SECTION I – THE PROVIDENCE OF RESTORATION CENTERING ON ADAM’S FAMILY
We have discussed (cf. Part I, Ch. 3, Sec. II, 1–103) the fact that God has been working to save fallen men, though the human fall was brought about by man’s own failure. God’s providence to restore fallen men by having them lay the foundation to receive the Messiah began with Adam’s family.
As discussed in the “Introduction”, Adam, due to his blood relationship with Satan, was placed in the midway position where he could deal with either God or Satan. Therefore, in order that fallen man of the midway position might be separated and shifted from Satan to the Heavenly side to lay the foundation to receive the Messiah, he must himself set up certain conditions of indemnity. Consequently, Adam’s family should have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the foundation of faith and the foundation of substance (incarnation), and, on the foundation to receive the Messiah automatically laid by the previous two, should have finally received the Messiah before the providence of restoration could be realized.
First, in order that the foundation of faith may be laid, there must be certain conditional objects as the price of restoring it through indemnity. Originally, Adam, due to his disbelief, lost God’s Word given as the condition to lay the foundation of faith. Consequently, in order for Adam, who fell into a position where he was unable to receive God’s Word directly, to restore the foundation of faith, he should have set forth certain conditional objects acceptable to God’s will in place of the Word, with an absolute faith. This conditional object to be set forth in Adam’s family in place of the Word was the offering.
Second, there must be a central figure to restore the foundation of faith before laying the foundation at all. The central figure to restore the foundation of faith in Adam’s family was, of course, Adam himself. Therefore, it was natural for Adam to offer the sacrifices. His doing so acceptably or not could decide the success or failure of laying the foundation of faith.
The Biblical record shows that Adam could not offer the sacrifices, but, instead, Cain and Abel did this. What must have been the reason? According to the principle of creation, man was originally created to deal with only one master. Therefore, God cannot work His providence in the principle of creation with any being that is in the position to deal with two masters. If God should accept Adam and his offering, Satan would also try to deal with them on the basis of his having a blood relationship with Adam. In that case, Adam would be placed in the non-principled position to have to deal with two masters, God and Satan. God, not being able to work such a non-principled providence, had to conduct the providence of dividing Adam, the origin of the two characters of good and evil, into two beings; namely, the being representing good character and the being representing evil character. For this purpose, God gave Adam two sons, respectively representing good and evil. He had each offer sacrifices by setting them in the respective positions to deal either with God or Satan; that is, He put them in the position in the principle of creation of dealing with one master.
Then who, between Cain and Abel, the sons of the same father, is supposed to stand in the position to deal with God as the representation of good, and who is to stand in the position to deal with Satan as the representation of evil? Both Cain and Abel were the fruit of Eve’s fall. Consequently, this question was to be decided according to the course of the fall of Eve, who was the origin of the fall.
Eve’s fall consisted of two kinds of illicit love affairs. The first one was the spiritual fall through love with the archangel. The second was the physical fall through love with Adam. Both are, of course, the same in that they are fallen actions. However, when we want to decide which is more aligned with the Principle and more forgivable, we must say that the second act is more so than the first. This is because the second act of the fall was that in which Eve had intercourse with Adam, who was going to be her spouse in the Principle, out of her desire to go back to God’s side after realizing the illicit nature of the relationship with the archangel (cf. Part I, Ch. 2, Sec. II, 2–77). The first act of the fall was that in which she had the relationship with the archangel, who was not her spouse in the Principle, out of the excessive desire to enjoy what it was not yet time for her to enjoy; that is, to become like God, with her eyes opened (Gen. 3:5).
Cain and Abel were the fruits of Eve’s illicit love. Therefore, God had to discriminate conditionally between the two types of illicit acts of love committed centering on Eve, and had to set up Cain and Abel in the respective positions representing different situations. That is to say, Cain, being the fruit of the first love, was placed in the position to deal with Satan, as the representation of evil, symbolizing the first fallen act of love with the archangel. Abel, being the fruit of the second love, was placed in the position to deal with God, as the representation of good, symbolizing the second fallen act of love with Adam.
Originally, there was a standard in the Principle which provided that the first son succeed to the birthright. So, Satan also had more attachment to the elder than to the younger. Besides, Satan, being in the position of the ruler of the created world, intended to take Cain, to whom he was more attached. Therefore, God took Abel.
Let us take an example from the Bible. God said to Cain, “If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door.” (Gen. 4:7). From this, we may understand that Cain was placed in a position to deal with Satan. When the Israelites fled out of Egypt, God smote not only all the first-born of the Egyptians but also of their cattle (Ex. 12:29), because they were all in the position of Satan’s objects (Cain’s position). On the other hand, when the Israelites were restored into Canaan, only the Levities, who were in the position of the second son Abel, could carry the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:25). There is also a Biblical record saying that God loved the second son Jacob and hated the first son Esau while they were still in their mother’s womb (Gen 25:23). This is because only the distinction of being the first-born or the second justified their respective positions of Cain and Abel. In the case of Jacob’s blessing of his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, he blessed them by crossing his hands to lay the right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger son, to whom he wanted to give priority (Gen. 48:14). This, too, is because Ephraim was in the position of Abel. According to this principle, God had Abel and Cain offer sacrifices, having set them up respectively in the positions where each could deal with only one master, either God or Satan (Gen. 4:3-5).
God accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. What must have been the reason? God accepted Abel’s offering (Gen. 4:4) because he offered the sacrifice acceptable to God’s will through good faith, in the objective position from which God could take it (Heb. 11:4). In this way, the foundation of faith to be set up in Adam’s family was laid. This was also to teach that God is ready to accept any man, though fallen, if a favorable condition is formed enabling God to take him. It was not because God really hated Cain that He rejected Cain’s offering. It was because God could not accept his offering unless Cain himself set up a certain condition justifying the acceptance of the offering, for Cain was placed in a position in which he could be taken by Satan.
By this example, God showed us that, in order for a man in the position of object to Satan to return to God’s side, he must set up a certain condition of indemnity. What kind of condition of indemnity should Cain have set up? This was the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature which we will discuss in detail later.
2. THE FOUNDATION OF SUBSTANCE
In order for Adam’s family to lay the foundation of substance, Cain would have had to set up the “condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature” so that God might be able to accept this offering with joy. How then should he have to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature?
The first human ancestors fell through the archangel, thus inheriting his fallen nature. Therefore, in order for fallen man to remove the fallen nature, he should have set up the condition of indemnity, according to the principle of restoration through indemnity, by taking a course in reverse to the way he obtained the fallen nature.
The archangel fell by failing to love Adam, whom God loved more. Therefore, the fallen nature of not taking the same position with God, came about. Consequently, in order to remove the fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have loved Abel, who was in the position of Adam, thus taking the same position with God. Next, the archangel fell because he failed to receive God’s love through Adam, who was closer to God, as the mediator. The archangel intended to take Adam’s position instead. Therefore, the fallen nature of not keeping one’s position came about. Consequently, in order to remove this fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have taken the position to receive God’s love through Abel, who was in the position of Adam, as the mediator, so that he might be able to keep his position.
Then, the archangel fell by his domination of Adam and Eve, who were supposed to dominate him. Therefore, the fallen nature of reversing domination came about. Consequently, in order for man to remove this fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have set up the law and system of domination by standing in the place to obey Abel, who was in the position of Adam, and to be dominated by him.
The will of goodness that man should not eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil should have been conveyed to God by Adam, by Adam to Eve, and by Eve to the archangel, thus multiplying goodness. However, on the contrary, the archangel conveyed to Eve the will of unrighteousness that the fruit could be taken and eaten, then Eve conveyed this to Adam, thus causing the human fall. Therefore, the fallen nature of multiplying sins came about. In order to remove this type of fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have established the position to multiply goodness by standing in the position relative to Abel, who was closer to God than himself, and by receiving the will of goodness through Abel.
