Reading about the Old Testament theology of worship in Genesis, Leviticus and Chronicles has captivated me since I first encountered it in Jeff Meyer's book 'The Lord's Service' on covenant renewal worship. If you want to dig in a bit more have a look at 'Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?' by Michael Morales.
Have you looked at Dionysius the Areopagite's writing on Moses' liturgical ascent up Sinai in the Mystical Theology, or Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses? Sounds like it might be of interest.
Thank you - I'd never thought of this in liturgical terms.
One point that surprised was your reading of the garments of skin as foreshadowing the clothing of glory - perhaps even putting on Christ, or the wedding garment. As far as I'm aware, the fathers (certainly Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, Johnny Damascus) saw the skins in a far more negative light: the fruit of the first killing of an animal and so signs of death and animality. Where Adam and Eve had been clothed in God's grace, they substituted this for corruptible matter. The allegory you make could still work, though, because it shows that the physical body itself is also the stuff of redemption, and so avoids the risk of soul-body dualism. Death becomes a vehicle for eternal life through the Cross, and even our animal corporeality will be transfigured by the Resurrection.
Hi Thomas, I am not familiar with the interpretation of Nyssa or John of Damascus. I’m following a common protestant interpretation that sees the animal skins pointing to Christ (Delizsch, Matthew Henry... etc). It was interesting to note that Luther’s interpretation was inline with your comment, seeing them as signs of death, mortality and vileness. It is an interesting thought but which seems somewhat out of place in the story to me. The skins are superior to the leaves and a gift. Also, the contrast between leaves and animals provides a background clue to Genesis 4 and the story of Cain and Abel. Why was Cain’s leafy offering rejected and Abel’s animal offering accepted? Leviticus of course fills in the details but with Genesis 3 in mind the reader may already see that leaves in God’s presence isn’t acceptable while an animal covering is.
And I'm not familiar with the Protestant interpretations (forgive my ignorance), which makes things interesting! The skins seem ambiguous to me. On the one hand, as you say, they are a gift and they protect humans from the elements, from attack, and from shame - far better than leaves would. But on the other, that protection only becomes necessary after the Fall, because until that moment, there had been no killing, even of animals. It's arguable that the leaves with which they previously clothed themselves are man-made and so inferior to God's gift, but it's also arguable that those leaves were God's original intention (I believe some rabbis even suggested that they were leaves of the Tree of Life). I take it that the death of an animal is necessary for the provision of the skins, hence the first killing, which then leads via animal sacrifices to the first murder of a human in the story of Cain and Abel. But there are some who interpret the "skins" as human skins, mortal and corruptible bodies, suggesting that our first parents' bodies were not ones of flesh and blood: more like (but not equal to) the transfigured/spiritual bodies of the Resurrection, of which our present bodies are only "seeds," as St Paul has it. So I agree with you that after the Fall, animal sacrifice becomes necessary, but it's always pointing - via the Cross - to the eventual unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist, and ultimately to the Eighth Day, greater than the Sabbath, when the lamb lies next to the lamb, etc. Does that sound reasonable? Does the the majority Protestant reading see the skins as an unqualified good, or is there some ambiguity in there, too?
I appreciate your comments Thomas. As I am looking at God's gift of the skin to Adam and Eve in a liturgical flow I suppose I am predisposed to see them in a positive light. At the same time, I am not sure of any gift of God which is primarily negative. A gift extended or received normally implies acceptance or favor. We feel this in reconciliation. A gift given before confession and the conversation that follows it is normally rejected, yet after the conversation has been had a gift may be extended and received as a sign of acceptance and sincerity. In this way, gifts, offerings, and communion after the sermon is good and proper and lead naturally to a blessed departure in the benediction. I suppose reflecting on the purpose of the gift negatively as a sign/reminder of mortality or positively in view of Christ the lamb of God need not overshadow the fact that the skin was yet a gift.
