The Garden of God
(Genesis 2:4-25)
EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES
Transcript
Introduction
It was 17 years ago that I received what I can only describe as a moving picture of the garden of Eden. I was alone in a room, thinking about the garden. It must have been from God, because what I saw blew me away and the infantile understanding that I’d gleaned. I literally nearly fell of my chair. In that moment I knew the bible was true. Only a decade and more later when I began a deep dive into Genesis 2 did it confirm that image.
Hello and welcome, I’m Stephen Buckley, and we’re in a series titled Eden to Zion, where you will form a biblical worldview through the story of the bible, knowing therefore how to go about a proper Christian life. I’m excited because today because we’re turning to Genesis 2, beginning with v4.
The first two chapters offers different camera angles of creation. Genesis 1 gives an overview of the six days of creation. Then, far from “a second creation story” as some have suggested, Genesis 2 offers a more personal and detailed account of the creation of man and his garden dwelling.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the chronological order of creation. 2:4 is a summary statement and division. 2:5-2:25 is a more detailed account of humanities creation and home that was crafted in 1:26-29. This literary technique is called The Law of Recurrence and it’s found throughout the scriptures. Giving a summary and then going back to recount the details is something we are familiar with, we see this in movies, literature, telling stories over dinner. I could sense the dismay of Hamilton who writes: “Exactly why we must not posit unity in Genesis 1-2 escapes me.”[1] You’ll find that those who are pushing unorthodox doctrines will suggest they are separate accounts - alternative presentations.
The context of Genesis 1 is the creation of the universe and therefore the general Hebrew word for God, Elohim is used. In Genesis two the context is the garden, therefore the personal and compound use “LORD God,” “Yahweh Elohim,” is fitting. Nahum M. Sarna explains that, “The repeated use here establishes that the absolutely transcendent God of the Creation (elohim) is the same immanent, personal God (YHVH) who shows concern for the needs of human beings.”
Yahweh Elohim is used 20 times throughout chapters 2-3, but then only once more in the Torah – ex 9.30, and then around 20 times in the rest of OT. We see written: Yahweh, the God; or Yahweh our God, or I am Yahweh, etc, but very rare Yahweh Elohim. That half of the occasions of Yahweh Elohim are used in these opening scenes, says something about the personal nature of God, and how man’s relationship broke down with the introduction of sin.
There are essentially seven scenes from Gen 2:5 to 3:24. Scenes with mirror-imaging in terms of narrative or dialogue, the main or minor players, active or passive players – scene 1 reflects 7, 2 with 6, and so forth. “It commences outside the garden, the dialogs are conducted within the garden, and the decisive act of disobedience takes place at its very center.”[2] Gen 2 covers the first 2 scenes.
Some suggest the way Genesis 2 is written indicates something that is already known somewhat to the reader. It possible that Adam could have written an eyewitness account that was passed down to Noah who was born around 126 years after his death. Noah could have passed it on to Abraham who was born just a few years after Noah’s death and so forth. Historical accounts would be copied and oral transmission would remain strong, though for me, there is no doubt, God dictated to Moses the account for precision.
These are the Generations of
We begin with verse 4:
“These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
Gen 2:4 serves as a transition from the first seven days and a heading for what comes after.
Firstly, the phrase “in the day” – refers to the seven days. There is no number and it is neither connected with evening or morning. So the usage determines it is a summary of the first seven days.
These natural headings found through Genesis to introduce major portions (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2) referred to as toldot in Hebrew, meaning generations, tend to begin with “the history of…” or “the account of” or the “generations of… ” and then the name. Here it is the history or “the generations of the heavens and the earth”. As a title it refers to what became of the person or in this case what became of the heavens and earth – as we’ll find out it became cursed because of sin. “The first toldot is sometimes called “The Tablet of Adam.””
God The Planter
God forms an area he calls Eden, meaning delight, and planted a garden in the east of it. A delight to the Lord is paradise for us. Indeed, the word garden (paradeisos in the Septuagint) is the same word as paradise. “Paradise is a place of blessing, one unsullied by sin.”[3] Paradise is “a Persian loan word, originally meaning a royal park” (Wenham). It was the garden of Eden, it was the “paradise of delight.” It was humanity’s central sanctuary of the cosmos.
Eden is often imagined as the garden alone, but the garden was of Eden, as a palace garden is planted within its many acres. The descriptive layout of Eden becomes more interesting as we read through the biblical story.
Elsewhere in scripture this paradise is referred to as “the garden of God” (Ezek 28:13;31:8,9) and “the garden of Yahweh” (Gen 13:10; Isa 51:3). Genesis 2 is careful not use these terms. Hamilton reasons it is, “perhaps to refrain from giving the impression that this garden is where God lives. He is its planter, but not its occupant.”[4] The author of Genesis 2 wanted the reader to gaze upward to heavens throne, as the life and home giver. As we will discover, this does not mean that the Son of God did not fellowship in the garden.
In verse 5 and 6 we observe three geographic terms, and two terms for vegetation. Shrub or “bush” refers to the bushy inedible plants. “Small plants” are the wild and cultivated edible plants. At first glance it appears to contradict the timing of the creation of vegetation in chapter 1:9-13. But it is the “bush” and “small plants” in the “ground” or “land” rather than “earth”. Earth ['ereṣ] is contrasted with heaven, ground ['ăḏāmâ] is usually part or parts of the earth, that is agricultural.[5] The focus of this scene is the garden, so it this land not the earth in general, that types of vegetation had not yet sprung up. Outside the cultivated land we observe the “plain” or “field” (śāḏê) (2.19,20) - open uncultivated land, home to wild animals to graze. The field is harder to work and man must cultivate to stop it becoming a field once more.
This vegetation had not yet sprung up because as verse 5 says, firstly, “YHVY Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth ['ereṣ]”. Secondly, at this point “there was no man to work the ground” (5). If you argue that the vegetation of verse 5 is referring to the whole earth, then it would mean the entire globe would be unclothed with greenery until either Adam or his children worked it.
Regarding rain, it is not referring to the garden alone, but the whole earth ['ereṣ] had seen none at this point. Does this mean there was no rain until Noah’s day? Not necessarily. Lack of rain is connected with the lack of man, therefore once man was created, God would then send rain for cultivation.[6] Living in the North of England, rain can seem like a nemesis, but biblically, rain is a blessing.
To water the land, it says “a mist was going up”. NET translates “Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.” Early translations such as the Septuagint would also translate as “springs”. Hamilton translates: “groundwater came up from the underworld”.[7] The reason being According to the NET notes: “The Hebrew word אֵד (ʾed) was traditionally translated “mist” because of its use in Job 36:27.” Wenham points out, the translation in Job 36 “denotes water coming down from the sky, whereas here it is said to rise from the earth.”[8] The etymology of the word “in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context, since this water “goes up” and waters the ground.”(NET bible notes)
This midst or springs from subterranean waterways was perhaps the method to hydrate the ground during the creation week before man was formed from it.
Another consideration is that of the water cycle: the process of evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation. It is unlikely the world’s water supply would not have been continually recycled until 1600+ years after creation.
Verses 5-7 are one long Hebrew sentence closing with the formation and animation of man. Verse 8 is a summary statement. “And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (v8). 9-15 follows with more detail.
Some scholars propose the garden was planted after the creation of man, following the provision of food in Gen 1:29, which was given after the creation of man.[9] It could be, that God had formed the garden but not sprung up certain edible vegetation yet. Either way, we will firstly look at the garden, before turning to the creation of man.
Two Trees
Two trees as the focus
So, as a gift for man, God caused groundwater to rise up to the garden, to water his crop and soften the ground for agricultural purposes.