Now, let us draw several examples corresponding to the offerings of Cain and Abel. In our individual body, our mind, which directs us toward goodness (Rom. 7:22) is in the position of Abel, while our body, tending to serve the law of sin (Rom. 7:25), is in the position of Cain. Consequently, only when our body obeys our mind’s command will our individual body be made good. However, in reality, our body always rebels against the command of our mind, thus repeating the same action in which Cain killed Abel. Therefore, our individual body becomes bad. Accordingly, life in religion may be called life to make our body obey our mind, directed toward the will of God,just as Cain should have obeyed Abel. Besides, man fell to the position of being deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9); so he was supposed to go before God only through the created things, by setting these things in the position of Abel. This was the “offering”. Man’s tendency to look for good leaders and good friends, seen from the result, is derived from the desire of the divine mind to stand before God, by finding one who is in the position of Abel closer to God and by becoming one with him.
Christian faith teaches us to be gentle and humble so we may secure a position before God by finding in our daily life an Abel-type person, through these virtues. Starting from the individual to the family, the society, the race, the nation, and the world, there are always two types of persons; namely, Cain-type and Abel-type. Therefore, in order to restore all these to the original position of creation, the Cain-type person must obey and surrender to the Abel-type person. Jesus came to the world as the Abel whom the whole of mankind was to serve and obey. Therefore, he said, “…no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).
If Adam’s family had succeeded in setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature through Cain’s obedience to Abel, they could have set up the foundation of substance on the foundation of faith already established. They could thus have restored the four position foundation, originally designed at the creation, by receiving the Messiah on the family-level foundation to receive the Messiah. However, Cain killed Abel, repeating the original fallen nature through which the archangel caused man to fall, and thus Adam’s family failed to set up the foundation of substance which was to be established then. Consequently, the providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family ended in failure.
3. THE FOUNDATION TO RECEIVE THE MESSIAH IN ADAM’S FAMILY
The foundation to receive the Messiah is realized by establishing the foundation of substance on the basis of having restored through indemnity the foundation of faith. From the standpoint of offering sacrifices, the foundation of faith is to be restored by acceptably making the symbolic offering, and the foundation of substance is to be realized by acceptably offering the substantial offering. Let us then inquire into the meaning and purpose of the symbolic offering and the substantial offering.
God’s three great blessings to man, the purpose of His creation, were to be realized when Adam and Eve, after having perfected their respective individualities, would become husband and wife, then multiply their children to form a family, and, further, they would come to rule the whole of creation. However, due to the fall, the three great blessings were not realized. In order to restore this, we must follow the course in reverse and establish the foundation of faith by offering the symbolic sacrifices through which both the condition of indemnity to restore the created things and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore man can be set up at the same time.
Next, we must lay the foundation to receive the Messiah, after having set up the foundation of substance by offering the substantial sacrifices, which can be set up at the same time as the condition of indemnity to restore the children, and on this basis to restore the parents. Therefore, we may consider the meaning and purpose of the symbolic offering separately.
As we have discussed in the chapter on the “Fall of Man”, Satan, who came to dominate fallen men, has also dominated all things which were supposed to be under man’s dominion. It is for that reason that the Bible says all things are in travail together (Rom. 8:22). Therefore, the first purpose to give symbolic offerings with created things is to set up the condition of indemnity to restore all things, which are the symbolic substantial objects of God. Then, in order for man, who became deceitful above all things due to the fall (Jer. 17:9), to go before God, he must go through the created things, which are closer to God than himself, according to the order in the principle of creation. Accordingly, the second purpose for making symbolic offerings is to set up the symbolic condition of indemnity in order to restore substantial men before God.
Next, the substantial offering is an offering of the internal type; so, it is to be realized only on the basis of having acceptably made the symbolic offering of the external type, following the pattern of creating all things first and man afterwards. Therefore, we must first make the symbolic offering in an acceptable manner, thus setting up the condition of indemnity to restore all things, and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore man at the same time. On that basis we must make the substantial offerings as the condition of indemnity to restore man substantially. Substantial offering means to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature in order to restore substantial man. If a Cain-type person should set up the condition of indemnity to restore children by making the substantial offering with the Abel-type person, this will also be reckoned as the condition of indemnity to restore parents, which will be elucidated; so, this substantial offering will become an acceptable one.
In order for Adam’s family to set up the foundation to receive the Messiah, Adam himself must first lay the foundation of faith through the symbolic offering. As noted above, the offering did not begin with Adam, because if Adam should offer the sacrifices, the offering would be for both God and Satan to deal with, so it would be in a non-principled position. Besides, there is another reason from the aspect of feeling and heart. The fallen Adam in fact was the very person who caused God the grief which will last thousands of generations. Therefore, Adam could never be the object of God’s heart, with whom God could directly deal in His providence of restoration.
Therefore, God had the second son Abel offer symbolic sacrifices instead of Adam. Thus the condition of indemnity to restore all things and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore men were set up at the same time. Then, on this basis, if Cain and Abel had set up the condition of indemnity to restore children through the substantial offering, Adam, as the parent, would have stood on this foundation of substance and thus the foundation to receive the Messiah could have been realized at that time.
In order to offer the substantial sacrifices by setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature, the central figure to offer the sacrifice should be decided first. Therefore, we must understand the Abel’s symbolic offering had two purposes: first, to set up the foundation of faith in place of Adam; and second, to decide on Abel as the central figure to make the substantial offering.
The condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature was to be set up by Cain, and we must know how this could result in Adam’s family setting up the condition in its entirety. If the human ancestors had obeyed God’s words, God’s will could have been realized at that time; and, if the Jewish people had believed in Jesus, the will of Jesus could have been realized in his lifetime. In this case, too, if Cain had set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature by obeying Abel, both Cain and Abel could have stood in the position of having established the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature while they were children. Since Cain and Abel were substantial beings derived from the division of Adam, who was the source of good and evil, Adam, as the parent, could have stood on the foundation of substance of having separated from Satan, if they had separated from Satan by setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. Then, the foundation to receive the Messiah could have been laid in Adam’s family. In this manner, the condition of indemnity to restore the parents could be set up through the symbolic offering and substantial offering.
Meanwhile, Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice. Thus, the condition to restore through indemnity the foundation of faith, centering on Adam, and the position of Abel as the central figure to offer the substantial offering were set up successfully. However, by Cain’s killing Abel, they fell again into the same state as the archangel and Eve when they fell. Therefore, the substantial offering was a failure. They could not set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. Thus, they also failed to lay the foundation of substance. This prevented them from establishing the foundation to receive the Messiah. Therefore, the providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family came to naught.
4. THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM ADAM’S FAMILY
First, the failure of the providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family showed us God’s predestination for the accomplishment of the will and His attitude toward man’s portion of responsibility. Originally, God’s predestination of the will was supposed to be realized only when His portion of responsibility and man’s portion of responsibility could be combined. God could not instruct Cain and Abel on how to offer sacrifices because Cain’s decision whether or not to offer sacrifices through Abel was his portion of responsibility.
Second, after Cain killed Abel, God worked His providence through Seth. This showed us that God’s predestination for the will is an absolute one whereas His predestination for man to carry out the will is relative. God so predestined that, corresponding to His portion of responsibility, Abel should accomplish his own portion of responsibility and, thus, become the central figure for the substantial offering. Therefore, when Abel failed to accomplish his portion of responsibility, God, by setting up Seth in his place, intended to carry out the will, which was predestined as absolute.
Third, the offerings of Cain and Abel showed us that any fallen man can accomplish God’s will when he can find an Abel-type person and obey him in complete surrender.
Meanwhile, the providence identical to that which God intended to fulfill in Adam’s family has been repeated ever since due to the repeated failures arising from man’s disbelief. Accordingly, this persists as our own course of indemnity today. The providence of restoration, centering on Adam’s family, is a living lesson for us, showing us the typical course to follow.
SECTION II – THE PROVIDENCE OF RESTORATION CENTERING ON NOAH’S FAMILY
The providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family was not fulfilled, because Cain killed Abel. Nevertheless, since God’s will to accomplish the purpose of creation was absolute and unchangeable, He set up Seth in place of Abel on the basis of Abel’s having been loyal and filial in heart (Gen. 4:25).
