God said that if Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, symbolizing the moral code of the Ten Commandments of God, they would surely die. (Gen. 2:17) I reworked my atonement thoughts after reading Chapter3, Section III. of E. Petavel's book.
'Yea," said Satan, "You will not surely die." (Gen. 3:4) But the prophets have reiterated: "You shall surely die," such as: “The soul who sins shall die.” etc. (Ezek.18:20a) “From the Old Testament point of view, the sinner must sooner or later perish, body and soul; the mortality of his being extends to the whole individual. This appears from the following considerations: 1. God said to Adam, not: ‘Thy body shall die,’ but ‘Thou shalt die,’ thy self shall perish. For Adam death could only signify that which he had been used to call by that name in relation to the animal world which surrounded him, and which had been subject to death throughout the geologic ages. By death, says John Locke, some men understand endless torments in hell fire; but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Can anyone be supposed to intend by a law which says: for felony thou shalt surely die, not that he should lose his life, but be kept alive in exquisite and perpetual torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with that was so used? [2— Reasonableness of Christianity, § 1.]…” (The Problem of Immortality by E. Petavel— ‘Chapter 3, III)
The battle for truth continues. "Conditionalists believe that 'the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord' (Romans 6:23; emphasis added). Those who do not believe in him will not have eternal life, and will instead perish (John 3:16). After rising from their first death to be judged, they will be sentenced to the second death (Revelation 20:14). Traditionalists, on the other hand, say the body that rises 'dies not again,'(1- John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity) confessing that 'the evil ones … shall be made immortal' (emphasis added). (2— The Belgic Confession, Article 37) Their language is unambiguous: 'Every human being ever born lives forever' (3- John MacArthur, 'The Answer to Life’s Greatest Question, Part 1'); 'everybody lives forever' (4- Koukl, G. (Host). (2011, June 5). 'Christopher Morgan on Hell and Inclusivism.' Stand to Reason [radio]. 1:09:25.); the unsaved 'will continue living in a state with a low quality of life.' (5- G. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Immortality: The Other Side of Death 173.)." (Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the fate of the Wicked by Chris Date)
“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Gen. 3:6) “According to the Jehovist author, man has violated the law of God; he has allowed himself to be seduced by the attraction of the senses and by pride; therefore is it that he suffers and dies. But if he had persevered in the way of obedience, he would have been able to eat of the fruit of the tree of life which was in the midst of the garden of Eden; that is to say, he would have been immortal, as well as exempt from pain and suffering. He was not so, then, by nature, but he could become so by continuing in union with the author of life. It was sin that made him mortal." (M. Bruston cited in The Problem with Immortality by E. Petavel)
“To the man in his fallen state the gift of eternal life would have been baneful, as involving the eternal continuance of that state, and the production of a race of beings in eternal revolt against God. Still, the tree of life is not suppressed, but access to it is no longer permitted. Eternal life is essentially immortality, an indestructible life (Heb. vii. 16), a life which has eternity for its goal (Gen. iii. 22). It does not become the portion of the sinner, seeing that if it were to become his portion, he would be able to pose eternally as an enemy of God. . . . Eternal life gives to the natural human organism a capacity for eternal existence. It makes the man capable of immortalization in both the soul and the spiritual body. If deprived of this eternal life he becomes the prey of death, in conformity with the sentence pronounced in Gen. iii. 19; not as an extraordinary event, but as the natural and necessary consequence. Eternal life is a free gift of God, an additional grant, donum superadditum (Rom. vi. 23). It is not a constituent part of human nature, but may be grafted upon it, so to speak. Without this graft human nature is perishable.”
(Extract from an article entitled Der Baum des Lebens, by G. Zietlow, pastor at Carnitz, Pomerania. —Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissenschaft, of Chr. E. Luthardt, p. 21, sq. 1887.)