Three times within chapter 31, Ezekiel refers to the “trees of Eden” (Ezek 31:9,16,18), even the “cedars in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8). These trees [some of which were astonishingly big in my own mind] would form a canopy over the garden under which relationship could grow.[10]
Of all the trees in the garden, only two things are said: “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (9). Aesthetically pleasing, bearing edible fruit. Apparently some cedars have edible berries.
Among the trees, there is a focus on two: The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. These trees are not metaphors any more than the trees in your garden are not metaphors.
Tree of life
The tree of life is not magical. The Tree could have been created with natural healing properties, but the spotlight in Genesis 2 is not the power of the tree, but the planter of the tree. It is God who gives life, not the tree itself. They do not receive eternal life from the tree, any more than the Levites received atonement from the blood of the animals. It is the act of obedience, that God honours. In those actions of faith, God is gracious.
The Tree of Life would provide healing and rejuvenation for eternal life. Death was never meant for Man. Man was designed to live in his habitat forever, by perpetually regenerating through the fruit of the Tree of Life.
Some say eating once means they life forever. Personally, I think continuous eating means continuous sustenance and healing, fits better with scripture as a whole: Continuing to choose faith in God’s provision and means of salvation.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
God too had planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Again, these trees are not magical or begift supernatural powers – they are not independent of God – our response to his Word determines the outcome of eating.
Secondly, this was a good and fruitful tree, though once its fruit was tasted, it would lead to the knowledge of good and evil. God did not place a bad tree in the garden with poisonous fruit. But if eaten, consequences would follow.
I teach my young children, there are two trees: The Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge (for short) – because the Tree of Knowledge of Good of Evil is a long title, and they are less likely to remember it.
Tree of Life - simple.
Tree of knowledge and.... It's going to get complicated... with knowledge of good and evil... If you choose this option, it’s going to get long and complicated.
Good and evil, is God’s perspective. Things that foster life, and things that ruin life. For him or again him.
Meaning of eating
Eating the the fruit from the Tree of Life, leads to life – eternal life.
Eating the fruit from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, leads to knowledge of good and evil.
What does “knowledge of good and evil” mean? Suggestions include: 1. A description of the consequences of obeying or disobeying. To obey would mean to know good, and to disobey would mean to know evil. But it’s not as though there is only one tree – there is the tree of life. Neither is one tree called ‘the knowledge of good’ and the other ‘the knowledge of evil’. The knowledge of the tree is only for God – hence not to eat. They do not receive knowledge of good (or otherwise) by not eating. 2. The suggestion that it means moral discernment. Hamilton does reveal this phrase, “is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision.”[11] But man was already endowed with moral discernment as the image of God. So, it seems it must be more than this. 3. Could it mean sexual knowledge? Which sounds reasonable because they were naked and not ashamed, like children. But sex was a gift from God within the marriage covenant not forbidden, in fact commanded. 4. Meaning omniscience, as if good and evil encompasses all knowledge. We’ll discover that this was far from the result – shame, knowledge of vulnerability/nakedness. 5. That it means a wisdom or insight. But why would a certain wisdom or insight be forbidden from man? Wisdom is something that God has, is lacking in children and something that God “gives generously to all” (Jam 1:5). But as Wenham points out “the wisdom literature also makes it plain that there is a wisdom that is God’s sole preserve, which man should not aspire to attain (e.g., Job 15:7-9, 40; Prov 30:1-4)”. Angelic creatures for example – there is a lot we do not know, and are forbidden from knowing. The fullness of the wisdom of God and the universe is something that we cannot and should not know.
Paul spoke of a “wisdom of the world” (1 Cor 1:20), a foolish wisdom that seeks knowledge independent of God, and with this new insight comes more foolish wisdom propped up by the pride you developed. Quoting Isaiah, Paul says: “For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (1 Cor 1:20:19 cf. Isaiah 29:14)
In chapter three it says the “tree was to be desired to make one wise” (3:6).
Ezekiel 28 (which we’ll come on) that speaks of the fall – refers to Adam’s wisdom 7 times. He was “full of wisdom” (v12) but says you “corrupted your wisdom” (v17) to become godlike (v2-3).
Wenham says, “To pursue it without reference to revelation is to assert human autonomy, and to neglect the fear of the LORD which is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7).” A self-sufficient knowledge independent from God is that which is forbidden, a capacity of which eating from the Tree of knowledge would lead to.
Reference and narrative
Reference to The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil only appears twice in the OT and within the same chapter (2:9,17). The Tree of Life on the other hand is found multiple times, notably four times in the final book of the bible (Rev 2:7,22:2,14,19). This should tell us something about the grand narrative of the scriptures.
Tree of Life is used symbolically of life, blessing, righteousness, in the book of Proverbs (3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4). Trees remain green in summer when there is no rain.
The Tree of Life is referenced in pagan literature, but the Tree of Knowledge is nowhere to be found outside of Genesis 2.[12] Satan wouldn’t wish to include consequences now would he… while obsessing over immortality, necessarily apart from God – but the tree is not magic in and of itself. Sarna tells us, “The preoccupation with death was the most characteristic feature of Egyptian civilization to the prominence of which the mighty pyramids still bear eloquent testimony.”[13]
Breaking away from pagan mythology, The Tree of Life is not overly emphasised. Righteous Living not death, is the focus; morality, not immortality; a right relationship with God, not magic powers. The thrill and the tension and the suspense of story lies within the purposes of God and the free choice of man. [see Sarna]
positioning of the trees
These two trees are positioned “in the midst of the garden” (v9). The “midst” does not convey the exact centre but rather a prominent place within the central area. It is of note that they are prominent and not obscured along the perimeter. They are on display, an obvious sign pointing to the planter, and the free accessible choice. Good, evil. Obedience, disobedience. Gratitude with Life from God, or envious of the capacity to self-govern. Still, to this day, with a full belly of disobedience, man searches the perimeter for “trees of life”.
With a central position, Dillman says, “the tree of life is an essential mark of a perfect garden where God dwells”[14]
What kind of trees were they? We are left wondering, but various fruit trees have been suggested. Perhaps they were distinct kinds from all known trees.
The Lay of the land
“Garden” rather than “paradise” is the popular chosen translation for two main reasons. Firstly, because it is a land with greenery, but secondly because the garden was enclosed by secure boundaries with its only entrance located in the East. It was designed to face the sunrise.
Four rivers flowed down to water the garden, providing life to their designated regions.[15] The first river of Pishon, “flowed around the whole land of Havilah” (v11) where there is pure gold, bdellium - sweet smelling resin from camphor plants,[16] and onyx stone. Pishon is mentioned nowhere else in scripture.[17] Rabbidic tradition has it as the Nile.[18] Havilah is found elsewhere in scripture as both a person and place. Havilah is one of five sons of Cush (Gen. 10:7), and Havilah is possibly in the region of central Arabia (Gen 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7). The second river is the Gihon which, “flowed around the whole land of Cush” which today is the region of the Upper Nile (south of Egypt) or Ethiopia. There is a spring mentioned in the scriptures in Jerusalem at the foot of mount Olives named the Gihon spring (1 Kings, 1:33,38,45; 2 Chr.32:30; 33:14). I have walked Hezekiah’s’ tunnel through which the spring flows down to the Pool of Siloam, at the south end of the old city of David.
The reader would understand the Tigris and Euphrates, so these could be post-flood markers. For this reason most place Eden in Mesopotamia.[19] But the topography, even the direction in which the rivers flowed could differ pre-flood. Noah and his descendants could have named these two rivers after the ones that existed before them.
On balance, Eden then, was situated between pre-flood Egypt and Mesopotamia. Sailhammer, concludes the promised land of Israel is the location of Eden.[20] Jewish tradition connects Eden with Mount Moriah on which the Temple was built in Israel.[21] Jerusalem is very possibly the original location of the garden, with a somewhat different landscape than today.