Then from among his descendants God chose Noah’s family to substitute for Adam’s family and recommenced His providence. As God said:
I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Gen. 6:13)
He performed flood judgment. This clearly shows us that it was also the Last Days at that time. This is because God intended to fulfill the purpose of creation by sending the Messiah, on the foundation laid by Noah’s family, after the flood judgment. Noah’s family should have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the foundation of faith, and, based on that, they should have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the foundation of substance. By doing these things, Noah’s family should have restored, through indemnity, the foundation to receive the Messiah, which Adam’s family had failed to do.
(1) The Central Figure to Restore the Foundation of Faith
In the providence of restoration centering on Noah’s family, the central figure to restore the foundation of faith was Noah. God called Noah after ten generations, or 1,600 years after Adam, in order to fulfill with will, which ended in failure with Adam. Therefore, God blessed Noah to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 9:7), just as He did Adam (Gen. 1:28). In that sense, Noah is the second human ancestor.
Noah was called when the earth was filled with violence through men (Gen. 6:11), and he worked on the ark for 120 years on the mountain, in obedience to God’s command, despite all the derision and scoffing of the people. On that condition, God could venture to judge the earth with the flood, centering on Noah’s family. In this aspect, Noah is the first father of faith. We know Abraham is the father of faith, but originally it was to be Noah. Due to his son Ham’s sinful act, Noah’s mission as the father of faith was shifted to Abraham.
Adam was to be the central figure to restore the foundation of faith, but because of the fore-mentioned reason, he could not offer sacrifices himself. However, Noah was called on the basis of Abel’s having been faithful and filial in acceptably offering the symbolic sacrifices. Besides, as seen from his lineage, he was a descendant of Seth (Gen. 4:25) called in place of Abel. Furthermore, he was a righteous man in the sight of God (Gen. 6:9). Therefore, he could offer symbolic sacrifices directly by building the ark in obedience to God’s will.
(2) The Conditional Objects to Restore the Foundation of Faith
For Noah, the conditional object by which the foundation of faith could be restored was the ark. What did the ark signify? In order for Noah to stand in Adam’s position as the second human ancestor, he had to set up the condition to restore through indemnity the whole universe, which was under Satanic control due to Adam’s fall. Consequently, he had to offer as sacrifices, acceptably before God, certain conditional objects symbolizing the new universe. The ark was his conditional object.
The ark consisted of three floors, to symbolize the universe created through the three stages of growth. The eight members of Noah’s family who entered the ark were to restore through indemnity the eight members of Adam’s family, who fell into Satan’s bosom. Since the ark was the symbol of the whole universe, the master of the ark, Noah, symbolized God. His family symbolized mankind, and the animals symbolized all things.
What was the purpose of God’s 40-day flood judgment, which He exercised after the completion of the ark? According to the principle of creation, man was made to serve one master. God could not work His providence in the non-principled realm by dealing with mankind, when man remained under Satan due to his own lustfulness.
Therefore, He exercised the providence of the flood judgment to destroy the men subject to Satan, and to set up the objects through whom He could exercise His providence. Why did He decide that His judgment should be 40 days? As will be discussed later (cf. Part II, Ch. 3, Sec, II, 4–381), the number “ten” is the number of unity. Therefore, God set up Noah ten generations after Adam to restore through indemnity the will left unaccomplished because of Adam’s fall. He set up the indemnity period to restore the number “ten” in the second attempt at unification. Through ten generations up to Noah, God also continued His providence of setting up each generation as the indemnity period to restore the number “four” to fulfill the purpose of the four position foundation. Consequently, the period from Adam to Noah was the indemnity period to restore the number “40”. Due to the lustfulness of the people of that time, the indemnity period for the number “40” was invaded by Satan. In order that God might recommence His providence to accomplish the four position foundation through Noah’s ark, He intended to restore the foundation of faith by setting up the 40-day period of judgment as the indemnity period to restore the number “40” invaded by Satan.
In this way, the number “40” became necessary as the number to separate Satan in order later to restore the foundation of faith in the providential course of restoration through indemnity. For example, we see many instances comparable to the 40-day judgment in Noah’s day: the 400-year period from Noah to Abraham; the 400 years of slavery of Egypt of the Israelites; 40 years of wandering in the wilderness; Moses’ 40-day fast; 40 years each of the rule of Kings Saul, David, and Solomon; Elijah’s 40-day fast; Jonah’s 40-day prediction of the destruction of Nineveh; Jesus’ 40-day fast and prayer; and his 40-day period of resurrection. All are indemnity periods for separation from Satan.
We also read in the Bible that, after the judgment, Noah sent out a raven and a dove from the ark. Let us now investigate what kind of providence for the future God foreshadowed through this, for God said, “Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7). The 40-day period of judgment as the condition of indemnity to restore the universe corresponds to the period of chaos (Gen. 1:2). Therefore, all the things centering on the ark after the 40 days are the symbolic representation of the entire course of history after God completed His creation of heaven and earth.
What did God foreshadow by sending from the ark a raven (Gen. 8:6-7) which flew about until the water subsided? This indicated that Satan crouched at the door of Noah’s family, even after the flood judgment, to spy on the condition for invasion there, just as the archangel looked for a chance to win Eve’s love right after the creation of man and just as Satan watched for the opportunity to invade Cain and Abel when they offered sacrifices (Gen. 4:7).
Next, what did God foreshadow when Noah sent a dove three times from the ark? It is recorded in the Bible that the dove was sent forth to find out if the water had subsided. However, if that had been the only purpose, we may think that Noah could look out directly through the window to learn for himself, instead of sending out the dove. Therefore, we can imagine that the purpose of sending for the dove lay in something more important than seeing if the water had dried up.
We must understand the significance of God’s providence in this situation. Seven days after God announced the flood judgment through Noah (Gen. 7:10), the flood came. It was after the 40-day period of judgment that Noah first sent out the dove. The Bible says that the dove went to and fro over the water but finding no place to set her foot, she returned to the ark, and Noah brought her into the ark (Gen. 8:9). The first dove symbolized the first Adam. Therefore, this story means that God created man on earth so that His ideal of creation, which had been in Him even before creation, might be realized in Adam as the perfect incarnation. But due to Adam’s fall, God could not realize His ideal of creation on earth through Adam, so God had to take back His ideal from earth for the time being and postpone the realization of His will.
Seven days later, Noah sent out the dove the second time. She could not set foot on the earth then because the water had not dried up. She returned to the ark with an olive leaf in her mouth, signifying that she would be able to alight the next time (Gen. 8:10-11). The second dove symbolized Jesus, as the second Adam, who would come as the perfect incarnation of the ideal of creation. Therefore, this second story signifies that Jesus would come to earth in order to accomplish the providence of restoration. But in case of the Jewish people’s disbelief, he would go back to God’s bosom, through the cross, leaving a promise to come again, because, with no place to “set his feet”, he could not fulfill the will on earth. Of course, this foreshadowing indicates that, if the water had dried up so that the dove could alight and find something to eat, she did not have to return to the ark, but she had to go back because the water had not yet subsided. Likewise, this indicates that if the Jewish people were to believe in him and serve him, Jesus would not die, being able to realize the Kingdom of Heaven on earth at that time. But in the case of their disbelief, Jesus would have to die on the cross and come again later at a more favorable time.
After another seven days, Noah sent out the dove the third time. It is written that this time the dove did not come back to the ark because the water had dried up (Gen. 8:12). The third dove symbolized the Lord of the Second Advent who would come as the third Adam. Consequently, this story indicates that, when Christ comes again, he will be able to realize God’s ideal of creation on earth without fail so that the ideal will never have to go back to God’s bosom. When Noah found that the third dove would not return, he then came down from the ark to the earth and enjoyed the new heaven and earth. This foreshadows that, when the ideal of creation will be realized on earth through the third Adam, then the new Jerusalem will descend from heaven and God’s dwelling will be among men (Rev. 21:1-3).
The story of having sent out the dove three times shows us that, as clarified in the chapter on predestination, God’s providence of restoration could be prolonged in case that man, who is the object of the providence, could not fulfill his portion of responsibility. This foreshadowed that, due to Adam’s failure in carrying out his responsibility because of his disbelief, Christ had to come as the second Adam, and that if the Jewish people should fail to fulfill their responsibility because of their disbelief, Jesus would have to die on the cross and thus Christ would have to come again as the third Adam. The period of seven days here shows us that, just as God’s creation took seven days, it will also take a certain period in the providence to restore the lost element.