Yes there is ambiguity too. For example the older pulpit commentary lists 8 reasons for God clothing them with animal skin. The 6th and 7th are inline with your earlier comments (reminder of death, degradation, sin) while the 8th is a foreshadowing of the robe of Christ's righteousness. A quick look at Luther and Calvin's commentaries have them following the negative view, while later commentators I've checked (I'm not sure when this began) tend to look at the garments typologically in view of Christ.
The most interesting and positive discussion I have read on this topic so far comes from James Jordan which I'll post parts of below. After noticing that the word "tunic" (k-thoneth) indicates a garment of privilege and tracing it's use through Genesis (Joseph) and 2 Samuel (daughters and friend of king David), he looks at the day of atonement ritual with the high priest.
"The High Priest wore only special linen garments while doing this ritual. At the end of the ritual, the High Priest would put back on his garments of glory and beauty, and thus he was re-covered as God's High Priest. In other words, the High Priest was restored to a position of glory and rule on the basis of the shed blood of the animal sacrifices, and this was signified by his being re-covered with garments made of both vegetable and animal fibers."
His conclusion "With all this information in mind, we can see that God was honoring Adam and Eve as royalty, with a kind of glory, when He gave them tunics. They had made aprons to cover their shame, but God does something much more than give them better aprons... The giving of the tunic means that Adam and Eve are allowed to begin again as priests, to have the first form of clothing given them, so that they can grow up into the more glorious outer garments. Moreover, as with Joseph and the princesses, the tunic is a sign of princely rule under a father. It is a sign of authority, but authority that is in submission to higher authority. And as a sign of royal authority, the tunic is associated with the sabbath. It is a sign of being at rest with God, joining in His rest, though not yet fully ascended to sit at His right hand in garments of glory. Finally, the fact that these tunics were made of skins points not only to animal sacrifice, implicitly, but more explicitly means that Adam and Eve are restored to dominion over the animal world. The animal world is once again the glory around them, as the angels are the glory around God."
This is genius!
Reading about the Old Testament theology of worship in Genesis, Leviticus and Chronicles has captivated me since I first encountered it in Jeff Meyer's book 'The Lord's Service' on covenant renewal worship. If you want to dig in a bit more have a look at 'Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?' by Michael Morales.
Have you looked at Dionysius the Areopagite's writing on Moses' liturgical ascent up Sinai in the Mystical Theology, or Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses? Sounds like it might be of interest.
Thank you - I'd never thought of this in liturgical terms.
One point that surprised was your reading of the garments of skin as foreshadowing the clothing of glory - perhaps even putting on Christ, or the wedding garment. As far as I'm aware, the fathers (certainly Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, Johnny Damascus) saw the skins in a far more negative light: the fruit of the first killing of an animal and so signs of death and animality. Where Adam and Eve had been clothed in God's grace, they substituted this for corruptible matter. The allegory you make could still work, though, because it shows that the physical body itself is also the stuff of redemption, and so avoids the risk of soul-body dualism. Death becomes a vehicle for eternal life through the Cross, and even our animal corporeality will be transfigured by the Resurrection.
Hi Thomas, I am not familiar with the interpretation of Nyssa or John of Damascus. I’m following a common protestant interpretation that sees the animal skins pointing to Christ (Delizsch, Matthew Henry... etc). It was interesting to note that Luther’s interpretation was inline with your comment, seeing them as signs of death, mortality and vileness. It is an interesting thought but which seems somewhat out of place in the story to me. The skins are superior to the leaves and a gift. Also, the contrast between leaves and animals provides a background clue to Genesis 4 and the story of Cain and Abel. Why was Cain’s leafy offering rejected and Abel’s animal offering accepted? Leviticus of course fills in the details but with Genesis 3 in mind the reader may already see that leaves in God’s presence isn’t acceptable while an animal covering is.