Eden is not listed as a region of precious metals and stones. The ground may have contained these, but it had been set apart for worship and not mining. Precious metals and stones were displayed in Eden (Ex. 25:7-31; Ezek. 28:13), but it was the elementary means of living: water, food, fresh air that were abundant.
paradisal-Temple of Eden
Upstream the rivers join from one source fed from a fresh-water spring in the heart of Eden. What would be the focus within the Garden of Eden? The bible is not explicit in the second chapter of Genesis, though swallowing the scriptures as a whole, what transpired becomes apparent.
We know the LORD himself would “walk” around the garden (Gen 3:8), who we understand as the Son of God, the preincarnate Jesus. The language used here is that of God dwelling, or communing, in the Garden sanctuary. We learn later that the purpose of a sanctuary (synonymous with temple) is so that God could “dwell in their midst” (Ex. 25:8). The Hebrew word used for walking (mithallekh) in Genesis 3:8 is the same to describe God’s presence in the tabernacle (Deu. 23:14; 2 Sam. 7:6-7). In Deuteronomy 12, the sanctuary is a place to “put his name and make his habitation” (v5) and “to make his name dwell there” (v11). Also, this same verb is used in reference to God “walking” around and protecting the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 13:21; Ex. 14:19;).
In addition, this same Hebrew verb is used to describe the close fellowship of God with men. Enoch “walked with God” (Gen. 5:22,24), and “Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). God would say to Abram “walk before me” (Gen. 17:1). The garden then, was a Holy habitat, where God’s name is planted, and conditionals were set for man to commune with God face to face, in worship and adoration.
As well as describing Eden as a temple sanctuary, Ezekiel depicts within it, “the holy mountain of God” (Ezek. 28:14) with “stones of fire” (vv14). Rivers flow downhill, therefore a mountain sanctuary would fit the picture. Psalm 36:7-9 also associates the temple with Eden[22]. A sanctuary dedicated unto God is a holy place set apart to be pure and undefiled. It would follow that only a throne within an inner temple structure, situated upon His “holy mountain” (Eze. 28:14) would complete the picture. The “fountain of life” (Ps. 36:9) would flow from the earthly throne of God streaming living-water down into the Edenic delta.
The garden though, as focal point of earth was not the capital from which God ruled. For that, he would delegate to Man to mediate the earthly kingdom. It was “the garden of God” and potentially “the earthly throne of God,” but it was granted for man to rule from. If you replace the word “of” with “from” it makes more sense[23]. It was “of God” given to man. Vlach explains that the earth was designed as the, “realm for God’s mediatorial Kingdom. Yet the new world needed a ruler. Yes, God was King and could directly rule over this new kingdom himself, but this was not His plan.”[24]
Similarities between the Edenic sanctuary and subsequent Temples include: Both are orientated Eastward with a tripartite layout (Ex. 27:16, Num. 3:38; Ezek. 40:6); The temple of Eden, of Jerusalem, and eschatological temple are stationed on a mountain (Ezek 28:14,16; Ex. 15:17; Ezek. 40:2; 43:12; Rev 21:10); Rivers flow from the Edenic and Eschatological temples (Ezek. 47:1-12; Rev 22:1-2); Both are associated with precious metals and stones (Ex. 25,28; 1 Kings 6; 1 Chron. 29). We have seen that they are places where God’s presence dwelt (Gen 3:8; Ex. 25:8; Deu. 12:4); Both must be cleansed of sin (Lev. 16:16); Like Eden, all future temples include Cherubim (Ex. 25: 17-22; 1 Kings 8:6-7; Ezek. 41:18); Fire will become an element to guard the Edenic entrance (Gen 3:24), and fire would also be an expression of God in the wilderness (Ex. 12:9), and would burn perpetually in the sanctuary (Ex. 27:20-21); Men are told to “work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15; Num. 3:7-8); The ‘bread of the Presence’ (Ex. 25:30) in later temples reflected the food for Adam to sustain him in the garden. Subsequent temples were filled with garden imagery (also see Ps. 52:10; Ps. 92:13-14). For example, the Menorah, the temple lampstand, with branches, were adorned with flowers and “cups made like almond blossoms” (Ex. 25:31-40). Two tree-like pillars, that are given the names Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21), positioned at the entrance of latter temples are reminiscent of the two prominent trees in the garden. Perhaps a more popular view is that the Menorah and the law represent the Tree of Life and The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, respectively.
The structure of Eden was made in the image of the heavenly temple complex. Harrigan explains: “The combination of Genesis, Revelation, and the prophets all paint a picture that I believe was clear in the minds of New Testament writers (cf. Luke 24:51; 2 Cor. 12:2; Heb. 8-10; Rev. 15; etc.) – that God ruled over creation from a paradisal-temple in the height of the heavens, and humans were created in his image as kingly priests to rule over the earth from the paradisal-temple of Eden. The heavens and the earth were created to enhance the glory of God as reflected in the creation of humankind, and consequently the two realities organically correspond to one another.”
The paradasial-temple of Eden was not a prototype that future temples would develop upon. This was the finest and original image-bearing Temple sanctuary for the earth, planted by God, not man. Future temples would be copies, not of Eden but of the heavenly one, yet they would not come close to the beauty and majesty of the original Garden of God.
Eden throughout scripture is “pictured as a fertile area, a well-watered oasis with large trees growing… a sign of God’s presence in and blessing on Eden.”
The rivers, including familiar names, express that life spread out from Eden, specifically a family garden, into all the earth, every direction, and ultimately all these nations come from the same living water. A reminder to the Israelites to treat all human life as sacred and to have love for all peoples.
The Creation of Man
Now the garden temple is complete, it is ready to be populated and delivered to his new creation.
The crowning glory of his creation comes last: Mankind, with the woman as the pinnacle of all. But rather than forming two beings in the garden, he begins with one, outside of it.
Fruchtenbaum suggests that the picture is that of Adam being created west of the garden, but within the region of Eden, and then placed in the garden on the east.[25] It is possible he was formed outside of garden because it had not been created yet. If so, did he watch the LORD form his paradisal delight? Did this first man observe the garden sanctuary of the original city of peace descend from heaven upon the mountain of the LORD? It would mean that the woman was made after both the man and Garden were formed.
Man is made from existing material God had spoken into existence. He forms with what he had created. Hamilton masterfully puts: “The word of God (1:26ff.) is now augmented by the work of God (2:7), a work that includes both formation and animation.”[26]
Formation
Made in and from the rougher terrain outside the garden, is somewhat reflected in the creation of the masculine form.
Throughout the scriptures God is seen to shape or form animals (2:19; Ps 104:26), land (Ps 95:5), mountains (Amos 4:13), the course of history (Isa 22:11; Jer 33:2). Most prominently seen as shaping man from the dust or the womb (Isa 44:2,24), and forming man’s character for God’s purposes (Isa 43:21; 44:21).[27]
Here man is described as clay in the potter’s hand[28], “formed” out of the “dust of the ground” (2v7). Moulding him with His own hands reveals the LORD God’s deep care and attention in this creative process, forming a family with an intention to commune with.
Dust or clay does not imply the frailty of man, but rather the raw material as a starting point to create from. That the material was malleable, points to the potential malleability throughout man’s life, dependent upon the softness of their heart toward God’s Word. Picturing the potter doesn’t mean it was a repetitive, and monotonous work, but pointing to the care, preparation, skill, planning, craftsmanship of his creation. As well as “God’s absolute mastery over man”.[29]
Man is possessed with dignity, power, and purpose, within a sphere of freedom.
