Garments of Skin

A Quick Clarification

Originally this was an early chapter for my book but I thought it a bit too distracting so I took it out. It may end up as an appendix, who knows… (the book, although not ready yet, is almost finished. I'm in the painful process of rereading, editing and rewriting). For context for this post, in the first chapters of my book I make the point that the first time an offering is made in the bible is the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:3), while the word sacrifice doesn’t show up till Genesis 31:54.

Garments of Skin

Perhaps you’re feeling a little smug because you think I’ve missed the very first sacrifice in the bible. Well keep trying to catch me out, because you haven’t got me yet

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them (Gen 3:21)

Neither of the Hebrew words for sacrifice or offering are used here, but I have heard more than once from the pulpit that this little sentence is the first sacrifice recorded in the Bible. So I did some research. I couldn’t find any Jewish teaching on this idea. Neither could I find anything from the apostles or the early church fathers that suggests any of them saw these garments of skin as a sacrifice. Not to be defeated, I turned to more recent commentaries where I finally found this quote: “the first animal that died was a sacrifice”. That’s from Methodist preacher Joseph Benson and his commentary written in 1854. The idea wasn’t unique to him, as I found when I focussed my search on other commentaries from the same era. I suspect however, that the formidable Matthew Henry’s Commentary, which was first published in 1706 may be closer to the origin of this interpretation

“The beasts, from whose skins they were clothed, it is supposed were slain, not for man's food, but for sacrifice”

There it is! There may be earlier examples but wherever the origin of the theory, it seems to be post reformation because even Calvin didn't see the garments of skin as pointing to a sacrifice.[1] I find it fascinating to see the change in commentary over the years. Where Matthew Henry in 1706 is certain that the animals “were slain, not for man's food, but for sacrifice” if we step back over a thousand years to the year 373 we find Ephrem The Syrian suggesting that “some animals [were] killed before them, so that they could nourish themselves with their flesh, cover up their nakedness with their skins…”

How can such a change of interpretation occur over the space of a thousand years? And how does Matthew Henry see sacrifice where his great grandfathers did not?[2] Let me be confusingly cryptic and offer a quote from Philo of Alexandria, who lived from 20 BC - 50 AD. He says “it is not improper to call the blaze of the most sacred light in the innermost shrine itself a sacrifice”. He is talking about the lamps that burn continually in the temple as being a sacrifice because they shine continually like stars. You may rightly ask; how can Philo see a lamp burning and consider it a sacrifice? This is a great question, and hopefully one that will become illuminated as you continue reading.

It didn’t take long after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD for the daily practice of sacrifice to cease. By the time the Reformation rolled around, sacrifice had disappeared from Western culture and church life. And by the time Matthew Henry and others wrote their commentaries, they were making interpretations about the meaning of sacrifice without ever having seen one performed.

This very dilemma has been what’s prompted my research into sacrifice, and the book that has emerged. I’ve endeavoured to step back to a time where sacrifice was part of the daily routine. Where families shared in sacrificial meals. Where communities came together for festival feasts. This is the time and culture in which the Bible was written, and it’s within this paradigm that I’m trying to discover what sacrifice meant to our ancient neighbours. Thus I tend to rely more on our ancient brothers and sisters who saw sacrifices performed daily, rather than someone writing more than a thousand years after sacrifices ceased being offered.

With that in mind, let’s see what two of our Chrisitian forefathers had to say about garments of skin or “skin tunics”

Therefore, those were tunics of skin taken from animals. For with such as these, it was necessary for the sinner to be dressed. It says, “with skin tunics,” which are a symbol of the mortality that he received because of his skin and of his frailty that came from the corruption of the flesh. (Origen of Alexandria, AD 185-253)

He [the Lord] showed them great pity and had mercy on their fall: seeing them covered in confusion and ignorant of what to do to avoid being naked and feeling ashamed, he makes garments of skin for them and clothes them (St John Chrysostom, AD 347-407)

Many of the early fathers mentioned the garments of skin in their writings, but nowhere could I find anything implying sacrifice.[3] Despite the lack of sacrifice however, the more I read and researched, the more vast and varied were the interpretations. Perhaps, as Origen insinuates, being clothed with skin is a metaphor for mortality? Maybe God is covering their shame[4] as Chrysostom says.

