"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)
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 Penalty for Adam's Sin
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.
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.
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.
Confessions of Sin
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.
The Adamic Curse
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?
"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 much
more 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.
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 offeror 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.
"According to Their Works"
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.
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.
"Right to the Tree of Life"
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.