The history of
Genesis 2-3 established firmly that death is the consequence and penalty of sin
(Genesis 2:17 & 3:19). As the result of sin, the first human lives which
God created would end - and, moreover, Adam and Eve had to be cast out of the presence of
God, being banished from the Garden of Eden.
Having the entire
bible before us and knowing much of the plan of God already, we may miss the gravity of this situation. If
you were reading it for the first time, do you know how far you would have to
read through the bible before God revealed that the FORGIVENESS of sins is possible or how it can take place?
Up until God's sacrificial system is introduced, God
deals with certain individuals who obey Him (e.g., Noah and Abraham), but NEVER
explicitly states that He would forgive
sins. He hints at the fact that the breach between God and man will be filled -
that God will, once again, dwell with men - but gives no indication of how that
can happen.
If you were reading
the bible with no prior knowledge about how this was
going to be resolved, then you would fully appreciate the EXCITING revelation
of God's sacrificial system! For the very first time, the reconciliation step of
God's plan is revealed through the sin offering:
Leviticus 4:20-21
So the priest shall make atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them! He shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is a sin offering for the assembly.
The whole idea of a
sacrifice is not that God takes joy in the death of animals! The key, rather,
is that the animal is offered in the place of
the worshiper!
This is why there is
death in the biblical
sacrifices: because sin - all sin
- DESERVES and REQUIRES death. Instead of us
having to die, an animal dies in our place. Instead of us being put out of the presence of God, as Adam and Eve were,
the animal is carried outside the camp.
It's no secret that
Jesus Christ's death is the death
pictured by the sin offering! Too often we have an oversimplified view of that
relationship, but the bible itself shows that the connection was not a just a
vague, big-picture-only notion:
Hebrews 13:11-12
For the bodies of those animals… are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate [of Jerusalem].
Jesus was cut off
from God and separated from the presence of the Father because WE deserved to
be cut off from God! That separation is what caused Jesus to cry out "My
God, my God, why have you forsaken Me!" The author of Hebrews understood
what I'm trying to tell you: the details of the sacrificial system are worth
paying attention to. They are not just busy-work that God gave to Israel: they
reveal a greater depth of understanding of God's plan.
That understanding doesn't end with mere DEATH! In the next article, I'm going to demonstrate how LIFE is revealed in the sacrifices. In fact, the death of Christ - the payment for the penalty of our sins - is INSUFFICIENT to bring us into a right relationship with God, and is only the first step.
Dear Dr. Britt:
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your excellent and timely insights into God's Word. What is you feeling concerning the notion that Adam and Eve would not have died a first, physical death if they had not sinned.
Again, thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Yankl Schlomi
That's been an ongoing point of thought and discussion for me recently, and I'm not sure that a firm conclusion is really possible. But what I can share is my perspective, which I hope you'll find insightful: man was not made complete.
DeleteEven if they had not sinned, they would still have been incomplete - flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Moreover, there are aspects of the human condition that cause us to be unacceptable to God that have nothing to do with our thoughts or actions. I'm referring to the clean/unclean laws of Leviticus 11-15, but especially chapter 15, which deals with things like completely normal bodily emissions that have nothing to do with illness or any other kind of "defilement" that is in the world because of sin. This kind of uncleanness did not involve sin or even choice on the part of the person involved, yet it still makes a man unfit for the presence of God. Even at the very best and purest that humankind has ever been, we were not capable of being in full fellowship with God as a mere consequence of our fleshly composition.
I'm reminded of Jeremiah 18, where God speaks of Israel being clay in a the potter's hand - when the clay became deformed, the potter took some clay from the same lump and remade it into a better shape. Paul echoes this thought in Romans 9:20-21. The way that it strikes me (this isn't quite the context it's used there, mind you) is that in the flesh we are, even at best, a vessel of dishonor, and that it will be God's good pleasure to remake us into a vessel of honor when He chooses to do so.
I have to acknowledge that this falls short of an answer to the question, so one more point has to be made now that you understand where I'm coming from. If Adam and Eve had indeed never sinned, then presumably God would have completed them - I do not think they would not have continued forever in the flesh, but that God's plan from the beginning was to have sons and daughters in the Spirit. That being the case, they could not become spiritual without the death of the physical. 1 Corinthians 15:35-38 makes it clear that this would have to be the case: "what you sow is not made alive unless it dies" - the seed must die so that the plant can come to fruition.
And thanks for reading and interacting even, by the way!
DeleteI just looked back at my comment and realize that I didn't answer within the framework of the article, which is the framework in which you asked the question. The second part to this article, which I hinted at in the last few lines, is about the sacrifice of life. It still involved the death of an animal, but the symbolism of that death was not the penalty of sin but rather a life given over completely and willingly to God. This fits in with my initial comment, but I thought I should underscore it to tie the discussion back to the article at hand :)
Delete