The Covenant of Grace with Adam

[dsanch1120]

Hello friends,

This morning I was reading Genesis 3 and something new stood out to me.
"And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." Genesis 3:21
When I read this verse, it stood out to me as a sign of the gospel, and thus the covenant of Grace.
In order for a garment of skin to be made, an animal must have been killed. Adam and Eve were promised death as a result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet it seems to me that an animal was killed in their place.
Their nakedness (and thus shame) was covered by the skin of this animal, which reminded me of the clothing with Christ's righteousness (and indeed the putting on of Christ in baptism) for those who are saved.
While I strongly feel that the Covenant of Grace is best seen in Genesis 3:15, I also feel that this 3:21 shows an incredibly clear picture of the gospel and points to the lamb of God who died in our place and whose righteousness clothes us.

I'm still very much a learner when it comes to covenant theology, and as I read through some commentaries, I not only didn't see this view reflected, but many didn't seem to engage much with this verse at all. I want to make sure that I'm on the right track and not going to exegetical (or worse) errors. I'm a bit skeptical of myself when I come to a conclusion that doesn't seem very present with past saints. Calvin came to a seemingly opposite conclusion - that the animal skin served to show them their own depravity and sinfulness.
This all being said, is this an accurate and faithful understanding of this verse?
Thank you all

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I think that this kind of extrapolation is an excessive reach.

If the Lord wished for us to draw some deeper meaning out of that passage, the Lord would have referenced it in some way, either in the immediate context, or in some other passage that touched on the same topic.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think there is a possible, but not necessary, inference that there is some typology present in the fact that the Lord made coverings for them (even though they had fashioned coverings for themselves). I'm never one for making too many dogmatic assertions, but we do see here a sense in which if shame is going to be covered, then we're not going to be able to provide the covering.

That said, I was working out the other day and listening to the story of Cain and Abel. There is no apparent command in Scripture for an offering., yet, both Cain and Abel seem to know that it is appropriate to offer to God from their labors. It is said (not in Genesis but in Hebrews) that what distinguished Abel's offering was that it was done in faith.

I can't quite piece together how Adam, Eve, and their children reason from what happened to the original pair after their Fall. It's clear that they hoped in something of the Seed and, right away, knew it was an act of faith to offer the best of their flock to God. The fact that God covered Adam and Eve with skins immediately after the Promise is the most likely example.

By the way, whether or not it's in commentaries, I have heard many learned men pick up on the fact that God Himself covers the pair.

 

[arapahoepark]

I think you're onto something. But, I still think it's a fairly blurred type there.

 

[alexanderjames]

I’ve definitely heard this interpretation before on at least one occasion, but I cannot recall where.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hello friends,

This morning I was reading Genesis 3 and something new stood out to me.
"And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." Genesis 3:21
When I read this verse, it stood out to me as a sign of the gospel, and thus the covenant of Grace.
In order for a garment of skin to be made, an animal must have been killed. Adam and Eve were promised death as a result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet it seems to me that an animal was killed in their place.
Their nakedness (and thus shame) was covered by the skin of this animal, which reminded me of the clothing with Christ's righteousness (and indeed the putting on of Christ in baptism) for those who are saved.
While I strongly feel that the Covenant of Grace is best seen in Genesis 3:15, I also feel that this 3:21 shows an incredibly clear picture of the gospel and points to the lamb of God who died in our place and whose righteousness clothes us.

I'm still very much a learner when it comes to covenant theology, and as I read through some commentaries, I not only didn't see this view reflected, but many didn't seem to engage much with this verse at all. I want to make sure that I'm on the right track and not going to exegetical (or worse) errors. I'm a bit skeptical of myself when I come to a conclusion that doesn't seem very present with past saints. Calvin came to a seemingly opposite conclusion - that the animal skin served to show them their own depravity and sinfulness.
This all being said, is this an accurate and faithful understanding of this verse?
Thank you all

I think the coverings God made for our first parents was something HE provided (their own coverings being worthless), and it required a sacrifice of some kind, the life of an animal.

That said, we should distinguish between exegesis proper, and theology as a result of exegesis. It is hard to extract the covenant of grace from Genesis 3, not because it fails starting to manifest itself there, but because one needs to get to Abraham and God's covenant with him (Gen.12-15-17) to see the CoG burgeoning. Then, when one brings biblical theology as a whole and an awareness of redemptive history back to Gen.3, the hints of what is soon to come become highlights of the earlier text.

