It has been suggested that inasmuch is God pronounced the sentence of death on Adam just as He warned He would should be partaker of the forbidden tree that the first man therefore never received forgiveness. Adam’s continued fellowship with God was based not on the principle of sacrifice for sun but rather on the ex-action of a punishment in consequence of his sin. That this theory is indeed both unscriptural and in conflict with the principles of reconciliation taught throughout the Word of God will become evident in the following remarks.
The truth of the matter is that though God forgave Adam and Five their transgression symbolized by the coats of skins provided them they were to suffer the consequences of their dfisobedience exactly as they had been warned in Gen 2, 16:17. This procedure finds sample illustration in other parts of the testimony of God and provides us with the key an understanding what appears to be an inconsistency in the lord’s dealings with our first parents.
His Spirit Indivisibly
When Moses failed to sanctify God at the waters of Meribah certain consequences resulted which had nothing to do with whether Moses was forgiven or not Faced with death by thirst the children of Israel chode with Moses and Aaron (probably on the verge of killing them). When they tell upon their faces at the door of the tabernacle God spake to Moses on this wise. Take the rod and gather the assembly together thou and Aaron thy brother and speaker unto the rock before their eyes and it shall give forth his water and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock. So thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink (Num 20.8). Moses was so infuriated with the people that he failed to follow God’s instructions completely Instead of speaking to the rock. Moses spot it twice and proclaimed to the congregation. Hear now, we rebels must We fetch you water out of this rock. As a consequence of this sin the LORD was angry with Moses and Aaron and declared to them. Because we believed me not to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel therefore, we shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them (V.10-11).
The Psalmist in re-counting the mercy of God displaced towards Israel in their times of trouble makes mention of this incident. They angered him also at the waters of strike. So that it went all with Moses for their sakes Because they provoked his spirit so that he spake inadvisedly with his lips (Psa 106:32,33).
Although Moses made a special petition to the LORD to permit him to enter the promised land, he was refused to Israel, God is not a man that he should repent (Num 21:19) God would be true to His word, In Spite of Moses entreaty.
The LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me and the LORD said unto me, let it suffer the speak no more unto me of this matter (Deut 3:26). The breach, temporarily raising the anger of God was obviously mended in view of the subsequent relationship which prevailed to the end of Moses life. The incident which took place at Kadesh in the desert of Zin is recorded in the 20th chapter of Numbers. In the next chapter is recorded the murmuring of Israel because of the apparent shortage of food and the sending of fired serpents with their deadly venom among the people Moses was commanded by God to fashion to bronze image of the serpents and raise it in the midst of the congregation for their healing. The LORD continued in His communication to Moses is the vehicle by which His commandments and status were delivered to Israel.
Here then is an example of a trespass forgiven but the consequences remaining.
Thou art thy Man
The case of King David is even more explicit When confronted by Nathan with the sins of murder and adultery David was told. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD to do evil in his sight, thou hast killed Urtah the Hittite with the sword and hast slam him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thine house, be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall he with thy wives in the sight of this sun I or thou didst it secretly but I will do this before all Israel and before the sun (2 Sam, 12:9-12). When David heard these words, he was filled with remorse, and cried, I have sinned against the LORD. But, what became of that sun. Did it remain forever unforgiven in view of the terrible calamities that befell David through the rebellion of a son he loved dearly. Be cause the sword never departed from him and because adultery was committed openly against him, are we to assume that his sin was therefore, not forgiven Indeed not. The prophet’s reply to the king settles the matter. The Lord also hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die Howbert 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 13-11).
David’s sin was surely forgiven him though the consequences of that sin remained with him and haunted him until the grave. In the 51st Psalm, David gives expression to the tenderness of his repentance and to his understanding of the reality and seriousness of his transgression: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgression. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightiest be justified when thou speakest,and be clear when thou judgest” (V 1-1). It was because of David’s broken spirit and contrite heart that the LORD “put away” his sin (V 17). Let us keep in mind that David’s sin was punishable by death. No amount of repentance or penance could atone for what he had done. The only way was through forgiveness, which God granted him because of his humble penitence.
