesh. Why are there two references to sin in each
case? Is it not an instance of mere
repetition for emphasis? The
testimonies make reference to two different kinds of sin that are remitted by
baptism. The first reference in each
case describes the personal transgressions committed by the believer before
baptism. The second reference does not allude to such individual offences but
to a condition of sin. The sins which
are "covered" are those which correspond to Adam's naked condition in
Eden after he fell - a condition of divine disfavor in which he found
himself. Similarly,
"uncircumcision of the flesh" is a fact or state of nature and not
something entered into through human volition.
Sins of this second class might be described as "positional"
because they accrue to man on account of his relationship to Adam. The condition or state inherited by man from
Adam is something from which the human race needs deliverance. Baptism is therefore not only the means for
the forgiveness of individual transgressions but also an atonement for the
Adamic condition by which position a man is condemned before God.
In expounding this
change of relationship before God that is brought about by baptism, the apostle
Paul declares, There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from
the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2)*.
Before baptism we stand related to the Adamic dispensation of things
which is described in the Scriptures as the law of sin and death. Baptism makes the believer free from this
law and relates him to an altogether different dispensation of things conferred
by relationship to Christ which is described in the Scriptures as the law of
the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. The
condemnation – the adverse verdict - which passed upon all men as a consequence
of Adam's sin is lifted and removed at baptism. Adam himself was an example of the literal and immediate
application of this deliverance. It was
because of his relationship to Christ through the sacrificial coats of skins
that he was spared from an immediate act of execution.
There is a great gulf
fixed between the relationship of men to Adam which is denominated in the
Scriptures as in Adam and the relationship of men to Christ and his
righteousness which is termed in the Scriptures in Christ. The former relationship ends in death; the
latter one imparts the hope of endless life.
Our understanding of these truths does not consist of theological principles
to be grasped in an abstract sense but otherwise removed from the issues of
life. It imparts to us a way of life
that has compelling moral force.
* [Click here
for an explanation of the error in translation of Romans 8:1 – S.H.]
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page
The separation of mankind
from the tree of life was not final when Adam was driven out of Eden. In his first dealings with fallen man, the
Almighty revealed His plan for the redemption of our race - the way of the tree
of life. The tree of life again comes into
view at the close of God's revelation to fallen man. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the
right to the tree of life...(Revelation 22:14). Where faith is found with obedience, God has mercifully conferred
the right to the tree of life.
While baptism is an
essential step, in effecting the change of relationship from Adam to Christ,
from death to life, it is not an absolute reprieve from sin. It is the beginning of the way of the tree
of life. Perhaps, then, the most
searching question of all that we must address, as we ponder these things, is
asked by a Christadelphian hymn, Shall we be with him in that day? We make the answer now.
Note: The use of the
plural in "coats of skins" coincides with the King James version as
does the thought, "slaying of animals." This plurality is not intended to be arbitrary.
Back to Contents
Back to Home Page