We don't interpret Scripture in a vacuum, but we can distinguish between the tasks of the exegete, his prior tasks and his latter or complementary tasks. First labor to understand the text within its least-context. Then recognize the text stands within larger and larger contexts, as if concentric circles. Later texts, as well as earlier texts, inform the effort to gain the most from a passage in terms of a comprehensive theology. For example, the Pentateuch as a whole, being the product (basically) of one man, Moses, and one period of time (the exodus)--the parts that come prior to Israel's departure from Egypt is all an intentional prelude, and does contain many foreshadowings of that which is central to the matter. Therefore, linguistic ideas bound to the term "covering," and the fact of animal sacrifice (which introduction immediately follows in real time in the text of Gen.4) most certainly hover in the background of the very first words from the book of Genesis.

 

[TylerRay]

Hello friends,

This morning I was reading Genesis 3 and something new stood out to me.
"And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." Genesis 3:21
When I read this verse, it stood out to me as a sign of the gospel, and thus the covenant of Grace.
In order for a garment of skin to be made, an animal must have been killed. Adam and Eve were promised death as a result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet it seems to me that an animal was killed in their place.
Their nakedness (and thus shame) was covered by the skin of this animal, which reminded me of the clothing with Christ's righteousness (and indeed the putting on of Christ in baptism) for those who are saved.
While I strongly feel that the Covenant of Grace is best seen in Genesis 3:15, I also feel that this 3:21 shows an incredibly clear picture of the gospel and points to the lamb of God who died in our place and whose righteousness clothes us.

I'm still very much a learner when it comes to covenant theology, and as I read through some commentaries, I not only didn't see this view reflected, but many didn't seem to engage much with this verse at all. I want to make sure that I'm on the right track and not going to exegetical (or worse) errors. I'm a bit skeptical of myself when I come to a conclusion that doesn't seem very present with past saints. Calvin came to a seemingly opposite conclusion - that the animal skin served to show them their own depravity and sinfulness.
This all being said, is this an accurate and faithful understanding of this verse?
Thank you all

Many of the old commentators would agree with you.

Matthew Henry:
These coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and (as it is Eccl. iii. 18) that they may see that they themselves were beasts, mortal and dying. It is supposed that they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great sacrifice, which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all. Thus the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. These sacrifices were divided between God and man, in token of reconciliation: the flesh was offered to God, a whole burnt-offering; the skins were given to man for clothing, signifying that, Jesus Christ having offered himself to God a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour, we are to clothe ourselves with his righteousness as with a garment, that the shame of our nakedness may not appear. Adam and Eve made for themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them to wrap themselves in, Isa. xxviii. 20. Such are all the rags of our own righteousness. But God made them coats of skins; large, and strong, and durable, and fit for them; such is the righteousness of Christ. Therefore put on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[TylerRay]

Gill:
[The animals were slain] for sacrifice, as a type of the woman's seed, whose heel was to be bruised, or who was to suffer death for the sins of men; and therefore to keep up and direct the faith of our first parents to the slain Lamb of God from the foundation of the world, and of all believers in all ages, until the Messiah should come and die, and become a sacrifice for sin, the sacrifices of slain beasts were appointed: and of the skins of these the Lord God, either by his almighty power, made coats for the man and his wife, or by the ministry of angels; or he instructed and directed them to make them, which was an instance of goodness to them; not only to provide food for them as before, but also raiment; and which though not rich, fine, and soft, yet was substantial, and sufficient to protect them from all inclemencies of the weather; and they might serve as to put them in mind of their fall, so of their mortality by it, and of the condition sin had brought them into; being in themselves, and according to their deserts, like the beasts that perish: as also they were emblems of the robe of Christ's righteousness, and the garments of his salvation, to be wrought out by his obedience, sufferings, and death; with which being arrayed, they should not be found naked, nor be condemned, but be secured from wrath to come.

 

[TylerRay]

Note that in the verse immediately prior, Adam names his wife Eve in token of his faith in the promise of God concerning the seed of the woman. The clothing occurs in the immediate context of the institution of the CoG and the believing acceptance of the promised Redeemer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think the coverings God made for our first parents was something HE provided (their own coverings being worthless), and it required a sacrifice of some kind, the life of an animal.

That said, we should distinguish between exegesis proper, and theology as a result of exegesis. It is hard to extract the covenant of grace from Genesis 3, not because it fails starting to manifest itself there, but because one needs to get to Abraham and God's covenant with him (Gen.12-15-17) to see the CoG burgeoning. Then, when one brings biblical theology as a whole and an awareness of redemptive history back to Gen.3, the hints of what is soon to come become highlights of the earlier text.