“Without Spot and Blameless”
Had the sun of Moses and those of David remained unremitting, their eventual redemption at the return of Christ would have been forfeited. When the redeemed of all time are summoned before the judgement seat they shall stand there “holy, unnameable and unreproveable in his sight” (Col. 1:22). God is indeed able to present of his glory” (Jude 21), and as a “chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2), being “found of him in peace, without spot and blameless” (2 Pet. 3:14). Unless we are found as such, not possessing unforgiven sins, we shall be rejected. The fact that some appear before Christ who have suffered death suddenly and who might have sinned before dying, for which there was no opportunity to seek forgiveness has no bearing on the cases before us. There is an over-riding grace which encompasses the children of God and which keeps them in fellowship in spite of sins inadvertently committed. The mental attitude and posture of prayer which characterizes the true sons of God will insure their continued position of redeeming grace. Salvation is not a game of chance, in which the participants may suddenly be disqualified because of a fortuitous happening. The “groaning’s” which emanate from the “spirit” or new mind or disposition of His children, though not audibly or even intelligently expressed, are interpreted by Him who knows the mind of the spirit and searches their hearts (Rom. 8:26). We must conclude that past sins which remain unforgiven (when opportunity for seeking forgiveness has been granted), will alienate us from God and be the basis of our rejection by Christ in the last day.
The same will hold true for Adam and Eve should their first sin not have been forgiven. The fact that God pronounced upon them the sentence of death in consequence of their disobedience does not in any way distract from the efficacy of the skins provided to cover their nakedness. The obvious death of the animal(s) would assuredly convey to them certain divine principles involved in expiation for sins. They would recognize, as later instructed, that reconciliation to God involved the shedding of blood. The displeasure of the LORD with Cains’s bloodless offering would be unintelligible apart from prior specific instructions regarding sacrificing. In the case of Abel’s offering, the writer to the Hebrews declares, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain . . .” (Heb 11:1). If is were by faith, then Cain must have received instruction from God, for “faith cometh by hearing (Rom, 10:17). If the skins did not symbolize and demonstrate the forgiveness of Adam’s sin, then what possible significance could they hold?
It is obvious from the Genesis account that God was displeased with Adam and Eve because of their disobedience. A barrier had now risen which estranged them from that pure and certain fellowship they previously enjoyed. They now recognized their sin for they attempted to hide their nakedness by use of a covering of big leaves. Upon hearing the voice of God (the angle) they were afraid and hid themselves among the trees of the garden. Now were they to remain in this state of alternation for the rest of their lives always cringing at the presence of their Creator. If not what was it that made further approach to God possible. Was at the punishment of sorrow and death inflicted upon them before their expulsion from the garden Could God possibly have been appeared through inflicting punishment upon Adam and Eve to the extent that formal approach to Him was then made possible. If the answer to these last two questions be yes then the God of Christendom is the true God can punish substitution for dealing with sin is a cardinal truth But the answer is not yes Reconciliation to God and resumption of fellowship is not redicated on punishment. It is rather based upon the eternal principle of forgiveness of sins through the shedding blood. This principle was set forth with great clarity in the coats of skins provided Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness and to make further approach to God possible. Apart from this expiatory act they would remain alternated from the creator and from the fellowship they obviously enjoyed.
The View of Dr John Thomas
Bro John Thomas in Hipes Israel man turns that the sentence pronounced upon Adam and Eve in Gen 3:19 was the precise fulfillment of the warning given an Gen 2:1. In describing the nature of the temptation of Eve and the inducement she subsequently made to her husband to join her in the transgression the doctor states. He accepted the fatal fruit and ate with her consenting to her enticement not knowing that it was fot his life though God has said transgression should surely be punished with death. As yet inexperienced of the divine law and depending upon the remedial efficacy of the Tree of lives he did not believe that he should surely be. They had both fallen into unbelief. They did not believe God would do what He had promised. This was a fatal mistake. They afterwards found by experience that in their sin they had charged God falsely and that what He promises He will certainly perform to the letter of His word. Thus unbelief prepared them for disobedience and disobedience separated them from God (page 81).
The Nature Of The Transgression
Though separated from God Bro Thomas taught that the coats of skins given them afforded Adam and Eve provisional forgiveness in view of their faith in the eventual declaration of God’s righteousness in the sacrifice of the Seed of the Woman. After noting the unacceptable covering of big leaves designed by the flesh he commented. They were is yet unacquainted with the great principle that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin. They were not aware of this necessity for it had not been revealed neither did they understand that is offenders they would not be permitted to devise a covering for themselves. They had everything to learn as to the ground of reconciliation with God. They had no idea of religion for bitherto the had needed none. It yet remained to be revealed is the divinely appointed means of healing the breach which sin had made between God and man.
When the sacrifice was accepted the offense was provisionally remitted for the Scripture with that it is not possible for the blood of an animal to take away sins.
Adam and his wife had faith on God would not have accepted the sacrifices with whose skins they were clothed for it was is true then is it is now that with out truth it is impossible to please God truth then in seed of the Woman first is a sacrifice for sin wounded to death by his enemies and afterwards the destroyer of the sin power in connection with the sacrifice of animals as representative of the bruising of his heel was the ground of their acceptance with the Lord God (pages 160-161)
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One