Dust speaks immediately of man’s humble beginnings, his undeniable dependency on God, and as we’ll discover, where he his body will return, and the serpents judgement. Dust will later be frequently connected with ash, becoming symbolic of humility and repentance[30], judgement[31], death[32], the poor,[33] and the position God exalts men from.[34]
This first man was raised to life from the dust.
Fruchtenbaum notes that “rabbinic view is that the dust was collected from the future site of the altar to symbolise that the altar would make atonement for man’s sins.”[35] Interesting!
Animation
Once formed, a lifeless body lies ready to be animated. The LORD God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” and only then did he become a “living creature” (v7). Though, Man is no ordinary creature.
Within the OT, two Hebrew words are used for “breath”: ruakh and nishmat[36]. Ruakh meaning “breath, wind, spirit” can be applied to God (the Spirit), man, animals, and false gods (demonic beings). Genesis 2:7 uses “breath” (nishmat) “of life” (khayyim) which is only directly applied to Yahweh and man. This “breath, spirit, soul, of life” is a term set apart for man above all creatures.
Animals are given the “breath of life” (nishmat ruakh khayyim, Gen 7:22) literally translated: “breath of the breath/spirit of life” which is different.[37] In Genesis 1:30 with regard the animals, the ESV uses the phrase “the breath of life” but the Hebrew nefesh khayyah means a living being that has breath, which again is different.
Man, gifted the divine “breath of life” (nishmat khayyim) becomes a living person.
Man’s spirit means God knows man from the inside out as proverb 20 explains: “The spirit (nishmat) of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts” (20:27). We learn further that, “it is the spirit (ruakh) in man, the breath (nishmat) of the Almighty, that makes him understand” (Job 32:8). Alluding to man’s conscience, the spirit gives understanding that allows man to know God. This understanding should also make us think about what words we breath out from our spirit. God breathed his life giving word into our lives, therefore, to expel life giving words, is in harmony and reflection of our creator.
Higher animals were made from the ground like man – but man is pictured as having been formed with hands, distinct in that he is made in the image of God and directly given the divine breath of life from God.
That Adam was raised to life by the spirit reveals something about his identity and calling. Hamilton connects this raising to life with royalty: “To ‘be raised from the dust’ means to be elevated to royal office, to rise above poverty, to find life… He is raised from the dust to reign.”[38] Lamentations 4 records the people referring to King Zedekiah as, “The breath of our nostrils, the Lord's anointed” (v20). Adam was a royally anointed man.
Eternal soul, given by God, for relationship
Breathing life into his nostrils, forever reminds those on earth that it is He “who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it” (Isa 42:5) and it is upon his will for it to be removed. The book of Job reveals, “If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit (ruakh) and his breath (nishmat), all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14-15).
Once created this personal spirit is an eternal living soul facilitating eternal fellowship with God. The soul, breathed into body with an upright posture, reflects the likeness of God himself and is what binds man’s deepest thoughts to the knowledge and prospect of a relationship with him.
This spirit filled man, speaks of a new humanity to come, the one-new-man brought to life at Pentecost, and the body brought to life at the eschatological Pentecost, led by the Spirit filled new Adam.
His Name, Adam
Adam ('adam) is understood to be both a personal name and used generically for mankind.[39] For this reason the ESV translates 'adam in Genesis 1 and 2 as “man” except for the latter part of chapter 2 where it translates 'adam as “Adam” (2:20). In the Garden looking for a suitable mate, the personal name Adam is fitting.
Adam literally means earthling. Prager explains that, “Adam derives from the word for earth, adama.”[40] For clarity and consistency, it’s not earth, 'ereṣ, but 'ăḏāmâ which we recognised as ground, which is local rather than global (though it can be used interchangeably hence the variations in translations). But of course, the context is local – the garden so, groundling from the ground, or earthling from the earth, both work. It’s a Hebrew play on words.
Named by God, Adam then is profoundly connected to the ground he has been given. They are inseparable. Both the first man, and mankind corporately, are called after the dusty earth we were formed from – “man”.
Adam is representative of humanity. Created and named alone, this one man constitutes the entire world. Creating one, creates them all. Jewish commentator Dennis Prager says: “Therefore was Adam created singly to teach us that he who saves one life it is as if he saved an entire world, and he who destroys one life it is as if he destroyed an entire world.”[41] Worth thinking about.
Keeping the garden
Once formed and filled with spirit, God placed Adam in the garden sanctuary. Hours would pass before the creation of his wife, to instruct him, deliver the commandments, and to name the animals.
That he was created outside of garden from the dust (though it be “very good” dust), conveys a real privilege to dwell in the presence of the Lord within it. A privilege that was not without its duties.
Like any sanctuary, the garden sanctuary would require a priest. Adam is painted as the Edenic high-priest.
Adam’s role in the garden was “to work it (ʿāḇaḏ) and keep it (šāmar)” (Gen. 2:15). This specific word-pair is found elsewhere in scripture to describe the duties of the priests who work the temple. Beale explains, “The two Hebrew words are usually translated ‘serve and guard [or keep]’ elsewhere in the Old Testament.”[42] He continues that this phrase is found “elsewhere referring only either to Israelites ‘serving’ God and ‘guarding’ (keeping) God’s word (approximately 10 times), or to priests who ‘keep’ the ‘service’ (or ‘charge’) of the tabernacle (5 times).”[43]
So, ‘work’ (‘ābad) can be translated ‘to serve’. Man is there to serve, not to be served.[44]
Work was initiated from the beginning. Eden was not Tivoli Gardens, like a playground of entitlement, entertainment, and endless pleasure. In the garden sanctuary there were duties to fulfil. This is not a magic garden that maintains itself. It requires stewardship.
An initial glance may point to a calling in respect to agricultural work. While this may be an aspect of his role, these two words used in connection are seen throughout the bible to describe the role of priests[45]. Any gardening required of Adam was in the context of serving as a priest in the temple. Like any temple, it would require maintenance, and gardening would be part of maintaining the order of the temple or sanctuary.
God created mature wild plants and trees three days earlier but on day six when man is created God causes the small plants in the garden to spring up. The garden was not a pleasure land, it was to be worked and kept. It was Adam’s Job as steward of the garden to till the land. God sends the rain, and man tills the land. Without both, the land would turn to a desert.
He was a royal-priest who should not be afraid to get his hands dirty. Not to the point of sweating, gruelling work, which would only come about after the fall. But man is designed to work from the get-go.
The verb ‘keep’ (šāmar) has a root meaning to “exercise great care over”, “keep guard”, “watch over”, “to protect”. The garden as Hamilton puts it, “is something to be protected more than it is something to be possessed.”[47] Pastors, priests, elders – listen up. I believe this is one of keys to solid leadership in the coming days. Forget your stack of modern leadership books for a moment – put them aside. On occasion I’ve witnessed more compassion over wolves and snakes, than I have the flock in the past 12 months. We need to get to grips with what it means to guard the sanctuary.
The book of Numbers depicts the priests guarding the sanctuary so that nothing unclean can enter (Num 3,18). “As they minister” the Levitical priests were to “guard (šāmar) all the furnishings” and “keep guard over the people” (3:8). Not only that but they were to “guard their priesthood” and “if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death” (3:10; cf. 18:7). [Don’t twist my words here- we don’t follow the OT priestly ordinances – the point is,] This was a role of great responsibility. If they did not “kept guard over the sanctuary” (18:5 c.f. Num. 3:32) the wrath of God would fall on the people.
In 1 Chron 9, priests are called “guards” and “gatekeepers” who surrounded “the four sides” (24) of the sanctuary. They “were entrusted to be over the chambers and the treasures of the house of God. And they lodged around the house of God, for on them lay the duty of watching” (26-27). These guards were to ensure “that no one should enter who was in any way unclean” (2 Chron 23:19).