In exile, they knew they were naked. And they were ashamed and hid from the LORD. But after the Fall, the LORD went looking for the rebel, calling "Adam, Adam, where are you?"... "not to hurl him from the face of the earth, but to plan him an escape from the misery of his sin," says D. L. Moody. He preached: "Six thousand years have passed away, and this text has come rolling down the ages. I doubt whether there has been anyone of Adam’s sons who has not heard it at some period or other of his life — sometimes in the midnight hour stealing over him — 'Where am I? Who am I? Where am I going? and what is going to be the end of this?'" What about the afterlife?
The Message; They would be "saved through childbearing [for thus would He come]—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (1 Tim 2:15) After after speaking to them, the LORD made a covering for them of the skins of a slain animal. They must look to the Lamb. "It was the Serpent who said: 'Ye shall not surely die.' Jesus, on the contrary, exclaims with a sigh: 'How narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it!' but 'broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction, and many be they that enter in thereby.' Life eternal is a promise, a favour, a prize offered to the believer who will lay hold of it, and who, by patience in well-doing, seeks for glory, honour, and incorruption." (E. Petavel)
Surely they passed the lessons conveyed down to both of their sons. They were certainly taught that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that the LORD had given it upon the alter to make atonement for their souls. (Lev. 17:11) “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering.” (Gen. 4:3-5a) Perhaps Cain believed the lie of Satan— “you shall not surely die.” His offering was a fruit offering, like unto the fig leaves, which the first couple had used to try to cover their nakedness. His religion was “that of the natural, self-righteous man, who needs no blood, but trusts in his character and good works.” (Arno Gaebelein) It reflected the contents of his faith- the rejection of the story of Creation and of the Fall of his own parents in the Garden. And ultimately, he denied the reality of sin, as well as God’s covering for sin. "Cain came, in essence, saying 'You can just accept me, God, as I do my own thing. I am not going to believe it is necessary to do anything other than my own thing’” (Edith Schaeffer) In stark contrast: “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.” (Heb 11:4)
Mankind has since been divided into: 1) those that believe God’s Word and act upon their faith concerning the coming of Messiah; and 2) those who say in one form or another "I’ll do my own thing”—endorsing the idea that “all roads lead to the same place.” The important thing to them is that you are sincere in your convictions! But Abel's faith affected his deed in worship.
“And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So Yahweh said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted?’ - 'Shalt thou not have the excellency’? which is the true sense of the words referring to the high privileges and authority belonging to the first-born in patriarchal times.” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown) “When Cain practices what is right, there will be an uplifted face, meaning a good conscience before God without shame (Mathews 1996:270; see also Fretheim, Brueggemann, and Kaiser 1994:373). This was an attempt by God to ‘provoke a change of heart’ in Cain (Gowan 1988:68; Wenham 1987:104).” (Dynamics of Shame in Genesis 3 and 4 by Andrew Tompkins) In order to effectively carry out the role of firstborn or head of house, after Adam’s decease, Cain must have communion with Yahweh. And the burnt offering was instituted for this end— of clearing the conscience. The animal got what the offerer of the the sacrifice deserved— death by fire. If offered in faith, the offerer could afterwards enter in to conversation with their Creator.