And I'm not familiar with the Protestant interpretations (forgive my ignorance), which makes things interesting! The skins seem ambiguous to me. On the one hand, as you say, they are a gift and they protect humans from the elements, from attack, and from shame - far better than leaves would. But on the other, that protection only becomes necessary after the Fall, because until that moment, there had been no killing, even of animals. It's arguable that the leaves with which they previously clothed themselves are man-made and so inferior to God's gift, but it's also arguable that those leaves were God's original intention (I believe some rabbis even suggested that they were leaves of the Tree of Life). I take it that the death of an animal is necessary for the provision of the skins, hence the first killing, which then leads via animal sacrifices to the first murder of a human in the story of Cain and Abel. But there are some who interpret the "skins" as human skins, mortal and corruptible bodies, suggesting that our first parents' bodies were not ones of flesh and blood: more like (but not equal to) the transfigured/spiritual bodies of the Resurrection, of which our present bodies are only "seeds," as St Paul has it. So I agree with you that after the Fall, animal sacrifice becomes necessary, but it's always pointing - via the Cross - to the eventual unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist, and ultimately to the Eighth Day, greater than the Sabbath, when the lamb lies next to the lamb, etc. Does that sound reasonable? Does the the majority Protestant reading see the skins as an unqualified good, or is there some ambiguity in there, too?
I appreciate your comments Thomas. As I am looking at God's gift of the skin to Adam and Eve in a liturgical flow I suppose I am predisposed to see them in a positive light. At the same time, I am not sure of any gift of God which is primarily negative. A gift extended or received normally implies acceptance or favor. We feel this in reconciliation. A gift given before confession and the conversation that follows it is normally rejected, yet after the conversation has been had a gift may be extended and received as a sign of acceptance and sincerity. In this way, gifts, offerings, and communion after the sermon is good and proper and lead naturally to a blessed departure in the benediction. I suppose reflecting on the purpose of the gift negatively as a sign/reminder of mortality or positively in view of Christ the lamb of God need not overshadow the fact that the skin was yet a gift.
Yes there is ambiguity too. For example the older pulpit commentary lists 8 reasons for God clothing them with animal skin. The 6th and 7th are inline with your earlier comments (reminder of death, degradation, sin) while the 8th is a foreshadowing of the robe of Christ's righteousness. A quick look at Luther and Calvin's commentaries have them following the negative view, while later commentators I've checked (I'm not sure when this began) tend to look at the garments typologically in view of Christ.
The most interesting and positive discussion I have read on this topic so far comes from James Jordan which I'll post parts of below. After noticing that the word "tunic" (k-thoneth) indicates a garment of privilege and tracing it's use through Genesis (Joseph) and 2 Samuel (daughters and friend of king David), he looks at the day of atonement ritual with the high priest.
"The High Priest wore only special linen garments while doing this ritual. At the end of the ritual, the High Priest would put back on his garments of glory and beauty, and thus he was re-covered as God's High Priest. In other words, the High Priest was restored to a position of glory and rule on the basis of the shed blood of the animal sacrifices, and this was signified by his being re-covered with garments made of both vegetable and animal fibers."
His conclusion "With all this information in mind, we can see that God was honoring Adam and Eve as royalty, with a kind of glory, when He gave them tunics. They had made aprons to cover their shame, but God does something much more than give them better aprons... The giving of the tunic means that Adam and Eve are allowed to begin again as priests, to have the first form of clothing given them, so that they can grow up into the more glorious outer garments. Moreover, as with Joseph and the princesses, the tunic is a sign of princely rule under a father. It is a sign of authority, but authority that is in submission to higher authority. And as a sign of royal authority, the tunic is associated with the sabbath. It is a sign of being at rest with God, joining in His rest, though not yet fully ascended to sit at His right hand in garments of glory. Finally, the fact that these tunics were made of skins points not only to animal sacrifice, implicitly, but more explicitly means that Adam and Eve are restored to dominion over the animal world. The animal world is once again the glory around them, as the angels are the glory around God."