In Ezekiel we read: “Yet I will appoint them to keep charge of the temple, to do all its service and all that is to be done in it.” (Ezek. 44:14) The same verse is translated in the New Living Translation as: “They are to serve as the Temple caretakers, taking charge of the maintenance work and performing general duties.” The picture is one of a warden or caretaker.
Beale goes on to note of Gen. 2:15 that “The Aramaic translation… underscores this priestly notion of Adam, saying that he was placed in the Garden ‘to toil in the Law and to observe its commandments’”.[48] He asserts that, “the writer of Genesis 2 was portraying Adam against the later portrait of Israel’s priests, and that he was the archetypal priest who served in and guarded (or ‘took care of’) God’s first temple.”[49]
What or whom might he be guarding the garden from? Unclean animals and future people who do not keep the law…?
This priestly phrase is immediately followed in verse 16, (as we will see in a moment) with the giving of the commandments. This pattern of commandments as the backdrop of these two words “work/serve” and “keep/guard” is found elsewhere in scripture in the context of the temple and priestly function.[50] Guarding the sanctuary is to ensure obedience to commandment of God.
Brian Pizzalato argues that Adam was the priest-father of humanity: “Beginning with Adam, we have a familial priesthood which is meant to be passed on from the father to the first-born son, thus making him the father-priest of the family. The father-priest was meant to lead the family in covenant worship.”[51]
We learn from the NT that “every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices” (Heb. 8:3). Aside from offerings, Pizzalato points to sacrifice of service: “Remember, God the Father created his first-born human son, Adam, a priest. Adam was called to offer the sacrifice of his very self for the sake of his bride, Eve.”[52] His priestly lifestyle was to be one of self-sacrifice.
There is an interesting nuance of the selection of Hebrew words used for ‘putting’ Adam in the garden. In verse 8 the typical word for “put” is used, but in verse 15, although it is translated as “put” in the ESV, the Hebrew word is different. Beale explains: “Genesis 2:15 is not the usual Hebrew word for ‘put’ (śûm) but is the word typically translated as ‘to rest’ (nûah).”[53] He continues that these “overtones of ‘rest’ may indicate that Adam was to begin to reflect the sovereign rest of God… and that he would achieve a consummate ‘rest’ after he had faithfully performed his task of ‘’taking care of and guarding’ the garden.”[54] A ‘consummate rest’ was in touching distance.
Like Adam, Israel will be formed outside, and put into the resting place God had prepared.
Keeping the commandments
Immediately after instructing Adam in his priestly role, the LORD God draws Adam’s attention to the two prominent trees. Whom we understand as the Son of God, commanded Adam to keep the law of the land: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).
This is first time we observe the Hebrew word for “command” in scripture. The form which literally translates “you shall not eat” resembles the form of the ten commandments.
Human autonomy is ruled out. This law given to Adam, could not be altered just as the law given to the Israelites could not (Deu 4:2). The tablets of the law placed in the ark of the covenant under the mercy seat, representing the throne of God – were not to be touched or seen, otherwise they would die. The forbidden tree could be seen, and even touched, but not consumed. You have been told the law, you do not need to obtain it, so that you can change it.
Straightforward boundaries have been set and thus the status quo of the garden is conditional. Man is forbidden from deciding for himself what is good and what is bad. It is for God alone to calibrate law that includes morality and decide what is in the best interest of Man. God delegates roles and tasks, but it is within the framework of God’s universal law. Man should not attempt to tamper with the framework.
Man was not independent of God, and in ignoring the prohibition would be to declare himself so.
The purpose of laws, even within a paradise, is to show how to live with a holy God.
Man is given freedom within the context of choice and expectation of obedience. Unlike automated robots, God’s law is a blessing of choice, and a reflection of right and wrong. They are given the option to choose life or death; obedience or sin; opportunity to express worship toward God, or worship of his creation. “The purpose of the prohibition was the test of recognition of and submission to the will of God.” (Ariel’s). It will test their hearts.
Adam’s freedom must be underscored. From Fatherly provision he is permitted to eat from any tree and forbidden to eat from just one. His permission far outweighs his prohibition.
The Tree of Life was a freely given gift. Adam was not told that if he worked hard enough, he could earn access to the Tree of Life. It was not an award for good works, but a genuine offer of eternal life. In response to this gift, Adam was expected to keep the law of God.
Choosing not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil meant a continuation of the blessings bestowed upon him. Eating from the Tree, means a removal of blessings, and an introduction of curses.
Verse 17 literally reads: “for in the day that you eat of it dying you shall die.” The latter phrase is an idiom that stresses the certainty of death. Fourteen times this phrase “dying you shall die” is used in the OT. It does not mean he will be put to death, but that on eating he will certainly die. It refers to a death sentence by divine or royal decree.[56] For those who may object to death as a punishment for breaking God’s law, one must understand that sin is so heinous before a holy God that He has the right to destroy sinful man at any time. We will return to the meaning of this idiom once Adam has sinned.
Adam had not experienced death so how would he know what God meant? We have not experienced the ultimate hellish judgement, but we understand the gravity and the general concept of the punishment. Adam was aware that he had just been created from the ground and given the breath of life, and he would grasp some understanding of what it means to lose that life on earth. God is not being intentionally ambiguous. He expressed the need-to-know of the consequences. In addition, there is no record of Adam questioning the commandment and therefore there is an assumption that he understood.
Man was created from the ground, tasked to cultivate it, and if he transgresses the law he will return to it.
The law was delivered personally by God to the head of humankind. Therefore, God’s law is personal. Equally, breaking it, is personal.
In summary of the last two headings, Adam was instructed to keep both the garden and the commandment.
As the warden in charge of the sanctuary, Beale determines: “would not this management also logically include Adam’s teaching of God’s Law (from Gen. 2:16-17) to Eve in order that they both would help one another to obey, so that spiritual chaos might not set in?”[57]
Adam then, was to guard the garden from sin and defilement; To guard God’s Word, entrance the garden, and the two notable trees. He was to live sacrificially and to serve and offer sacrifice to the Lord God. As the resident priest, he was to cultivate and maintain the order, physically and spiritually.
Covenant & Probation
Some recognise Adam’s encounter with God in Genesis 2 as a covenant.
Speaking about Israel’s unfaithfulness, Hosea says: “like Adam they transgressed the covenant” (Hos 6:7). Andrew Dearman recognises the possibly that Hosea is referring to the personal Adam of the garden of Eden. Fruchtenbaum refers to it as the Edenic Covenant, though he suggests it includes the words spoken in the first chapter.[58] Others point to Genesis two and refer to it as the Adamic Covenant.
Biblical covenants are either conditional or unconditional. The Adamic Covenant is conditional: Obedience means blessing, transgression means curses. It is contingent upon his response to God’s word.
Adam is not declared holy at this point. Only the seventh day is mentioned as being declared holy. He was made perfect and holy but his holiness had not yet been validated. Adam was to be tested for a probationary period.
This concept is not explicit in the text, but a holistic approach to the scriptures confirms this probationary period. Fruchtenbaum acknowledges, “The test was for a probationary period only… Theologically, this means man was created in a state of unconfirmed, creaturely holiness; and he was given the ability to contrary choice;”[59]
He must choose to love the LORD God and in doing so obey him. If Adam passes the test, his status of holiness would have been verified, and from then on, he would not have the ability to sin. Unlike Adam we were not born with the ability not to sin, but you could say we are on a lifetime probation of sorts – we are justified before God, we're in the process of being made holy - sanctification; but ultimately we await the hope of resurrection- when we are re-bodied (if you have died) and verified holy, when we will be in a condition that means we will not be able to sin. The Angelic creatures went through a similar probationary period before being declared holy or evil.
If Adam passes the test, he would give birth to righteous children born without sinful nature, and therefore the expansion of life that God calls good, and therefore fulfilling his role and calling.