We don't interpret Scripture in a vacuum, but we can distinguish between the tasks of the exegete, his prior tasks and his latter or complementary tasks. First labor to understand the text within its least-context. Then recognize the text stands within larger and larger contexts, as if concentric circles. Later texts, as well as earlier texts, inform the effort to gain the most from a passage in terms of a comprehensive theology. For example, the Pentateuch as a whole, being the product (basically) of one man, Moses, and one period of time (the exodus)--the parts that come prior to Israel's departure from Egypt is all an intentional prelude, and does contain many foreshadowings of that which is central to the matter. Therefore, linguistic ideas bound to the term "covering," and the fact of animal sacrifice (which introduction immediately follows in real time in the text of Gen.4) most certainly hover in the background of the very first words from the book of Genesis.

Great post.

One of the things I enjoyed about reading Torah story is how the author reminds us that these narratives and teachings are to be mined and meditated upon. I hesitate to offer that "this is what is intended" because it could be the very thing that one reflects upon as one is studying the text while, on another occasion, some other act or Word of God bears with it another thread upon which to meditate. It's possible (and likely probable) that what God was doing at the time went over the heads of Adam and Eve. The whole thing might have been a blur as they had so recently died of their original righteousness. But, as with the Scriptures as a whole, God promises and plants things that even the original hearers or speakers may not have fully contemplated.

So, I find myself marveling at God condescending to those who were, by nature, objects of wrath and both announcing a Promise and clothing them with animal skins. Yet, I also caution myself not to say: "I've completely exhausted what I might learn from this narrative."

 

[dsanch1120]

Many of the old commentators would agree with you.

I literally read the Matthew Henry commentary 10 minutes after my post, I must have skipped over it in my logos library. There was another, I believe from an old free church of scotland minister that said something similar. Thank you as well for the Gill quote, very helpful!

 

[dsanch1120]

I think the coverings God made for our first parents was something HE provided (their own coverings being worthless), and it required a sacrifice of some kind, the life of an animal.

That said, we should distinguish between exegesis proper, and theology as a result of exegesis. It is hard to extract the covenant of grace from Genesis 3, not because it fails starting to manifest itself there, but because one needs to get to Abraham and God's covenant with him (Gen.12-15-17) to see the CoG burgeoning. Then, when one brings biblical theology as a whole and an awareness of redemptive history back to Gen.3, the hints of what is soon to come become highlights of the earlier text.

We don't interpret Scripture in a vacuum, but we can distinguish between the tasks of the exegete, his prior tasks and his latter or complementary tasks. First labor to understand the text within its least-context. Then recognize the text stands within larger and larger contexts, as if concentric circles. Later texts, as well as earlier texts, inform the effort to gain the most from a passage in terms of a comprehensive theology. For example, the Pentateuch as a whole, being the product (basically) of one man, Moses, and one period of time (the exodus)--the parts that come prior to Israel's departure from Egypt is all an intentional prelude, and does contain many foreshadowings of that which is central to the matter. Therefore, linguistic ideas bound to the term "covering," and the fact of animal sacrifice (which introduction immediately follows in real time in the text of Gen.4) most certainly hover in the background of the very first words from the book of Genesis.

As always, thank you for your thoughtful and very helpful response Rev. Buchanan.
I'll keep these in mind as I continue to read through the rest of Genesis and the pentateuch. It's been far too easy for me to forget the Mosaic authorship and context of Genesis, but it is definitely important to remember.

 

[Jack K]

Many believers have seen this event as foreshadowing a blood sacrifice for sin, but I am reluctant to teach it that way. The reason I'm reluctant is because neither the Genesis 3 passage nor any other part of Scripture cares to point out that animals were killed. Sure, we can infer that animals probably were killed. But to build a type out of something inferred that the text doesn't even bother to point out feels like too much reaching.

Besides, Genesis 3 gives us many other gospel themes and images that are pointed out in the text. Most notably in verse 21, we see (as you and others here have pointed out) that God himself covers his people's shame. I feel very good about teaching that as a gospel preview, better than I do about the blood-sacrifice theme.

 

[Andres]

Many of the old commentators would agree with you.

Matthew Henry:
These coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and (as it is Eccl. iii. 18) that they may see that they themselves were beasts, mortal and dying. It is supposed that they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great sacrifice, which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all. Thus the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. These sacrifices were divided between God and man, in token of reconciliation: the flesh was offered to God, a whole burnt-offering; the skins were given to man for clothing, signifying that, Jesus Christ having offered himself to God a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour, we are to clothe ourselves with his righteousness as with a garment, that the shame of our nakedness may not appear. Adam and Eve made for themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them to wrap themselves in, Isa. xxviii. 20. Such are all the rags of our own righteousness. But God made them coats of skins; large, and strong, and durable, and fit for them; such is the righteousness of Christ. Therefore put on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Put me down for the Matthew Henry camp. The shedding of blood in animal skins, the covering of Adam and Eve's shame (sin) by another, and the graciousness of God doing it on Adam and Eve's behalf when they didn't deserve God to do it, all point to the covenant of grace and the mediator of said covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Andres]

The reason I'm reluctant is because neither the Genesis 3 passage nor any other part of Scripture cares to point out that animals were killed. Sure, we can infer that animals probably were killed. But to build a type out of something inferred that the text doesn't even bother to point out feels like too much reaching.