In the meantime, Noah’s family could restore through indemnity the foundation of faith by acceptably setting up the ark as the condition to restore the foundation through the 40-day judgment.
2. THE FOUNDATION OF SUBSTANCE
Noah restored through indemnity the foundation of faith by succeeding in making the symbolic offering of the ark acceptable to God. By this, Noah set up, at the same time, the condition of indemnity for the restoration of all the created things and also the condition of indemnity for the restoration of men, in symbolic terms. Next, if Noah’s sons, Shem and Ham, had succeeded in the substantial offering by setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature, in the respective positions of Cain and Abel, the foundation of substance could have been established at that time.
In order for Noah’s family to offer the substantial offering acceptably after the success in the symbolic offering, the second son, Ham, who was the central figure for the substantial offering, ought to have restored the position of the second son Abel, who had been the central figure for the substantial offering in Adam’s family. In the case of Adam’s family, Abel, the son, offered the symbolic offering in place of Adam. Therefore, when he succeeded in that offering, Abel could restore through indemnity the foundation of faith, while at the same time, he was destined to be the central figure for the substantial offering. However, in the case of Noah’s family, Noah himself offered a symbolic sacrifice. In order for Ham to stand in the position of Abel, who had succeeded in the symbolic offering, he should have remained in a position of inseparable oneness with the heart and feeling of Noah, who had succeeded in the symbolic offering. Let us, then, examine how God worked His providence in order to have Ham stand in the position of inseparable oneness with Noah’s heart and feeling.
We read (Gen. 9:20-26) that Ham, upon seeing his father Noah lie naked in the tent, was not only ashamed of it, but even displeased with it, and that he stirred up the same emotion among his brothers, Shem and Japheth. Then they too were agitated by Ham in the same emotion to feel ashamed of their father’s nakedness; and in an effort not to see that scene, they turned their faces and walked backward to cover their father’s body with a garment. However, this was such a crime that Noah cursed Ham, saying that his son Canaan should be a slave to his brothers.
Why did God work His providence in such a way, and why was the feeling of shame at Noah’s nakedness such a sin? In order to understand this, let us first determine what sin is. Satan cannot emit the power of existence and action unless he finds an object with which to form a correlative base on which to have a mutual relationship of give and take. Therefore, whenever any being makes a condition for Satan to invade and thus becomes an object with which Satan can work, sin is created.
Next, we must understand why God tested Ham through Noah’s nakedness. It has already been stated that the ark symbolized the whole universe and that all the things done immediately after the acceptable offering of the ark, through the 40-day judgment, therefore symbolized everything since the creation of the universe. Consequently, Noah’s position right after the 40-day judgment was identical to that of Adam after the creation of the universe.
We can well imagine how unreserved and affectionate with each other Adam and Eve were after the creation, and how frank and without concealment they were before God. We can conclude this from the fact that they did not have the feeling of shame, even though they were naked (Gen. 2:25). But after the fall, they became ashamed of the nakedness of their lower parts, covered them with fig leaves and concealed themselves from God, fearing that He might see (Gen. 3:7). Therefore, their act caused by feeling ashamed of their lower parts was an expression of their feeling due to their sinful blood relationship with Satan committed through their lower parts. The action of concealing themselves by covering their lower parts was the expression of their guilty conscience, which deterred them from appearing before God after their blood relationship with Satan.
Noah, in the position of separation from Satan through the 40-day judgment, ought to have stood in the position of Adam right after the creation of the universe. In this case, God wanted to restore through indemnity the heart and feeling of joy He had experienced, looking at innocent naked man, without concealment before he committed the crime, by looking at Noah’s family neither feeling shameful nor trying to hide themselves at the sight of Noah’s nakedness. God had Noah lie naked in order to fulfill such a profound will. Consequently, Ham could have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the position of Adam’s family, which had never known any shame before the first sin, on Ham’s foundation of inseparable oneness with Noah through dealing with Noah without any sense of shame; that is, from the same position and heart as God.
However, on the contrary, Noah’s sons were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him with a garment, thus showing that they could not appear before God because they were ashamed of their blood relationship with Satan, as was the case in Adam’s family after the fall. Therefore, Satan, who had been watching to see if there was any condition for him to invade in Noah’s family, as foreshadowed through the raven, did invade with Noah’s sons as his objects because they had shown themselves to be Satan’s lineal descendants.
In this manner, Ham’s act in being ashamed of his father’s nakedness became a sin, because it created a condition for Satan to invade. Thus, Ham failed to restore through indemnity the position of Abel from which to offer a substantial sacrifice, and failed to establish the foundation of substance. Thus, the providence of restoration centering on Noah ended in failure.
Would it be a sin for anyone to be ashamed of his nakedness? No. Noah had the mission of removing all the conditions which allowed Satan to invade, because Noah was substituting for Adam. Therefore, Noah’s family should have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the position of Adam’s family before the blood relationship with Satan, by demonstrating that they were not ashamed of nakedness, and thus did not worry about covering it. In consequence, the condition of indemnity showing that they neither felt ashamed of nakedness nor cared to cover it was a condition that only Noah’s family could set up, for Noah’s family was in the position of Adam’s family.
3. LESSONS LEARNED FROM NOAH’S FAMILY
It is not easy to understand why Noah built an ark on the mountain for 120 long years. Ham knew that Noah’s family was saved due to the toils of his father–toils for which he had been mocked and criticized. Considering all these things, Ham should have regarded his father’s works as good and meaningful, even though he was displeased with his father’s nakedness.
Instead of trusting Noah, who was on the side of God, Ham criticized him from a self-centered perspective, and showed his displeasure in his action. Therefore, the providence centering on Noah’s family, which God had set up by exercising the 40-day flood judgment 1,600 years after Adam, ended in failure. This shows us that we need patience and obedience to go the way of Heaven.
Next, God’s providence through Noah’s family shows us God’s attitude about predestination and the accomplishment of man’s own responsibility. We know well enough that Noah’s family was that which God found after 1,600 years of search, which He directed for 120 years until Noah finished the ark, and which He kept intact at the sacrifice of the whole of mankind by the 40-day flood. However, when Satan invaded the family through Ham’s mistake, God abandoned without reserve the entire family, which was the object of His providence of restoration, and thus His providence centering on Noah’s family ended in failure.
Moreover, the providence through Noah’s family shows us what God’s predestination for man is like. We must not forget that, in spite of His having found Noah as the father of faith after such a long period, God abandoned the family once it failed to accomplish its portion of responsibility and elected Abraham’s family in its place.
SECTION III – THE PROVIDENCE OF RESTORATION CENTERING ON ABRAHAM’S FAMILY
Due to Ham’s fallen act, the providence of restoration centering on Noah’s family was not fulfilled. However, since God’s intention was to predestine absolutely and to fulfill the will to accomplish His purpose of creation, He called Abraham on the foundation of heart-and-zeal which Noah had established with his loyalty, and began again His providence of restoration, centering on Abraham’s family.
Therefore, Abraham should have restored the foundation to receive the Messiah, which Noah’s family had left unaccomplished, and should have actually received the Messiah on that foundation. Consequently, Abraham, too, should have restored through indemnity the foundation of faith, and, on it, he should have restored through indemnity the foundation of substance.
(1) The Central Figure to Restore the Foundation of Faith The central figure to restore the foundation of faith in the providence of restoration centering on Abraham’s family was Abraham himself. Therefore, Abraham was chosen as the central personage to succeed and fulfill God’s will. Therefore, if Abraham did not restore through indemnity all the conditions invaded by Satan due to Ham’s sinful act, he would fail in carrying out God’s will centering on Noah, whose course he had been chosen to fulfill.