The Roles of Adam
The roles of Adam were many. His status was second to none.
A Son of God
Being a spontaneous creative act, having no biological father, Adam was the “son of God” (Luke 3:38) (not to be confused with the second person of the trinity). Adam was not begotten, but created directly from God, the first-born human son of God, and this title or status is one to esteem.
As the son of God, everyone after him would be the son of Adam, therefore righteous and regal.
Prophet
Adam was the first prophet, speaking on behalf of God, naming the animals, delivering his law, and passing down the commission of Gen 1:28 for all humanity. The LORD would possibly, perhaps likely have given an oral memorisation of the zodiac for Adam to pass down through the generations. It could be that at the beginning, as the heavenly clock started between the lion and the woman he would picture the start and the end, full of mystery, set for further revelation.
Priest-King of Ezekiel 28
We have already seen the royal and priestly connection. Ezekiel 28 reveals more about Adam’s Edenic status.
For context, Ezekiel is writing in exile in Babylon – The people of Israel were stunned at the fall of Jerusalem, but held out hope that the resistance of the city of Tyre to the Babylonian siege could turn the tide. It is this false optimism, and human pride that Ezekiel challenges and rebukes.
Ezekiel 28:11-19 can be a particularly complex passage, which includes a final prophecy against the city of Tyre. In verse 1-10 God through Ezekiel rebukes the ruler or king of Tyre for claiming to be a god. From verse 11 -19 is then a “lamentation” over the authority and splendour of the “king of Tyre” who has now “come to a dreadful end” (19). Ezekiel relates his present day to the events in Eden. He’s fusing the story of the priest-king of Tyre with the story of the priest-king of Eden.
Chiefly because of the mention of a cherub, Ezekiel 28 is often connected with Satan and his fall from grace rather than the fall of Adam. These passages are then connected with Isaiah 14 and in turn with Luke 10:18 and Rev. 12:8,9. The Satanic element in these Old Testament chapters is widely believed, it’s what Michael S. Heiser believes - who has shot to fame of late,[60] and it is what I believed from a causal study until I was challenged, initially by the scholarly work of Daniel Block. What if Ezekiel 28 is not speaking about Satan, but Adam? What if Isaiah 14 is not primarily about Satan? It means we have developed wrong ideas about Satan, and missed the picture the bible paints of Adam in Eden. I understand Ezekiel 28 to refer to Adam, which we will assume, the reasons of which I will briefly explain throughout here, and we’ll touch on again when we turn to Genesis chapter three.
First, let’s consider the priestly and kingly elements of following verses:
You were the signet of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.” (12b-16 ESV)
And it continues with the fall from grace of this individual.
Regal
Adam (not Satan), is being referred to as a seal, or signet. Seals were the mark of authority, to form a pledge, authenticate a letter or legal papers.[61] Adam was the signet from the Most High as the kingly image bearer acting on God’s behalf. Daniel Block affirms that verse 12 “suggests that this signet was deputized to represent divinity in paradise.”[62] He says the phrase ‘the signet of perfection,’ “recalls the creation of the first man as the representative and deputy of God.”[63] Adam not Satan is the corresponding authority in the garden.
Twice it mentions the creation of Adam: “On the day that you were created” (13) “from the day you were created” (15). The use of the verb bara' (created) in these verses, according to Block, “recalls the creation of the first human”.[64] He says, “the prophet’s primary concern is the occupant of the garden.”[65] Who was the occupant according to the scriptures – Adam. The snake slithered into his kingdom which is precisely the point of the fall and failings of Adam.
In fact, if this was referring to Satan, why is the serpent not referred to? Elements of Adam in the garden from Genesis 1-3 can be seen but nothing of this picture refers back to the scenes of the serpent. Surely that would be the focal point? No terms for Satan are used in Ezekiel 28.
As well as functional, ancient signets were crafted as a work of art. Adam too was skilfully created into the “signet of perfection… perfect in beauty”. Beauty can encompass all good attributes. In additional he was “full of wisdom” and counted “blameless” in his ways. He was the beautiful, unblemished, authentic, noble, priest-king.
Earlier we saw that the LORD walked in the garden for the purposes of communing with man, and connected this verb with God’s fellowship with men such as Noah and Abraham. Ezekiel now uses the same verb in verse 14 saying Adam “walked” the garden. Immediately after this verse he adds that Adam was “blameless.” This is unsurprising but consider too that not only did “Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9) but he is described as “blameless”. God would say to Abram “walk before me, and be blameless” (Gen. 17:1). Noah and Abraham were to follow Adam’s original state (blameless) and close connection (walking) with the LORD. Again, this points to a man (Adam) not the cherub or Satan.
We observe the parallels of Adam being “put” in the garden: “I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God.” Isaiah 11 includes, “in all my holy mountain” (Isa. 11:9) which is a description of the restoration of Jerusalem unto the paradise of Eden. Mythology, (along with the mention of a northern mountain in Isaiah 14), persuades some to believe Ezekiel is referring to Mount Zaphon in northern Syria. Again, this stems from a demonological framework of the passage. On the contrary scholar Leslie Allen rebuts, “It is likely a polemical transfer to the sanctuary of Zion (cf. Ps 48:3[2]) was in Ezekiel’s mind, and that he projected it onto Tyre, where the king was traditionally also priest”[66]
It also means Adam is the one who it says: “you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.” This fits with the picture we painted earlier from Genesis 2 with the four rivers flowing from the mountain top spring. Block notes the possibility that “the garden is on the mountain”.[67] Allen translates this second sentence of v14: “On God’s sacred mountain you lived, and amidst blazing gems you walked about.”[68] These literal “blazing gems” or “stones of fire” as “symbols of glory” equate to more than a landscaped design upon the mountain. Adam was privileged to walk on this holy mountain, walking around - to guard, serve, watch, maintain, etc., in his role as priest-king. Again, these verse give us a glimpse as to what else may have existed on the holy mountain top. It is not reaching too far to say that a temple structure dedicated to God, with altars, and decorative work such as the “stones of fire” existed.[69] A throne too for Adam, the designated “signet of perfection”, the deputized priest-king, to rule from.
Priestly
A priest should be adorned appropriately. The nakedness of an unblemished man in an unblemished sanctuary was perfectly fitting. Yet God “prepared” on the sixth day of creation a glittering pectoral ready for Adam.
Adam was adorned with precious stones set in gold mountings. It is hard to miss the comparison with the Israelite priests who wore “four rows of precious stones” “mounted in gold filigree settings” on their “breastpiece” (Ex. 28:17-20; 39:8-14) [check translations]. Both here in Ezekiel and in Exodus describe the costly covering in a similar way. For example, Block explains, “(1) Both lists group the stones in triads, probably reflecting their arrangement in rows. (2) They start out identically with ̓ōdem [carnelian/ sardius] and piṭĕdâ [topaz]. (3) Ezekiel’s second triad is identical to the fourth triad in Exodus. (4) Although the order is reversed, in both texts sappîr [lapis lazuli/sapphire] and nōpek [turquoise/carbuncle] appear together.”[70]
Leslie Allen connects Adam with the priestly garment of Ezekiel 28 and his subsequent fall: “it credits the first man with wisdom and adorns him in bejeweled clothing and apparently leaves him dead”.[71] He continues the connection of the garment with the Israelite priests, noting the slight difference: “The listing of nine Jewels in a gold setting at v 13 is evidently borrowed from the catalog of twelve jewels mounted in gold which were attached to the high priest’s breast piece according to Exod 28:17-20; 39:10-12. The order is slightly different. The LXX reinforces the reference by listing all twelve stones.”[72]
Interesting, that on that last point, the translators of the Septuagint used in Jesus’ day clearly connected Ezekiel 28 with priestly garments.