Some have noticed a parallel to the later description of the tabernacle being covered in animal skins. The tabernacle and later the temple are constructed to be mini Edens, so this could hold some plausibility. Aaron’s priestly garments are described as “holy garments… for glory and for beauty” (Ex 28:2). There is also the possibility that since Adam and Eve were playing the role of priests in this Garden temple, their nakedness would have defiled the holy temple space

And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it. (Ex 20:26 NASB)

Make them linen undergarments to cover their naked bodies; they must extend from the waist to the thighs. These must be worn by Aaron and his sons whenever they enter the tent of meeting or approach the altar to minister in the sanctuary area, so that they do not incur guilt and die. (Ex 28:42-43 CSB)

Near the end of the first century BC, Hebrew had ceased to be the daily language, with most Jews speaking Aramaic. In synagogue services they began reading and interpreting the Torah in Aramaic, and these translations became known as Targums. One of these, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has the following: "And the Lord God made garments of glory for Adam and for his wife from the skin which the serpent had cast off (to be worn) on the skin of their (garments of) fingernails of which they had been stripped, and he clothed them."[5] Being clothed with the skin of the serpent is strange, but ‘garments of glory’ was a theme that turned up repeatedly in my research, and also sits neatly alongside the priestly possibility “And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty” (Ex 28:2).

One interpretation I found especially intriguing is that originally Adam and Eve had more spiritual bodies, perhaps similar to Jesus' resurrected body, but after the fall God clothed them with ‘skin’ which made them ‘mortal’. In one version of this view, mortality is given as a mercy, so that humans can repent, and is based on the assumption that angels, demons and spiritual beings cannot repent because they lack mortality; repentance is somehow intrinsically linked to mortality. Mortality is merciful therefore, because it prevents Adam and Eve from living forever in their fallen and broken state, with the garments of skin a gift, giving them the potential for repentance, an exit - death, and the hope of a resurrection into renewed and restored bodies.[6]

The interpretation I find most convincing however, is simply that God the Father is providing protection for his beloved children. St. Basil the Great, one of the most prolific church fathers who was born in AD329 explains his view

​​God is said to have made Adam and Eve “coats of skins,”… This use of tunics was enough for covering what was unseemly. But later another object was added—that of securing warmth by clothing. So we must keep both ends in view—decency, and protection against the weather. (“Basil: Letters and Select Works” - Philip Schaff’s translation and collection)

This idea of protection became particularly plausible when I noticed the story of Cain and Abel, and the many mirrors it contains to the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve fail and make a bad decision which leads to death, they hide themselves from God, they hear God’s voice, they respond poorly, the ground is cursed, and they are exiled from the place of God’s presence. Cain follows the pattern of failure in making a bad decision, which leads to death, being hidden from God’s face, speaking with God and responding poorly, being cursed from the ground, and exiled from the presence of God (Gen 4:1-16). After noticing these parallels, we can now notice another mirror: Cain is given a mark of protection before he is exiled (Gen 4:15). So if these two stories are speaking to each other we could assume that Adam and Eve are given protection before they are exiled.

I mentioned Philo of Alexandria earlier, and it’s worth returning to him as a way of concluding. Philo wrote extensively on the practice of jewish sacrifice and priestly duties and made numerous interpretations and comments on their meanings. In one such commentary on Genesis he asks and answers the specific question: “Why God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them?”

His answer - whilst being quite philosophical - contains no allusion to sacrifice whatsoever.[7] This coming from a Jew, born 20 years before Christ, steeped in Jewish culture, who lived at the same time Jesus and his disciples were walking the earth. As I mentioned earlier, Philo sees it as perfectly acceptable to describe the lights on the menorah as a sacrifice, but finds no compelling connection between garments of skin and an animal sacrifice.