Sir, how does one skin an animal to the point clothing/covering can be made from it and not kill it? I would contend to think the animals were skinned but weren't killed involves more reaching.

 

[Solparvus]

Sir, how does one skin an animal to the point clothing/covering can be made from it and not kill it? I would contend to think the animals were skinned but weren't killed involves more reaching.

Imagine Adam and Eve shuddering when they see that dead animal skin, after they were originally told that they would die, and yet this animal has died instead.

 

[JP Wallace]

Yes, I think it is completely legitimate - but, only in light of later and fuller revelation can that significance be understood by us - as others have said it is not in the text.

But that shouldn't deter us from extrapolating or developing the idea of substtutionary atonment being foreshadowed here because of what Andrew notes above. After all in light of later revelation we all, I assume understand Genesis1:26 as having significance as being one of the first expressions of God as trinity, though it is not explicitly said so in the text - later revelation fills in the details. I undestand the texts about the covering of Adam and Eve in the same way, using the same principle and using that principle it's quite hard not to!

Genesis 1:26 ESV “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

 

[dsanch1120]

Imagine Adam and Eve shuddering when they see that dead animal skin, after they were originally told that they would die, and yet this animal has died instead.

I didn't think about that way.. that would have been terrifying

 

[Jack K]

Sir, how does one skin an animal to the point clothing/covering can be made from it and not kill it? I would contend to think the animals were skinned but weren't killed involves more reaching.

Typically, I would think a reference to making clothes out of skins does include an assumption that one needs to slaughter the animal. So yes, that feels most likely. But death had recently become a part of the world, so it's possible the animals died in some way other than as a sacrificial killing. It's also possible for God to make skins without first making a living animal, though I think this less likely.

But "most likely" or "we can infer" are phrases that make me hesitate before I use them as the hub of my interpretation of a passage. I'm more comfortable with "the passage points this out for us." In the case of Genesis 3:21, the Holy Spirit has an opportunity to point out that God made a sacrificial killing (assuming he did) but doesn't say that. Instead, the text points us to other great themes, like nakedness and shame and covering, by directly mentioning those themes several times. I prefer to emphasize themes the text has emphasized rather than a hidden theme I've had to infer, even though the sacrificial-killing theme may well be there (death is mentioned, for sure) and certainly is biblical.

In classes for kids, I teach from Genesis 3 frequently because it's so foundational. The sacrificial-killing theme is popular in Bible story books, so sometimes my students have mentioned it when I say that God made animal skins for Adam and Eve. I reply positively. I tell the kids it's true that God provides a sacrifice for sin, and that the sacrifice involves killing, and that Jesus is our sacrifice, etc. But I also tell them that the passage doesn't mention God killing the animals, just making the skins into clothes. Then I'll ask, "What do we learn about God from the fact that he makes clothes for his people?" And we'll have a delicate, careful conversation (since they are kids) about nakedness and shame and covering, because it's a repeated theme of the text.

 

[JP Wallace]

But I also tell them that the passage doesn't mention God killing the animals, just making the skins into clothes. Then I'll ask, "What do we learn about God from the fact that he makes clothes for his people?" And we'll have a delicate, careful conversation (since they are kids) about nakedness and shame and covering, because it's a repeated theme of the text.

While agreeing with what you wrote, I'd also say that to stop short at God providing a cover for nakedness and shame is to stop too short - naked is only shameful because of sin and the only covering for sin is the blood of Christ - and that after all (Luke 24) is the overall story and purpose of Scripture - if not in the details in the ultimate trajectory of interpretation.

So God's covering of Adam and Eve's shameful nakedness is in itself a pointer to the necessity of Christ's bloody atonement.

 

[Jack K]

While agreeing with what you wrote, I'd also say that to stop short at God providing a cover for nakedness and shame is to stop too short - naked is only shameful because of sin and the only covering for sin is the blood of Christ - and that after all (Luke 24) is the overall story and purpose of Scripture - if not in the details in the ultimate trajectory of interpretation.

So God's covering of Adam and Eve's shameful nakedness is in itself a pointer to the necessity of Christ's bloody atonement.

Well, what Christ provides for sinners is where that conversation will be headed, yes.