The priestly connection is hard to miss, but I’d suggest the order the stones are different because the order of the priesthood was different. Adam was the priest-king of Eden, whereas the priest and kingly office for the Israelites were sperate. Akin to not just the priest-king of Tyre who at that time was misrepresenting the religion, but the mysterious figure Melchizedek, the legitimate priest-king of Salem, Jerusalem, who blessed Abram (Gen. 14:18–20). And who follows this order: Jesus who occupies the offices of king and priest, “after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). The order of the second Adam corresponds to the order of the first Adam. The first Adam’s reign would be cut short through sin and death, the last Adam’s reign is eternal. Adam’s garment is a king’s garment as well as priestly one – so it’s slightly different according to the order. We would expect then, Adam to wear a costly priestly covering similar, but somewhat different to the Israelites. Ezekiel 28 paints this picture. I’m not familiar with anyone making that full connection between the order of the stones and the order of the priesthood, but I’d hang my hat on it… until someone shoots it off.
Later the twelve stones would represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Ex 28:21). For Adam, the twelve stones in four rows on a breastplate could represent the 12 constellations and four seasons. Clement of Alexandria wrote: “The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast, describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the year.”[73] Did Adam wear 12 stones, one for each primary picture of the zodiac that in turn each represent the tribes of Israel? The Sefer Yetzirah, (Book of Formation, or Book of Creation), one of the earliest Jewish books to be written which conveys how the things of our universe came into existence, suggests so.[74]
Adam not Satan
Those who picture Satan in this chapter point to references of the cherub (v14,16). Satan however is not described in the bible as a Cherub, a “sphinx-like creature of mixed animal and human appearance.”[76] Secondly, the translation of the two references of the cherub is admittedly tricky. Most translations read as though it was the cherub who was “placed” and “destroyed” (or expelled) and therefore the whole passage is about the origin and fall of an angelic creature. However, it can be understood that there are two beings, the cherub, and the man who the story revolves around. James Barr notes that the LXX translates v14 as “with the cherub I placed you.”[77] Of verse 16, Barr continues: “the cherub expels or destroys ‘you’ (the central person of the oracle) from among the stones of fire. The LXX again leads this way:… ‘And the cherub led you out from among the fiery stones’.” Some modern translations such as the NET follow suit. Verse 14 reads: “I placed you there with an anointed guardian cherub” (28:14 NET). And verse 16: “the guardian cherub expelled you”(v16 NET). Allen translates v14 as: “With a winged guardian cherub I set you.” And 16: “the guardian cherub banished you”.[78]
So, the cherub placed Adam in the garden, presumably under the order of the LORD God, and after the fall, the cherub expelled Adam, again under orders.
While Block prefers just one being in the garden of God, the cherub, he argues “the numerous allusions to Gen. 1-3 link this cherub with the first man, Adam of Gen. 2-3. This is most obvious in the setting of the second oracle in Eden, the garden of God. But echoes of the original Adam are evident in the characterization of the prince of Tyre in the first panel and the description of the cherub in the second.” So he sees the cherub as symbolic of man.
While Allen asserts: “it does speak of the garden of Eden and expulsion from it, of moral perfection before a fall and of one cherub who is the agent of expulsion”.[79]
Even if you appeal to the cherub’s function as a “guardian” this agrees with Gen 3 where the cherubim will guard over the entrance to the garden. No one is appealing to the cherubim of Gen 3 and referring to Satan. It makes sense that one of the two cherubim kicked the couple out and then they guarded the garden.
What’s more, the OT is awfully disinterested in demonology. Block explains that a connection between Ezekiel 28 and Satan (and with Isaiah 14) was a tradition developed around the second temple period, later promoted by Origen, and conservative Christians picked up the baton. He goes to say, “But those who interpret the oracle historically reject this approach. Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre.”[80]
Ezekiel is dealing with the human condition of pride and detailing the Edenic fall from grace, then connecting it with present day king of Tyre.
Listen to the words of Allen:
“The application of vv 11-19 to Satan by third and fourth century A.D. Church Fathers, Tertullian, Origen, John Cassian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome, and thence in some modern popular conservative expositions, is based on MT’s equation of the king and the cherub and on comparison with Isa. 14:12-15. It is a case of exegeting an element of Christian belief by means of Scripture and so endeavoring to provide it with extrabiblical warrant and to fit the passage into the framework of the Christian faith. However, it is guilty of detaching the passage from its literary setting (Ellison 108-9).”[81]
Ezekiel makes parallels with the human king of Tyre – created, a human, with a priestly and royal status, placed on the holy mountain, (and we all agree there is a fall from grace…) expelled and punished with death. Surely, this must be Adam.
Ezekiel 28 is connected Isaiah 14 which in turn is connected to Luke 10 and Rev 12 which do speak of Satan – but I’m not convinced this chapter of Isaiah is not referring to Satan.
John Oswalt’s in-depth commentary on Isaiah says this of chapter 14:
“Some of the church fathers, linking this passage to Luke 10:18 and Rev. 12:8,9 took it to refer to the fall of Satan described in those places. However, the great expositors of the Reformation were unanimous in arguing that the context here does not support such an interpretation. This passage is discussing human pride, which, while monumental to be sure, is still human and not angelic. In fact, it is this very characteristic which makes this passage of special interest.”[82]
Like Ezekiel 28, human pride is the overarching theme of the passage in Isaiah 14, this time addressed primarily to the Babylonian king who thought of himself as high as God.
Perhaps we will return to Isaiah 14 in future sessions, but to conclude this section, Satan is believed to be the “morning star” in verse 12. Morning star in Latin is translated “Lucifer”, and so once the connection was made, we gave Satan the name Lucifer.
Isaiah 14 could be alluding to the garden of Eden and the great fall of Adam. Oswalt says that the fall of man and the consequence of death depicted in this passage “is entirely congruent with the teaching of Gen. 3. The forbidden fruit was proffered to Adam and Eve as being able to make them like God (3:5).”[83]
Aside from the primary referent, the king of Babylon, was Adam in Eden the morning star who fell from grace? Is Adam Lucifer? We know Jesus is referred to as the “bright morning star” (Rev 22:16; cf. Rev 2:26-28; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Num 24:17), in the context of the new Eden. And perhaps Isaiah is foreshadowing the antichrist. We’ll come back to this.
We now have a more detailed picture of Adam, his status, and the garden dwelling.
It also means the OT is less interested in Satan than we may think - though of course he shows up.
Summary
In summary, the garden’s principal status was of God’s habitat given to man to rule from, where man communes with God face to face, to worship Him and make His name great.
Adam was the earthling ('adam) of earthlings. First of prophets. High priest of humanity. The appointed king of Eden. His rule and reign were to extend globally. He was destined to become the king of kings.
Everything about Adam’s beauty, blamelessness, wisdom, status, pointed to his heavenly authority.
The garden of Eden “became the microcosmic expression of kingdom territory”[84] . Man was created to rule his dominion and steward the land well, as an image bearer and good servant king, in recognition of the universal king. If he fulfils his duties he would continue to “walk” in, and enter in, the rest, of the presence of God.
Adam is given every chance for greatness: His status, attributes, wealth, put in a highly fertile land, a privileged dwelling on the holy mountain, adorned with dazzling gems, to walk down the path of the “stones of fire” in the presence of the Almighty Creator Yahweh Elohim.
Adam was the Son of God, prophet, priest, king, and he was about to take on one more role – bridegroom.
Naming the Animals
In the garden, and again before the creation of the woman, God parades before the man the land animals and birds to name.[85] Having been told to exercise authority over the animals, now he is told to speak from that position of authority and discernment. “And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” (Gen 2:19b). Naming or renaming exercise authority (e.g. Num 32:37-38; 2 Kings 23:34, 24:17). As priest-king he was beginning the fulfilment of the Genesis 1:28 commission. In doing so he reflects God speaking the names of creation in Genesis 1. God remains sovereign over the animals, but man is directed to exercise authority over them.
