Subsequent to their sin, and, thus, after their failure as priests, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, having their special privilege of access to the divine presence revoked and their original priestly status suspended. Nevertheless, God’s plan
negotiable banishment and expulsion from the Garden. See Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 209. In explaining the differences in the Hebrew terms used in verses 23 and 24, Sarna writes that the “Hebrew geresh is harsher and more explicit than shillaḥ in the previous verse. The same two verbs also appear in tandem in Exodus 6:1 in connection with the Exodus.” Sarna, Genesis, 30.
55 Examples include the cutting off of a spouse in divorce (Lev 21:7), the driving out of pagan nations from God’s land (Exod 34:11), the removal of Jonah from God’s presence (Jonah 2:5), the cutting off of the people of God from the land (1 Kgs 9:7), and perhaps even the excommunication of the
unrepentant from the new covenant church fellowship (1 Cor 5:13). BDB, 176.
56 Walton writes, “Ironically, whereas people were originally charged with ‘keeping’ the garden (Gen 2:15), now that same verb is used as the cherubim ‘guard’ the way to the tree of life, keeping people out. The warden is off to jail.” Walton, Genesis, 230.
57 The fire associated with the “flaming sword” is a “symbol of the presence of God, especially in judgment (e.g., Exod 19:18; Ps 104:4).” That it “turned every way” or was “revolving” is meant to communicate the image of “forked lightning, zigzagging to and fro.” This “revolving or zigzagging sword . . . is one that is sure to hit and bring death” (cf. Num 22:234, 31, 33). Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 86.
58 Wenham, “Genesis,” 63.
was not abandoned, and he did not annihilate Adam and Eve. Instead, God was quick to be gracious to them and, as the text seems to indicate, apparently reinstated their priestly status. Nevertheless, the nature of their priestly role would now take on a new form.
Institution of the sacrificial cult and need for mediation. God’s grace was demonstrated through his promise that the woman’s seed would one day crush the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15) and through his provision of clothing made from animal skins for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21). Adam and Eve had become aware of their nakedness, shame, and guilt before God (Gen 3:7-11) and attempted to hide from God and cover their shame and nakedness through their own means, indicating that their previously enjoyed unmediated access to the divine presence was now compromised. But God, seeking to cover their shame, provided a more suitable covering, one that was provided through the shedding of blood (Gen 3:21), one that—rooted in the hope of the atonement of the promised messiah (Gen 3:15)—possessed a derived power to cover not only their physical nakedness but also their spiritual nakedness.
Representing what appears to be the institution of the sacrificial system,
59this animal shed its blood and gave up its life so that Adam and Eve might be clothed both
59 In providing Adam and Eve with “garments of skins” (Gen 3:21) to cover their nakedness, the death of an animal was required. This episode represents a parallel both to the sacrificial system that would later be instituted with the people of Israel through Moses and later to sacrificial and atoning death of Jesus on the cross. Commenting on this text, Mathews writes,
The garments of Adam and Eve are made of “skin.” In the Mosaic law the skin of an animal offered for sin or guilt atonement was reserved for the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). Here God bestows
“garments of skin” upon the guilty in the garden. Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the garden too.
Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill. (Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 255)
Mathews, thus, observes in this text what he believes to be a reference to animal sacrifice and the sacrificial system that would be established as a means of atonement for the people of God. He further draws a connection between these “skins” that were provided for the priests Adam and Eve and the “skins” of the animals that would later be harvested from the slain animals offered as a sin or guilt atonement for officiating priests (255).
physically and spiritually.
60Though Adam and Eve might not have understood in full the details of God’s prefiguring of Christ’s atoning sacrifice in this event, later Levitical priests would have recognized its connection to atonement and sacrificial animal skins given to priests to use (Lev 7:8). As Ross notes,
Israel would also learn that all the dealings of God with sinners can be traced back to the first disobedience. Their God was a saving God, however, to which the provision of clothes for Adam and Eve attested. In Israel sacrifices were made according to the prescribed manner of the law: the animals’ lives were taken in exchange for the human seeking atonement, and the skins were given to the priests for their use. (No priests could read this passage without thinking of the
connection).
61Kenneth Mathews confirms this sentiment when he writes that the language of Genesis 3:21
alludes to tabernacle setting and worship. “Garments” (kūttōnet) and “clothed”
(lābaš) are reminiscent of the Pentateuch’s description of priestly garments, particularly for Aaron as high priest [e.g., for “garments,” Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; Lev 8:7, 13; 10:5; 16:4; also Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:70 (69), 72 (71); for
“clothed,” e.g., Exod 28:41; 29:8; 40:14; Lev 8:13]. This is another lexical link with the symbols of the tabernacle, where the priest must be properly clothed before God in the administration of his service (Exod 20:26; 28:42).