The first condition that Noah lost to Satan was the ten generations from Adam to Noah, plus the 40 days. Therefore, Abraham should have restored through indemnity that lost ten generations. Then he would have stood in the position of each of the ten, having restored the number “40” for the judgment. The calculation of 40 years for each generation to be restored through indemnity came about due to the failure of one generation (Noah’s) to be restored through a 40-day period. Later, in Moses’ course, the Israelites restored through indemnity the failure in the 40-day spying in Canaan by the 40-year period of wandering in the wilderness (Num. 14:34). God chose Abraham in place of Noah after the lapse of a 400-year period of indemnity through ten generations after Noah. In this way, by shortening the human life span after Noah, the age in which ten generations would be restored during a 1,600-year period was changed into an age in which ten generations could be restored during a 400-year period.
The second condition that Noah had to forfeit to Satan was the position of the father of faith plus the position of Ham, who was in the place of Abel. Therefore, Abraham could not stand in the position of Noah, unless he restored through indemnity the position of Ham and of the father of faith. In order for Abraham to stand in the position of the father of faith, replacing Noah, he should have offered a symbolic sacrifice with faith and loyalty, just as Noah did by building the ark.
As stated above, God also had to leave Ham in Satan’s hands; Ham was in place of Abel, whom God loved (both were second sons playing the central roles in the substantial offerings). Therefore, God in turn had to take those who were in the position of being most loved by Satan according to the principle of restoration through indemnity. That is why God called Abraham, the first son of Terah, who was an idol-maker (Josh. 24:2-3).
Abraham was the personage of the restored Adam, because he was the substitute for Noah and, naturally, for Adam himself. Accordingly, God blessed Abraham, saying that his descendants would be multiplied, that a great nation would come from him, and that he would be the source of blessedness, just as He had earlier blessed Adam and Noah (Gen. 12:2). After this blessing, Abraham, in obedience to God’s command, left his father’s house in Haran and entered Canaan with his wife Sarah, his nephew Lot and all the wealth and people he could take from his homeland (Gen. 12:4-5). In this way, God set Abraham’s course as the typical course for Jacob and Moses in later days; that is, to restore Canaan by taking there his wife, children and wealth, all of whom he had removed from the Satanic world (Haran and Egypt) under difficult circumstances.
This course foreshadowed the course for Jesus in future days, namely, to restore to God’s world all men and things taken from the Satanic world (cf. Part II, Ch. 2, Sec. I, 2–287).
(2) The Conditional Objects to Restore the Foundation of Faith
(i) The Symbolic Offering of Abraham
God commanded Abraham to offer sacrifices of a dove, ram, and heifer, all these being conditional things to restore the foundation of faith (Gen. 15:9). Just as Noah established his faith before offering his symbolic sacrifice of the ark, so Abraham had to first establish his faith before offering his symbolic sacrifice. The Bible does not contain any precise record of how Noah did this. However, the Bible says that Noah was a righteous man (Gen. 6:9), and we can imagine that he must have set up certain conditions of faith before he was righteous enough in God’s sight to be given the divine commandment to build the ark. In fact, the providence of restoration is to be realized through faith; for faith, and he who through faith is righteous, is recognized by God (Rom. 1:17). Let us now investigate what kind of faith Abraham established before offering his symbolic sacrifice.
Abraham had to restore the position of Noah, the second human ancestor. He had to stand in the position of Adam, too. Therefore, he had first to set up the symbolic condition of indemnity for the restoration of the position of Adam’s family before he offered the symbolic sacrifice.
According to Biblical verses (Gen. 12:10), Abraham once went down to Egypt because of a famine. When the Pharaoh of Egypt wanted to take his wife Sarah, Abraham, as planned beforehand, told the Pharaoh that she was his sister, lest the King should kill him if he found out that they were husband and wife. In this way, Sarah was taken by the Pharaoh from the position of Abraham’s sister, and after God’s chastisement of the Pharaoh, Abraham took back his wife, and also his nephew Lot, as well as abundant wealth. Abraham went on this providential course, though unconsciously, to set up the symbolic condition to restore through indemnity the position of Adam’s family.
The archangel took Eve while Adam and Eve were still in the position of brother and sister in their immaturity, thus forcing all created things, as well as their own children, to be under his dominion. In order for Abraham to set up the condition to restore through indemnity the above mentioned situation, he was deprived by Pharaoh, who symbolized Satan, of his wife Sarah, who was in the position of Abraham’s sister. Then he had to take back Sarah, in the position of his wife, together with Lot, symbolizing the whole of mankind, and his wealth, symbolizing the world of creation (Gen. 14:16). Abraham’s course thus was the course for Jesus to walk in later days. It was only after Abraham had set up such a condition of indemnity that he could offer the symbolic sacrifice with the dove, the ram and heifer.
What, then, does Abraham’s symbolic sacrifice mean? In order for Abraham to become the father of faith, he had to restore through indemnity the position of Noah whom God intended to set up as the father of faith, and of his family. Naturally, he had to stand also in the position of Adam and his family. So, he had to offer a conditional object as a symbol enabling him to restore through indemnity all the things which were supposed to be restored in Adam’s family, centering on the offerings of Cain and Abel. Further, he had to offer, as acceptable sacrifices before God, certain symbolic things to restore through indemnity all the things intended to be restored centering on the ark of Noah’s family. Abraham’s symbolic offerings were of such a nature.
What then, did Abraham’s symbolic sacrifices, namely, the dove, ram and heifer, symbolize? These three symbolic offerings symbolized the whole universe which was created to be perfected through three stages of growth. First, the dove symbolized the formation stage. Jesus came as the perfection of the providence in the formation stage, which was represented by the doves. Therefore, when he was baptized by John the Baptist in the River Jordan, the Spirit of God descended like a dove, alighting on him (Matt. 3:16). On the other hand, Jesus came to restore Abraham’s failure in the offering. Naturally, he had to stand in the position to have restored the dove which was invaded by Satan at that time. Therefore, God showed by the dove that Jesus came as the perfection of the Old Testament providence in the formation stage.
In the next place, the goat or ram symbolizes the growth stage. Jesus came to restore Abraham’s failure in the offering. On the foundation of the Old Testament providence, having restored all things symbolized by the dove, he had also to restore all the things symbolized by the goat or ram, as the one who was to begin the New Testament providence in the growth stage. One day after John the Baptist had witnessed that Jesus was the perfection of the providence in the formation stage symbolized by the dove, he again gave witness to Jesus as the one who was to begin his mission in the growth stage. When he saw Jesus coming toward him, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
The heifer symbolized perfection. We read in Judges 14:18 that, when Samson put a riddle to the Philistines, they could only answer it by having Samson’s wife tempt him and press him hard for the answer. Then Samson said to them, “If you had not ploughed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.”. In this way, Samson metaphorically called his wife a heifer. Since Jesus came as the bridegroom to all mankind, all the saints until the time of the Second Advent each become a “bride” to Jesus, the bridegroom to come. However, after the wedding feast of the Lamb, when all the saints, as the bride, are united into perfect oneness with the Lord, then all will live in the Heavenly Kingdom of God with Christ as a husband, each not merely as a bride but as a wife. Therefore, we must know that the Completed Testament Age after the Second Advent of the Lord is the age of a heifer–the age of a wife. The heifer thus symbolizes perfection. This is why many spiritually attuned people receive the revelation that today is the age of a cow or heifer.
What, then, do the three kinds of offerings restore through indemnity? Abraham, through his symbolic offerings, had to set up the symbolic condition of indemnity enabling him to restore through indemnity all the things previously left in Satan’s hand, due to the failures of the restoration through indemnity by the symbolic sacrifices and the substantial offerings of Adam’s and Noah’s families. Therefore, the symbolic offering of Abraham was to restore at once, horizontally, through the three kinds of offerings, the symbolic condition of indemnity of the vertical providence through the three generations of Adam, Noah and Abraham.
Abraham offered sacrifices with the dove, ram and heifer on the altar, symbolizing the three stages of formation, growth and perfection, in order to fulfill at once, in horizontal terms, the vertical providence which God intended to restore through indemnity through the three generations (seen from the viewpoint of His will): Adam symbolizing formation, Noah symbolizing growth, and Abraham symbolizing perfection. Therefore, this offering symbolically represented God’s will to fulfill the whole providence of restoration at once by restoring through indemnity all the conditions represented by the number “three”, which had been invaded by Satan.