But God said, “And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door sin lies at the door… etc’” “When men break away from God, they will soon murder one another.” (Alexander MacLaren) He had already broken the first tablet of the Commandments. And now, here, the second was now in view. Some may argue that the moral code of the Ten Commandants were not given until the time of Moses. “But we may trace its original higher still, even beyond the foundation of the world: to that period, unknown indeed to men, but doubtless enrolled in the annals of eternity, when ‘the morning stars’ first ‘sang together,’ being newly called into existence. It pleased the great Creator to make these, his first-born sons, intelligent beings, that they might know him that created them. For this end he endued them with understanding, to discern truth from falsehood, good from evil.” (John Wesley)— as insinuated by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The burnt offering of Leviticus 1 and 6, which is the entry offering to worship, is certainly found in Genesis, perhaps in the sacrifice of Abel and all of those of the ancients til Noah, but was explicitly offered by "Noah after the flood waters had subsided, at which time he offered ‘burnt offerings’ of all the clean animals (Gen. 8:20). [23— It is noteworthy that in this first account of a ‘burnt offering’ the term ‘clean’ appears, a term which is greatly clarified in Leviticus. Also, the sacrifice of the ‘burnt offering’ offered by Noah was said to produce a ‘soothing aroma’ to the Lord (Gen. 8:21), an expression frequently employed (at least in very similar terms) in Leviticus (e.g. 1:9, 17). This suggests that many of the practices which are regulated in Leviticus are not initiated here, but have their origin much earlier in the history of God’s dealings with men.] God instructed Abraham to offer up Isaac as a ‘burnt offering’ (Gen. 22:2ff.), and so the ram which God in Isaac’s place was offered by Abraham as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:13). When Moses told Pharaoh that Israel must take their cattle with them into the wilderness to worship their God, it was because they needed them to offer burnt offerings (Exod. 10:25-26). Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, offered a burnt offering to God in Exodus chapter 18 (v. 12). The Israelites offered up burnt offerings in conjunction with their meeting with God and receiving His covenant on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20:24; 24:5, etc.). Unfortunately, when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf they offered up burnt offerings as a part of their false worship (Exod. 32:6).” (Bob Deffinbaugh)
Any person, during the time of Moses, could bring a burnt sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle as described in Leviticus 1:3-17 and 6:8-13. — “The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest.” (Wm. Tyndale) Even traditionalists admit: “Burnt offerings were the propitiatory sacrifices in ancient Israel. For God to maintain His justice, He must punish sin. To forgive at the expense of His just wrath would be inconsistent with His character; according to His holiness, those who have sinned must die (Gen. 2:15–17; Rom. 6:23). Once the Lord satisfies His wrath, it passes away, allowing fellowship between the Creator and His people. The burnt offering temporarily accomplished propitiation… under the old covenant, allowing God to stay His hand of wrath against Israel.” (R. C. Sproul) And the laying on of hands signified: “an acknowledgement that he deserved to die, and would have been willing to die if God had required it, for the serving of his honor, and the obtaining of his favor.” (Matthew Henry)
The priest “collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar…. [In more of a corporate sense:] Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).” (Tyndale Bible Dictionary) The focus is on the death not suffering of the animal.
“In the Levitical sacrifices the victim represented the sinner; yet those who offered it were not required to inflict upon it a long series of tortures. Death pure and simple was all that the law of sacrifice demanded. In the rite it was not the suffering, but the suppression of the life, that was accentuated. In practice, if the execution was prolonged, the sacrifice had to be rejected. In our own days even, if the shochet (the Jewish butcher) makes use of a blade with ever so small a notch in it likely to cause the least useless suffering, the flesh of the slain animal is terepha, forbidden to the faithful; it is only allowed to be sold at a low price to non-Jews. The burning of the victim, too, was not a symbol of suffering, since it took place only after the immolation; but was rather an emblem of the utter destruction which menaces the incorrigible sinner.” (The Problem of Immortality (1892) by E. Petavel— Excerpt from ‘Chapter 3, III.)