With such a variety of ancient interpretations, any attempt to categorically define garments of skin as a sacrifice seems to be tenuous at best. Possibly the problem is that these later interpretations rely on death being the thing that defines sacrifice. Just because a death has occurred, doesn’t make it crucial to the meaning of the ritual.[8] That's like saying a steak is associated with death. When I eat a steak there is (usually) no association with death. Yes, death has occurred, but the death isn’t the point.

Philo looked at a candle and saw sacrifice, and if our ancient fathers have taught us anything it's that death doesn't define sacrifice. In fact if you read Leviticus you’ll discover the same thing; the killing of the animal is barely mentioned. If something isn’t ritualised, it’s not important to the meaning of the ritual, and this in stark contrast to the amount of space given to instructions for the blood, and dividing and placement of the portions of meat on the altar. Not to mention that atonement and forgiveness are still provided when there is no animal, no death, no blood, no laying of hands, just an offering of grain (eg Lev 5:13).

What then, was an ancient sacrifice? Great question, and for that you’re going to have to read the book. The goal of my research, and the book it became, has been to work out what it might mean for us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. While writing a book isn’t the quickest way to go about it, we can’t understand how Jesus can be seen as a sacrifice, nor what a living sacrifice looks like today, if we’ve never smelled a sacrifice being burned, never seen the smoke ascending, never eaten the meat, never participated in the meal.

Footnotes:

[1] “God therefore designed that our first parents should, in such a dress, behold their own vileness, — just as they had before seen it in their nudity, — and should thus be reminded of their sin.”

From John Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis which was first published in Latin in 1554

[2] One explanation that has been offered by Jeremy Davis is that the destruction of the second temple saw a rapid decline in the practice of sacrifice as there was nowhere for the Jews to make their offerings. Then like a final nail in the coffin, the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in AD 312 saw the beginning of the end of sacrifice when he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman world. By the time of the Reformation in 1512, the practice of sacrifice had ceased long ago (in the West), and hence an accurate understanding of sacrifice was as foreign as the practice itself. Davis suggests that after the Reformation, when people finally had access to a Bible in a language they could read, they had to work out what a ‘sacrifice’ meant without ever having seen one performed.

[3] Church Fathers Scripture Search Engine - www.catholiccrossreference.online

[4] The ESV Study Bible notes a common interpretation of this act – “many see a parallel here related to the system of animal sacrifices to atone for sin later instituted by God through the leadership of Moses in Israel” (ESV Study Bible note). But, the association of nakedness with honor/shame in Gen 2 and latter biblical teachings suggest divine clothes cover shame and confer status as well. In Rev 3:5, Jesus says to the church in Sardis, “The one who conquers will be clothed in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels (Rev 3:5).” To be clothed with garments means our ‘name’ is acceptable before God. While Adam and Eve had to endure the consequences of their disloyalty, God, in his mercy, provided a temporary means of shame-covering with the garment.

Source: article: The Shame of Original Sin (Gen 3), https://honorshame.com/shame-original-sin-gen-3

[5] [Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (tr. M. Maher, M.S.C.; Collegeville, 1992) (The Aramaic Bible, 1B)

Targum Neofiti on Gen 3:21 unveils the similar tradition: "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of glory for the skin of their flesh, and he clothed them." Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (tr. M. McNamara, M.S.C.; Collegeville, 1992) (The Aramaic Bible: 1A)

[6] Fr. Stephen De Young: “But this mortality and the mutability that that brings, that passibility, is also what allows for repentance, for the process of healing and change and strengthening of those powers that takes place within this mortal life that we have in this world, to which Adam and Eve are sent. They’re sent into this world to live a mortal life that will end with death. And then from there, after the resurrection of Christ, to enter into the life of the world to come.”

The Lord of Spirits Podcast: Fall of Man Part 1: Garments of Skin. Copyright © 2005-2023 Ancient Faith Ministries, Inc.

[7] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book41.html

[8] Fr Stephen de Young says “Not only is the killing not ritualized—there’s no instructions, by and large for how to kill things, in the Old Testament or in these ancient rituals. There are ways that they tended to do it with certain animals, for ease of handling, in terms of the procedure, but there was no specific ritualization of the killing.” source: Ancient Faith Ministries, The Lord of Spirits: Eating with the Gods, February 12, 2021