We must know in what manner Abraham offered the symbolic sacrifice. We read (Gen. 15:10-13) that Abraham cut the offerings in two and laid each half over against the other, but he did not cut the doves in two. Birds of prey came down upon the carcasses and Abraham drove them away. God appeared to Abraham that evening at sunset and said to him:
Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years… (Gen. 15:13)
The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses because Abraham did not cut the doves in two. This caused the Israelites to suffer 400 years of slavery in Egypt.
Why was it such a sin not to cut the dove? This question has remained unsolved until today, and can be elucidated only through the Principle. Let us first study the reason for cutting the sacrifices. The purpose of the providence of salvation is to restore the sovereignty of goodness by separating good and evil, by destroying evil and exalting goodness. Therefore, when God required sacrifices to be offered after having separated Adam into Cain and Abel; and when He smote the evil to exalt the good through the flood judgment in Noah’s days, His purpose was, without exception, to restore the sovereignty of goodness. Consequently, God intended to carry out the symbolic performances of separating good and evil, which He failed to fulfill through Adam and Noah, by having Abraham offer the sacrifices cut in two. The act of cutting the sacrifices in two was, first, to restore the separated position of Cain and Abel in Adam’s family, in order to separate Adam, the origin of good and evil, into two parts representing good and evil, respectively. Second, it was to restore the position of Noah, having separated good and evil through the 40-day flood. Third, it was to set up the symbolic condition to separate the world of good sovereignty from the world under the dominion of Satan. Fourth, it was to set up the condition of consecration by draining away the blood of death that had come through the illicit blood relationship.
Why, then, was it such a sin not to cut the sacrifice in two?
First, it was analogous to not separating Cain and Abel; so, as a result, there was no Abel-type object for God to take. Therefore, the sacrifice was unacceptable to God, and the failure in the sacrifice of Cain and Abel was not restored.
Second, it represented not having separated good and evil at the time of the flood judgment in the providence of restoration centering on Noah; as a result, there was no object of goodness which God could take and upon which He could work His providence. Therefore, it resulted in having taken the position of failure, just as the flood judgment failed.
Third, it failed to set up the symbolic condition of separating the world of good sovereignty from the world under the dominion of Satan in order for God to take it.
In the fourth place, the sacrifice was not consecrated because the blood of death was not drained, and it could not be a sacred thing for God to take and work His providence upon. In this manner, Abraham’s offering the sacrifices without having cut the dove in two resulted in offering Satan’s possession, as it were, and so the offering ended in the assertion that the offering was Satan’s possession.
Thus, the dove, which was the offering symbolizing the formation stage, remained in Satan’s possession. The ram and heifer, symbolizing growth and perfection, which were to be established on the foundation of formation, were then invaded by Satan. Consequently, the whole symbolic offering ended up under Satan, and the act of not having cut the dove in two became a sin.
Let us next inquire into the meaning of the birds of prey alighting on the symbolic offering (Gen. 15:11). Since the fall of the first human ancestors, Satan has always been pursuing those who advocate the will of God. When Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, Satan crouched at the door (Gen. 4:7); also, in Noah’s days, the raven symbolized Satan, who was looking for the opportunity to invade his family right after the judgment (Gen. 8:7). Similarly, at the time of Abraham’s symbolic offering, Satan, who had been looking for the opportunity to invade the offering, saw that the dove was not cut in two and profaned it. The Bible symbolically represented this fact by describing the birds of prey alighting on the offering. What result was brought about by this failure in the symbolic offering? Abraham’s failure in the symbolic offering caused the annulment of all the conditions that were supposed to be restored through indemnity by the symbolic offering. As a result, the descendants of Abraham were put into slavery for 400 years in Egypt, the land of Pharaoh. Let us now study the reason for this.
God set up a 400-year period for the separation of Satan in order to restore through indemnity the judgment number “40” as well as the ten generations that had been invaded by Satan because of Ham’s mistake, and on this basis He called Abraham and had him offer the symbolic sacrifices. Abraham’s failure enabled Satan to claim the offering; therefore, the 400-year period after Noah, the period of indemnity to establish Abraham as the father of faith through the symbolic offering, was also invaded by Satan. In order to restore through indemnity both the position of Abraham before his failure in the symbolic offering and the position of Noah when he was called for the construction of the ark, God had to again set up a period of 400 years for the separation of Satan. The 400-year period of the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt existed in order to put Moses on the foundation of having restored through indemnity on the national level the position of either Noah or Abraham at the time they were about to start as the father of faith. This period of slavery was the period of punishment, due to Abraham’s failure in the offering, as well as the period to lay the foundation for separation from Satan for the sake of God’s new providence.
It has been stated that God intended to fulfill, at the same time, the whole providence represented by formation, growth and perfection, by having Abraham offer a successful symbolic sacrifice of three kinds on one altar. When Abraham failed, God’s providence was extended through him to Isaac and Jacob, three generations.
(ii) Abraham’s Offering of Isaac
After Abraham’s failure in the symbolic offering God ordered him to offer his only son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2), by which God commenced a new providence to restore through indemnity the failure of Abraham’s symbolic offering. According to the theory of predestination in the Principle, God does not use for a second time a person who is called for a certain mission and fails to carry out his own portion of responsibility. How, then, could God work His providence through the offering of Isaac to restore Abraham’s failure in his symbolic offering when his failure in the symbolic offering annulled the will which was to be set up through the offering?
First, concerning God’s providence to restore the foundation to receive the Messiah, the providence centering on Adam’s family was the first one, while the providence centering on Noah’s family was the second, and that centering on Abraham’s family was the third. The number “three” is the number of perfection (cf. Part II, Ch. 3, Sec. II, 4–381), and since the providence through Abraham was the third time for the providence of restoring the foundation to receive the Messiah, there was a condition in the Principle for the fulfillment of this providence. Therefore, Abraham could restore all the objects or conditions lost symbolically, due to the failure in the symbolic offering, by offering his own son as a substantial offering, thus setting up a condition of indemnity far greater in value than the previous condition.
Second, as already noted, the position of Abraham in offering the sacrifices was that of Adam. At that time Satan invaded two generations in succession by profaning Adam and his son Cain. Naturally, according to the principle of restoration through indemnity, the providence of taking back the two generations of Abraham and his son was possible on the Heavenly side.
Third, Adam could not offer the sacrifices directly before God, but Noah, standing on the foundation of Abel’s heart, which enabled the success in the symbolic offering of the formation stage while he was in the position of Adam, could directly offer the symbolic offering of the ark. In this way, Abraham was called both on the foundation of Abel, who had been successful in the symbolic offering of the formation stage, and of Noah, who had succeeded in the symbolic offering of the growth stage. On that level, he offered the symbolic offering of the perfection stage. Therefore, although Abraham failed in the symbolic offering, God could have him offer the sacrifice again on the condition of the historical foundation of heart-and-zeal, since Abel and Noah had succeeded in the symbolic offering.
At the time of offering Isaac as the sacrifice, Abraham had set up the condition of faith for the offering of Isaac by establishing the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore Adam’s family, just as he had done at the time of his symbolic offering. Therefore, Abraham planned with his wife, Sarah, to pretend to be in the position of brother and sister. After having been deprived of his wife by Abimelech, King of Gerar, he took his wife back again from the king. This time Abraham took both his wife and slaves, symbolizing mankind, and wealth, symbolizing all things (Gen. 20:1-16).
How, then, did Abraham offer Isaac as the sacrifice? When, in obedience to God’s command with an absolute faith, Abraham was about to sacrifice his only son Isaac, whom he had received as a blessing, as a burnt offering, God commanded him not to lay his hand on the lad and said, “…now I know that you fear God…” (Gen. 22:12). Abraham’s heart-and-zeal toward God’s will and his resolution to slay his son arising from his absolute faith, obedience and loyalty, caused him to stand in a position equal to having killed Isaac; therefore, he could separate Satan from Isaac. Accordingly, God commanded Abraham not to kill the child, because Isaac, being separated from Satan, already stood on the side of heaven. We must know that when God said, “now I know”, He emphasized the mixture of His reproach for Abraham’s mistake in the symbolic offering, and His joy over his success in the offering of Isaac.