Again: “The most common OT expression of the means of atonement was the sacrifice and offering up of the blood of a victim. In a sacrifice the shedding of blood was the central act. Life was in the blood (Leviticus 17:11); in the pouring out of the blood, life was given up; that is, death occurred. Elsewhere blood may be a symbol for life, but in the sacrificial motif it symbolized death.” (William Tyndale) And: “Read the account of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus chapter 16, or that of the Passover in Exodus chapter 12, or the Good News of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The story is the same; redemption is by blood. It is Christ’s sacrificial death and His death alone that paid for the sins of the world.” (Rescue From Death by Robert Taylor)
See also The Atonement Magnified by The Conditionalist View w thoughts of Henry Constable
“So also in the penal code of the Israelites, the heaviest chastisement prescribed is the death, pure and simple, of the offender; there is never a word to indicate that the sinner may have to endure eternal pains. It is an extraordinary fact, and a divine characteristic, that long-continued tortures are foreign to Old Testament legislation. In the republic of Israel there is no executioner, nor rack, nor torture, nor gallows, nor special place of execution. The numerous and odious means of torture, which have dishonoured both ancient and modern civilizations, have no equivalent in the Divine code of Sinai. [3— In Germany the torture of the wheel was maintained until the present century; it was abolished in France in 1790.] Crucifixion is well known to be of Roman origin. In executions by stoning, it was usual, in order to shorten the suffering, to take care that the first stone cast should be large enough to crush the culprit's breast. The contemporaries of Noah, the inhabitants of Sodom, and the infamous Canaanites, were in turn overtaken by the water, the fire, and the sword; their chastisement was terrible, but the accompanying anguish did not long endure. Nothing can be quicker than lightning, symbol of celestial vengeance.” (The Problem of Immortality by E. Petavel— Excerpt from ‘Chapter 3, III.)
Abraham "built an altar, bound his son, laid him upon the altar, had ready the incense, took the knife, and would immediately have slain him had he not been prevented by the same authority by which the sacrifice was enjoined.” (Adam Clarke) After Isaac was loosed: “Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.”
"Come to the hillside with Abraham and Isaac and become involved in the understanding of that really dramatic moment. Isaac is loosed and stands free at the side of the altar. The ram is taken and substituted for Isaac. Abraham and Isaac looked at the dying ram taking Isaac’s place. In our imaginations we can see the whole world of the human race being offered a glimpse of this, being given the possibility of understanding, and we realize that substitute atonement is being demonstrated and being pointed forward to with crystal-clear illustration that a child could understand. The ram was dying in the place of Isaac. This further step of understanding is being given to the already long history of lambs being the necessary sacrifice for entering in the presence of God. Isaac steps off; the ram is substituted. Will Isaac ever forget the feeling of that release? Will he ever be able to forget what it means to be free?" (Edith Schaeffer)
“And Abraham called the name of the place, ‘Yahweh-Will-Provide’—to perpetuate the memory of God’s mercy; not of his own obedience;—as it is said to this day, ‘In the Mount of Yahweh it shall be provided.’ (Genesis 22:13-14)— God will be found of His in fit time and place. ‘To Him belong the issues of death’. [Psalms 68:20] None can take us out of His hands. He knows how to deliver His, and when; as Peter spake feelingly. [2 Peter 2:9 Acts 12:11]” (John Trapp)
The Angel of Yahweh had prophesied that God would “provide Himself the Lamb for the burnt offering." (Gen 22:8) In the fullness of time, He did just that. I believe that this was not symbolized by the ram in the thicket but rather by the far off offering of Himself as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Here are the similarities with the offering of Isaac:
“(1) Isaac was supernaturally the son of Abraham; Christ’s birth also was supernatural. (2) He was the ‘only begotten’ of his father (in the sense noted above), and Christ was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18). (3) Both Isaac and Jesus consented to be sacrificed. (4) Both of them bore the wood, Isaac the firewood, Jesus the cross. (5) Both were sacrificed by their fathers, Isaac by Abraham, and Jesus by the heavenly Father. (6) The sacrifice of each of them occurred upon the very same location, one of the mountains of Moriah. (7) Both were in the prime vigor of life when offered, and very likely of the same age. (8) Isaac (in a figure) was dead three days and nights, this being the time lapse between God's command that he be offered and their arrival at Moriah, during which time, to all intents and purposes, Isaac was already dead; Christ also was dead and buried three days and nights. (9) Isaac was a model of love and affection for his wife, symbolizing the great love of Christ for the church.” (Burton Coffman)
Comments