62While the typical priestly garb was made of colorful woven yarn and fine linen (Exod 28:4-5; 28:39; 39:27; Lev 16:4), the Mosaic law required that the skin of an animal offered for a sin or guilt atonement was to be used as clothing for the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). In the same way, God bestowed “garments of skin” on Adam and Eve in the Garden, emblematic of what was his and her restored status as priests and the institution of the sacrificial system. In the end, God’s original plan was not diverted, though the
60 This notion of God clothing sinners begins here but is found throughout the narrative of Scripture and surely serves to prefigure the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Charles Simeon traces this theme throughout the Bible, showing how God’s decision to clothe Adam and Eve with animal skins is connected to Christ’s sacrifice. See Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: Genesis to Leviticus, vol. 1 (London: Samuel Holdsworth, 1836), 42-43; reprint in digital format, Horae Homileticae: Discourses Condensed into One Continuous Series, Forming a Commentary upon Every Book of the Old and New Testament, Genesis to Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Harrington, DE: Delmarva, 2014).
61 Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 150.
62 Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 254-55. See also, Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 84.
offering of atoning sacrifices became one of the necessary means to fulfill the priests’
ministry and the basis whereby priests could serve as mediators between God and man.
63Because of their sin, Adam and Eve lost their priestly privilege of enjoying unmediated access to God. Yet, through the introduction of a sacrificial system, they gained the priestly privilege of being able approach God through the mediating institution of atoning sacrifices centered in the hope of Christ.
64Border management. Adam and Eve would pick up their priestly task of border management following their reinstatement as priests. This trajectory was in some ways diverted because of their sin. Yet, there are hints in the text that suggest that Adam and Eve reconvened aspects of their priestly work in border management.
In God’s cursing of Adam and Eve, he indicates that Eve would be punished through increased pain in childbearing (Gen 3:16) and that Adam’s work would be more toilsome, painful, and difficult (Gen 3:17-19). Though these priestly tasks of procreation and cultivating/working the earth are made more difficult, they are nevertheless still incumbent on the original pair to continue to carry out. That is, it was once again their
63 Mathews explains:
Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the Garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the Garden too. Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the Garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill. (Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 254-55)
Walton concludes that the text is not referring to sacrifice and believes that the “institution of sacrifice is far too significant an occurrence to leave it entirely to inference.” Walton, Genesis, 229. He argues that the task of the interpreter ought to be “to understand what the author wished to communicate, not to piece together answers we would like to know from reading between the lines” (229). He deduces that the
“author is clearly not communicating anything about sacrifice here, for he does not address that issue”
(229). Walton’s argument fails to take the genre of the text into account, demanding inordinate detail from the author. The narrative is not intended to dictate the legal regulations regarding sacrifice but is instead introducing the concept and practice of sacrifice in seed form.
64 Restoring Adam to his priestly office and identity, God graciously provided a way for Adam and all of mankind to continue to commune with himself: “Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people. . . . This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill.” Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 255. Starting with Adam and culminating with Christ, blood sacrifice would become one of the key ways God’s people would function as priests.
responsibility to work to manage and, in this case, expand the borders of God’s dominion over the earth through procreation and through exercising dominion. Indeed, sometime after being expelled from the Garden, Eve conceived and gave birth to Cain (Gen 4:1), Abel (Gen 4:2), Seth (Gen 4:25), and other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4).
God’s Word. Adam and Eve’s priestly obedience to God following their fall is evidenced in how they apparently passed along their priestly commission to their
children. Though there is no record of Adam and Eve directly teaching God’s Word to their children, there is yet evidence that they apparently must have done so. How did Cain, Abel, and Seth know that they ought to function as priest-kings working to
procreate, cultivate/subdue the earth, and offer sacrifices to God (Gen 4:1-5:8)?
65Perhaps their priestly parents taught them concerning the Word of God what it meant to be a priest, urging them to obey the Lord.
66It would appear that Adam and Eve had been teaching their family to honor God and to obey his word. Though Abel was murdered (Gen 4:8) and Cain “went away from the presence of the Lord” (Gen 4:16), the text speaks more positively of Seth, noting that after the birth of Seth’s son Enosh, “people began to call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen 4:26). The implication here is that the “worship of God . . . began in this era.”
67This instance in redemptive history marks an important point of connection between the earliest members of the family of God and the generations that follow (Gen
65 While Abel apparently did not procreate, both Cain and Seth did (Gen 4:17, 26). Both Cain and Abel are credited with offering sacrifices to God (Gen 4:3-4). The text records that Cain was a worker of the ground while Abel was a keeper of sheep (Gen 4:2), demonstrating their priest-kingly commitment to cultivation and dominion. Seth and his family model worship and call on the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26).
Adam and Eve’s sons each manifested aspects of the priestly ministry, practices that they apparently learned from their parents.
66 Daniel Strange discusses the common creation/fall/flood narrative/myth that courses through all ancient literature and posits that this oral tradition was handed down from generation to generation beginning with Adam and Eve. Daniel Strange, Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014).
67 Wenham, “Genesis,” 64.