In this manner, God’s providence of restoration centering on Abraham’s family was to be fulfilled through Isaac by Abraham’s success in the offering of Isaac. It took a three-day period for Abraham to offer his son as a burnt sacrifice on Mt. Moriah so that he might start a new providential course by separating Isaac from Satan to the Heavenly side. This three-day period continued as a period necessary for the separation of Satan before starting a new providential course. Jacob, too, had a three-day period of separation from Satan before he started the course of restoration of Canaan on the family level by taking his family out of Haran (Gen. 31:20-22). Moses also had a three-day period of separation from Satan before he started the course of the restoration of Canaan on the national level by taking the Israelite nation out of Egypt (Ex. 8:27-29). Jesus, too, had a three-day period of separation from Satan in the tomb, before starting the course of the restoration of Canaan on the worldwide level spiritually. It is also to be noted that when the Israelites returned to Canaan, centering on Joshua, the ark of the covenant, which went before the main troops, journeyed a three-day course of separation from Satan (Num. 10:33).
(iii) The Position of Isaac from the Standpoint of the Will, and His Symbolic Offering
It has previously been discussed in the detail that, despite Abraham’s failure in his symbolic offering, there still remained a condition in the Principle enabling the foundation to receive the Messiah to be laid, centering on Abraham. As clarified in the chapter on “Predestination”, however, the situation was such that God could not repeat His providence centering on Abraham, who had failed in carrying out his own portion of responsibility. In consequence, God had to regard Abraham in the position of not having failed, though he did fail in his symbolic offering. He had to regard the providence of restoration, prolonged after Abraham, in the position of not having been prolonged. For this purpose, God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering.
God promised Abraham to call His chosen nation through Isaac, saying:
‘…your own son shall be your heir!’ And He brought him outside and said, ‘Look toward heaven and number the stars, if you are able to number them.’ Then He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’. (Gen. 15:4-5)
In consequence, Abraham’s loyalty, demonstrated by his being ready to slay his son of promise upon God’s command, established the same condition as if he had killed himself, invaded by Satan due to the failure in his symbolic offering. Accordingly, the fact that God had Isaac survive means that Abraham himself was resurrected from his situation of having died, by separating himself from Satan, together with Isaac. Therefore, Abraham could separate himself from Satan, who had invaded him due to the failure in his symbolic offering, by succeeding in his offering of Isaac. Further, he could stand in a position of complete oneness with Isaac, centered on the will of God.
In this way, Abraham and Isaac, who survived death, though they were two individuals, were one body centered on the will of God. If Isaac should succeed in the providence, though the providence through Abraham failed and was prolonged to Isaac, Isaac’s success could equally be the success of Abraham himself, who was one body with Isaac. Accordingly, despite the fact that the providence was prolonged from Abraham to Isaac, due to Abraham’s failure in his symbolic offering, it became, seen from the viewpoint of the will, as though Abraham did not fail and the providence was not prolonged.
Nobody is sure of Isaac’s age at the time of the offering. But, from the fact that he could carry the wood to be used for the burnt offering (Gen. 22:6) and that he asked his father where the lamb for the burnt offering was (Gen. 22:7), Isaac apparently was old enough to understand the significance of the incident. We can again well imagine that Isaac had obeyed and cooperated with his father at the time of the burnt offering.
If Isaac, who was old enough to understand the situation, had resisted his father’s willingness to kill him for the burnt offering, God would not have accepted the offering of Isaac by any means. Abraham’s loyalty, combined with that of Isaac, which was not any less, caused the success of the offering of Isaac, thus enabling the separation from Satan to occur.
Consequently, centering on the offering, Abraham and Isaac both survived. First, Abraham could restore through indemnity his position before his failure in the offering, by separating himself from Satan, who invaded him because of his failure in the symbolic offering. From this position, he was able to pass on his providential mission to Isaac. Second, Isaac, who inherited the divine mission from his father Abraham, by obeying him in complete surrender to the will, thus was enabled to set up the condition of faith for offering the symbolic sacrifice later.
In this way, the divine will was transmitted from Abraham to Isaac, and Abraham offered a ram for the burnt offering in place of Isaac, as it was written:
Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. (Gen. 22:13)
This became, as it was, the symbolic offering set up in order to restore the foundation of faith centering on Isaac. From the fact that Isaac carried the bundle of wood for the burnt offering, it can be concluded that he cooperated with Abraham when he offered the ram as the burnt offering. Accordingly, even though Abraham offered the ram as the symbolic offering, the result, seen from the viewpoint of God’s will, was that Isaac himself offered the sacrifice because he succeeded his father’s mission by becoming one body with him. In this manner, Isaac restored through indemnity the foundation of faith by being successful in the symbolic offering, from the position of substituting for Abraham, after inheriting his mission.
2. THE FOUNDATION OF SUBSTANCE
As the central figure to restore the foundation of faith in place of Abraham, Isaac offered an acceptable symbolic sacrifice with the ram. Isaac was thus able to lay the foundation of faith. In order to establish the foundation to receive the Messiah centering on Isaac, there had to be the foundation of substance fulfilled on the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. This was to be achieved by offering a substantial sacrifice with his children Esau and Jacob in the positions of Cain and Abel.
If Abraham had not failed in the symbolic offering, Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael, in place of Abel and Cain, should have set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature, which had been left unaccomplished by Cain and Abel. Because of Abraham’s failure, God, by setting up Isaac in Abraham’s position, and Esau and Jacob in place of Ishmael and Isaac, worked the providence to have them set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. Therefore, Esau and Jacob, centering on Isaac, are in the position of Cain and Abel centering on Adam, and, at the same time, in the position of Shem and Ham centering on Noah.
Isaac’s eldest son, Esau, and the second son, Jacob, were symbols respectively, of Abraham’s first symbolic offering, which was invaded by Satan, and his second offering of Isaac, separated from Satan; they represented evil and good, having to offer substantial sacrifices in the positions, respectively, of Cain and Abel. Esau and Jacob fought, even in their mother’s womb (Gen. 25:22-23) because they were in the conflicting situations of Cain and Abel, who had been separated as the representations, respectively, of evil and good. Also, God loved Jacob and hated Esau while they were still in their mother’s womb (Rom. 9:11-13), because they represented good and evil respectively. In order for Esau and Jacob to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature through substantial offerings, Jacob first had to set up the condition to restore through indemnity the position of Abel, who was the central figure for the substantial offering.
First, Jacob had to set up a condition of victory in his struggle to restore the birthright on the individual level. Satan had occupied God’s world of creation in the position of the elder son. God, from the position of the younger son, had worked His providence to take the birthright of the elder. This is why God “hated” the elder and loved the younger (Mal. 1:2-3). Meanwhile, Jacob, who had been called even in his mother’s womb with the mission to restore the elder’s birthright, wisely took the birthright from his elder brother Esau, with some bread and a pottage of lentils (Gen. 25:34). God had Isaac bless Jacob because he tried to restore the birthright, knowing its value (Gen. 27:27), while He did not bless Esau because he, on the contrary, thought so little of the birthright that he sold it for a pottage of lentils.
Second, Jacob went to Haran and there triumphed in his struggle to restore the birthright of the elder, centering on his family and the wealth, during the 21 years of drudgery, and then returned to Canaan.
Third, Jacob restored domination substantially over the angel by winning in the struggle with him at the ford of Jabbok, on his way back from Haran to Canaan, the land promised by God.
Jacob at last became the central figure for the substantial offering by restoring through indemnity the position of Abel.
In this way, Esau and Jacob established the positions of Cain and Abel at the time God accepted Abel’s offering. Therefore, in order for them to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature, Esau had to love Jacob, set him up as the mediator, and obey him in the position of being dominated by him, thus standing in the position to multiply goodness by inheriting the good from Jacob who had received the blessing from God. Meanwhile, Esau, in fact, loved and welcomed Jacob when he returned to Canaan with his Heavenly family and the wealth after having finished the drudgery of 21 years in Haran (Gen. 33:4); thus, they could establish the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. In this manner, they could restore through indemnity what Cain and Abel of Adam’s family and Shem and Ham of Noah’s family had failed to achieve in the substantial offering.
