Adam and Eve: Priests and Royalty?

Status
Not open for further replies.

W.C. Dean

Puritan Board Sophomore
viceregent.PNG

This was part of my college course today (Regent University, Va. Beach). Is this not a bit of a strange way of looking at Adam and Eve? I see what they're getting at, but it just sounds strange. Especially if you think of Eve as a priest. The professor is an ACNA Priest.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
It would be more precise to say that Adam is a priest. The specifically priestly tasks (guarding and working the sanctuary, and teaching the torah) are assigned to Adam alone before the creation of Eve. Eve does not share those priestly duties.
 

W.C. Dean

Puritan Board Sophomore
It would be more precise to say that Adam is a priest. The specifically priestly tasks (guarding and working the sanctuary, and teaching the torah) are assigned to Adam alone before the creation of Eve. Eve does not share those priestly duties.
That makes sense, thank you sir. What do you make of calling our parents Vice-Regents/Royalty? Is this appropriate?
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
That language is fairly common. It draws on the image of God in Genesis 1:26-28, where humanity is given dominion over the lower creatures - and that specifically applies to both men and women, though there is also a hierarchy of male headship interwoven through Genesis 2 and 3 as well.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
View attachment 7453

This was part of my college course today (Regent University, Va. Beach). Is this not a bit of a strange way of looking at Adam and Eve? I see what they're getting at, but it just sounds strange. Especially if you think of Eve as a priest. The professor is an ACNA Priest.

It's a standard view. "Imago" language is royalty language. The Hebrew clearly means that. Priest language can work as long as you don't read later connotations of priest back into the passage.
 

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have read recently something similar in DeRouchie's Interpreting and Applying the Old Testament and he makes a couple of interesting points.

Royal Dominion/Kingly aspect is fairly straightforward,

(Gen. 1:26-28 ESV) " 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.""

In relation to the priestly role DeRouchie makes the point that the two words "serve" and "keep" are only ever used together outside of Genesis 2 in relation to the Levitical office.

(Gen. 2:15 ESV) "ESV Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it."

However it is Adam, not Eve that is given this priestly role. The ruling aspect does appear to apply to both.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Do you mean teaching the Law? or the Pentateuch (which would be kinda hard for Adam)? Or the whole Old Testament (harder still)? Please explain.
Hi Alexander,
Teaching torah is a distinctly priestly role (see Deut 33:10), beyond the role of guarding the sanctuary (as Paul Wallace rightly notes above). The torah in the garden is distinctly limited, but it should be noted that in Genesis 2:16-17, the divine command to eat freely of all the trees, except for the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is given particularly to Adam, before Eve's creation. It was therefore his priestly role to teach her this law.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
Teaching torah is a distinctly priestly role (see Deut 33:10), beyond the role of guarding the sanctuary (as Paul Wallace rightly notes above). The torah in the garden is distinctly limited, but it should be noted that in Genesis 2:16-17, the divine command to eat freely of all the trees, except for the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is given particularly to Adam, before Eve's creation. It was therefore his priestly role to teach her this law.

A related question, if I may:

What, if anything, should we make of the fact that after the fall God clothed Adam and Eve in animal-skin coverings that were a garment (kuttonet) apparently similar to what the priests later wore in their temple work—at least, the same word is used many times in Exodus and Leviticus for the priest's tunics? I have seen some expositors emphasize this, either to show that the priests' very garments represented a necessary or God-given covering for sin, or to help show the connections between the garden and the temple or between Adam and the priesthood.

In my lessons on Genesis 3, I have been reluctant to point this out, thinking it's also possible the word is common enough that no connection is meant to be seen: it just happened to be a garment of similar design. But I realize that "just happened" is a hazardous assumption especially in the first few chapters of Genesis, where imagery abounds and the story is richly tied in to all of redemptive history. So, should we see Adam and Eve's tunics as connected to those later worn by priests?
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
A related question, if I may:

What, if anything, should we make of the fact that after the fall God clothed Adam and Eve in animal-skin coverings that were a garment (kuttonet) apparently similar to what the priests later wore in their temple work—at least, the same word is used many times in Exodus and Leviticus for the priest's tunics? I have seen some expositors emphasize this, either to show that the priests' very garments represented a necessary or God-given covering for sin, or to help show the connections between the garden and the temple or between Adam and the priesthood.

In my lessons on Genesis 3, I have been reluctant to point this out, thinking it's also possible the word is common enough that no connection is meant to be seen: it just happened to be a garment of similar design. But I realize that "just happened" is a hazardous assumption especially in the first few chapters of Genesis, where imagery abounds and the story is richly tied in to all of redemptive history. So, should we see Adam and Eve's tunics as connected to those later worn by priests?
Hi Jack,
The word for garment kuttonet is often used for the priests' clothing but it is certainly not always exclusively used of priests. It is used of Joseph's fancy outfit (Gen 37), Tamar's clothing as a princess (2 Sam 13), the clothing of a royal counselor (2 Sam 15:32) and the bride's attire in the Song of Songs (5:3). So there is nothing distinctively priestly about the word. It's a term for an extremely posh outfit. And I think that is the point: God replaces Adam and Eve's uncomfortable and impractical figleaves not with functional sackcloth but with a leather jacket and a fur coat, as it were.

I know that many fine expositors, past and present, make a big deal out of the fact that animals had to die to supply the skins, and see that as an anticipation of blood sacrifice which covers our sins; I respect their opinion, but I don't think the text particularly highlights that aspect (for example, we're not specifically told about God's killing of the animals). In my view, the focus is rather on the fact that God covered their nakedness with fine garments, not merely a bare minimum. But I'm sure there are many here who disagree on that particular point.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
Hi Jack,
The word for garment kuttonet is often used for the priests' clothing but it is certainly not always exclusively used of priests. It is used of Joseph's fancy outfit (Gen 37), Tamar's clothing as a princess (2 Sam 13), the clothing of a royal counselor (2 Sam 15:32) and the bride's attire in the Song of Songs (5:3). So there is nothing distinctively priestly about the word. It's a term for an extremely posh outfit. And I think that is the point: God replaces Adam and Eve's uncomfortable and impractical figleaves not with functional sackcloth but with a leather jacket and a fur coat, as it were.

I know that many fine expositors, past and present, make a big deal out of the fact that animals had to die to supply the skins, and see that as an anticipation of blood sacrifice which covers our sins; I respect their opinion, but I don't think the text particularly highlights that aspect (for example, we're not specifically told about God's killing of the animals). In my view, the focus is rather on the fact that God covered their nakedness with fine garments, not merely a bare minimum. But I'm sure there are many here who disagree on that particular point.
Thank you, Iain. That's very helpful. I have concluded the same about the blood sacrifice, wishing to see the Scripture text highlight a connection before I highlight a connection. But I've wondered about the tunics, and your thoughts sound good to me. When I was young, I first heard it taught with the idea that God gives us a better, fuller, more honorable covering for sin than any we try to fashion for ourselves. That seems to fit what the text itself appears to emphasize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top