Thus, through the success in the substantial offering by Esau and Jacob, the vertical course of history, which from Adam’s family had aimed to restore through indemnity the foundation of substance, was, for the first time, restored through indemnity on the horizontal basis in Isaac’s family in the providential course of restoration centering on Abraham.
The Biblical record says (Rom. 9:11-13) that God hated Esau while he was still in his mother’s womb. However, he could stand in the position of a restored Cain, because he fulfilled his own portion of responsibility by surrendering to Jacob, and at last he received God’s love. We must understand that God hated Esau merely because he was in the position of Cain, who had been on the side of Satan in the providential course of setting up conditions of indemnity.
3. THE FOUNDATION TO RECEIVE THE MESSIAH
The foundation to receive the Messiah, which was to be set up in Adam’s family, was prolonged through three generations as far as Abraham because the central figures in charge of the providence of restoration failed to fulfill their portions of responsibility. However, God’s will was prolonged to Isaac, on account of the failure in the symbolic offering of Abraham, who was supposed to accomplish the will. The foundation of faith and the foundation of substance were established centering on Isaac’s family, and for the first time, the foundation to receive the Messiah was established. Accordingly, the Messiah was to come at that time.
When viewing things centering on the foundation to receive the Messiah, we must first know the social background necessary for the foundation to receive the Messiah. Fallen men must first set up the foundation to receive the Messiah in order to provide the basis to restore the world, established centered on Satan, into the kingdom centered on the Messiah.
In the providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family and Noah’s family, there were no other families who could possibly invade the family of divine will. Therefore, the Messiah was supposed to come on the foundation on the family level to receive the Messiah, if this had been established at that time. However, at the time of Abraham, there already was a nation formed by fallen men, centering on Satan, contending with Abraham’s family. The Messiah could not have come directly on the foundation on the family level to receive the Messiah though it might have been established. They could receive the Messiah only after having established the foundation on the domain of the national level which could cope with the Satanic world.
Therefore, even if Abraham had been successful, both in the symbolic offering and the substantial offering, making possible at that time the establishment of the foundation on the family level to receive the Messiah, the Messiah could not have come, unless, on the established foundation, Abraham’s descendants had multiplied in the land of Canaan, thus forming the foundation on the national level to receive the Messiah.
However, Abraham failed in the symbolic offering. As punishment for this, the descendants of Isaac, though they had established the foundation on the family level to receive the Messiah, had to leave their homeland and go into a foreign nation. They were supposed to establish the foundation on the national level to receive the Messiah only after 400 years of drudgery, and after again returning to Canaan.
Who had to begin the course of indemnity left for Abraham’s descendants because of his failure in the symbolic offering? It was Jacob, and not Isaac. This was because, as shown, the central figure to go through the courses of indemnity was to be of the Abel-type, being the center of the substantial offering. Therefore, Abel in Adam’s family, Ham in Noah’s family, Isaac in Abraham’s family and Jacob in Isaac’s family had to go through a course of indemnity representing their respective families.
Jacob especially had to go through the traditional course of separation from Satan, as the pattern for Jesus to walk later, because he was the Abel-type person standing on the foundation to receive the Messiah (cf. Part II, Ch. 2, Sec. I–286). Jacob’s family was supposed to start this course of indemnity in the position of Isaac’s family, because they had to fulfill the purpose of the providence of restoration centering on Abraham. To do this, Jacob’s family had to bear Abraham’s sin through a 400-year course of indemnity. In Isaac’s family, Jacob, in the position of Abel, had taken this course of indemnity; therefore in Jacob’s family, Joseph, son of Rachel (Jacob’s wife on God’s side), had to establish Abel’s position by going into Egypt first and there following the course of indemnity.
Therefore, Joseph was sold by his brothers and brought into Egypt. After having become the prime minister of Egypt at the age of 30, what he had been taught from heaven in his dream as a child became true (Gen. 37:5-11) when Joseph’s half-brothers, other sons of Jacob on the Satanic side, surrendered to him. Thus they followed the course of first entering Egypt on the part of the children, and later, his parents were led through the same course. In this way, Jacob’s family started the course of indemnity to later receive the Messiah on the national level.
In this manner, the providence centering on Isaac was prolonged to the providential course centering on Jacob. Jacob, who shouldered Abraham’s sin, started the course of indemnity to fulfill Isaac’s will on the national level. Therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all one body, though they differed as individuals, just as Abraham and Isaac were one body seen from the significance of the will. Accordingly, Jacob’s success meant Isaac’s success, and Isaac’s success meant Abraham’s success. Therefore, the providence of restoration centering on Abraham, though it was prolonged to Isaac and then to Jacob, is the same as if it were fulfilled in one generation without any prolongation, when it is seen from the significance of the divine will. The Biblical passage in which God said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Ex. 3:6) tells us that those three, though three different generations, are just the same as if they were one generation seen from the significance of the divine will, since they are all our ancestors who fulfilled one divine purpose by joint efforts.
In fact, God intended to accomplish the providence of restoration by first having Jacob’s family suffer 400 years slavery in Egypt. the Satanic world, then choosing them as the elected nation and bringing them back into Canaan as He promised in His blessing to Abraham. Then God intended to have them lay the foundation on the national level to receive the Messiah, and finally He would send the Messiah on that foundation.
Therefore, the foundation to receive the Messiah, established centering on Isaac’s family, became the basis to start the course of indemnity for the establishment of the foundation on the national level to receive the Messiah. Accordingly, the 2,000-year period from Adam to Abraham was that during which they established the basis to start the establishment of the foundation on the national level to receive the Messiah in the next age.
Jacob, who took charge of the course of indemnity which resulted from Abraham’s failure in the symbolic offering, succeeded in the struggle on the individual level by taking the birthright from Esau, using his wisdom for the sake of the heavenly will; and he again succeeded in the 21 years of struggle to take the birthright on the family level from his mother’s brother, Laban, in Haran, the Satanic world. On his way back form Haran to Canaan Jacob won in the fight with the angel and earned the name “Israel” by setting up the condition of indemnity to restore the dominion over the angel for the first time, as a fallen man, since the fall of the first human ancestors. Thus he could build the basis for the formation of the chosen nation.
Jacob returned to Canaan through such a course, and after that set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature. Therefore, Jacob successfully set the pattern for the subjugation of Satan. Moses, and Jesus, too, had to go through this typical course, and the Israelites, as a whole, also had to go through it. Therefore, the history of the Israelite nation is the historical account of this typical course, in which they subjugated Satan on the national level. This is the reason the history of the Israelite nation is the central focus of the providential history of restoration.
4. LESSONS LEARNED FROM ABRAHAM’S COURSE
The providence of restoration centering on Abraham shows us first what God’s predestination of His will was like. The providence of restoration cannot be fulfilled by God’s power alone, but it is to be fulfilled by man’s joint action with God. Accordingly, God could not fulfill His will through Abraham, although He called Abraham to accomplish the purpose of the providence of restoration, because Abraham failed to fulfill his own portion of responsibility.
Second, it shows us what God’s predestination for man was like. God predestined Abraham to be the father of faith, but, when he failed to accomplish his own portion of responsibility, his mission was transferred to Isaac and then Jacob.
Third, it shows us that the providence of restoration must necessarily be prolonged when man fails to accomplish his own portion of responsibility, and, at the same time, a greater condition of indemnity must be set up in order to restore the failure. In Abraham’s case, the will was to be fulfilled by offering animal sacrifices; but, due to his mistake, it was to be fulfilled only by offering his loving son Isaac as a sacrifice.
Fourth, it shows us, through the cutting of the sacrifices, that we too must divide ourselves as a sacrifice, representing good and evil. A religious life is that in which one places himself in the position of a sacrifice and offers himself as an acceptable sacrifice to God by dividing himself in two, representing the separation of good and evil. Therefore, unless we thus separate good from evil in ourselves centered on God’s will, a condition for Satan to invade is created.