Fruchtenbuam is convinced this speaking and naming was a form of early Hebrew: “all the names in the Hebrew Bible before the Tower of Babel only have meanings in Hebrew… all word plays before Babel only make sense in Hebrew…”[86]
It is possible that Adam named only the animals that were to live in the garden, but as the representative over all the earth, it would make sense that he names them all.
How would it be possible to name them all in the same day? Adam named the hundreds of different kinds of animals and bird (not species). In addition, he was given the best memory, and highest intellect in history. Achieving such a feat in the hours before the creation of his wife was not a problem.
The text says he named all livestock, beasts, and birds (20a), but only the beasts and birds are mentioned as being brought to Adam (19). Likely because the beasts and birds are wild and would be required to be brought to Adam, whereas he could approach the tame livestock. It is also possible that only the livestock dwelled in the garden whereas the “beasts of the field” dwelled in the outer region of Eden and beyond, which is described more like a field. Therefore, the beasts were brought into the garden before the king.
The potential problem for Adam, was that these creatures were not a suitable helpmate. In naming them himself he may see the unsuitability of a mate. Not that he was looking at this point, but Adam would see for himself that an animal cannot be his companion. Suspense builds as he names. Adam was probably thrilled to be in this position, but I imagine we would become more and more disheartened - like Simon Cowell auditioning and finally at the end of the day, there is one who is completely different, beautiful, and suitable.
Adam would look down this long line of creatures which he’s never seen before: “wow, what’s that with long trunk and big ears”. And they queued in up pairs, he would see each has its mate. It underscores Adam’s potential loneliness. Perhaps he felt a sense of incompleteness without her.
He would see that while he and they are living creatures from the ground, they do not stand tall as a man before God reflecting his image. Even the cattle/livestock (21) more likely man’s best friend do not fit.
Today, pets are incredibly popular. There is great appeal in a loyal creature that does not speak hurtful things. However, it is humans that are to be our primary companions. Animals can be a great help, but none was found to be his equal. A peer was necessary.
The Creation of Woman
Throughout the creation process we have seen how nature is designed to fit. Planets and birds fit the heavens; fish fit the seas; the animals and the man fit the land; and within the creatures there is a male and female fit. Man requires a female fit.
Helper
Adam is not consulted on the issue. Nor does he complain. God alone discerns and resolves the situation before it became an issue saying: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (2:18).
This verse can be literally translated: “a helper who is his equal.”[87] She would gently challenge, give counsel, and assist, while remaining no less inferior. Those who take umbrage at the word helper (`ezer), should know that God refers to himself, and is referred to as helper (`ezer) on numerous occasions.[88] In the NT Greek, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit on three occasions as the “Helper” (parakletos, John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7).[89]
The same Hebrew word for helper is used to describe God’s relationship to Israel. The creation of the woman saves the man from potential loneliness. He was after all designed for close affection. Wenham notes, “To help someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is inadequate by itself (e.g. Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chron 12:17, 19, 21, 22).”[90] She would be the perfect fit.
As well as equal, Wenham says it can be translated literally as “like opposite him” which “seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity.”[91] It does not say “like him” - she is made in the image of God, not Adam. A corresponding helper, equal and different. Corresponding physically, socially, spiritually.”
Process
Unlike the man, the woman was created in the garden. A softer, more pleasant environment reflected in her creation. One verse is used to describe the creation of man, whereas six is used for woman. This conveys the care and attention through the process. In contrasts to other religions, Woman is of great value.
Verse 21-22 reveals the process: “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman” (21-22)
Adam had only been in the garden a matter of hours before God puts him to sleep. It should teach us that God can put us to sleep at any moment.
The word “made” is translated by Hamilton as built: “The verb built by its very definition implies beauty, stability, and durability.”[92] Both made from raw materials. From the dust or clay of the ground, God as the potter, formed the man. From the flesh of the man, God as the developer, formed the woman.
The piece taken from Adam must have been bone and flesh (because of what he is about to say)– so “rib” with some flesh makes sense. God took an internal part – so it would not show something missing when naked or clothed. God healed Adam after surgery.
The woman was taken from man, but comes from God alone. Man takes no credit. Neither are active in the creation of the other. Recalling the process, Paul says that, “man… is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Cor 11:7-9). Both are made in image of God, but the woman is the glory of man. Paul continues in verse 12 by expressing the dependency of the sexes on each other: “for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” (12). Recognising our differences in service to one another, we look up to God who provides and sustains all things.
In Genesis two, God is pictured as a planter (Garden), a potter (man), and builder/developer (woman).
The Wedding
God took the female corresponding companion and “brought her to the man” (22). One could say, the Son of God, walked the bride “down the aisle” to meet her bridegroom, the human son of God. She was a gift to Adam.
Both the animals and the woman were “brought” to the man, and the man named them. The animals are his inferior, the woman his equal. Yet the naming of both suggests the bridegroom’s authority over his bride. Wenham underscores: “Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17).”[93] A relational design intended to teach mankind (among other things) about the goodness of God, and His authority over and service to his bride – the church (Eph. 4:22-33). Again, Hebrew for man is ish ['îš], woman is isha ['iššâ]. Which is a play on words, only understood in the Hebrew.[94]
Other than Adam’s dazzling pectoral (which he may not have been wearing, reserving them for inner temple duties amid the “stones of fire”), “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). Made of spirit and body, their relationship would be physical, with no barriers between them. Like the animals in a sense (although they are covered in fur), they were unaware of their nakedness. Innocent, they were not ashamed, unabashed liked children. They saw each other’s nakedness and not did not lust – the flesh was not waging war against the spirit. Nothing to hide. No fear of exploitation. Naked before each other and God. Nakedness is positive, they were pure – after fall the world is flipped upside down and naked is negative – description of the poor, shame and guilt, birth.[95]
They were created adults, capable of sexual intercourse. No belly buttons. How old did they appear? Rabbinic traditional says looked age 20.[96] It’s a unique scenario - they wouldn’t have had the same wrinkles, sun damage etc., of someone of age in post-fall conditions, but personally, I think Adam will have been made a mature man to correspond with the age of Jesus at the time of his ministry and death.
Their creation included an impartation of an instantaneous complex language - the first gift of tongues - for sophisticated relationship with each other and the LORD their God. Adam as first bridegroom, in seeing the woman which was created from him, opens his mouth and bursts into poetry:
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen 2:23)
It is a literary formula that includes a trinity of 7 syllables.[97] Comparable expressions are found throughout the scriptures such as Laban saying to Jacob, “you are my bone and my flesh!” (Gen 29:14). Or the tribes of Israel pledged loyalty to David at Hebron saying, “Behold, we are your bone and flesh.” (2 Sam 5:14). Adams words are covenantal language[98], announcing this woman as his flesh and blood, his biological bride. A relationship that shared in the body and blood. As well as kinship it also an expression of “common, reciprocal loyalty”[99] pledging his life for her. Flesh can represent the fragility of mankind; bone the strength of mankind. Six thousand years on, and our modern language “in weakness and in strength” can be found in a marriage ceremony. Adam was vocalising his marriage vows to her. He was showing his enduring life-long commitment to her. Even when the flesh breaks down to the point that bones alone remain.
As the garden priest, he initiates his own wedding, overseen, and blessed by God. A couple of cherubim as witnesses perhaps?
The narrator in verse 24 adds: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Woman was part of man, now her son leaves his mother’s flesh to join another woman’s flesh, becoming one flesh.
The author is applying the principle of marriage to all marriages. Good example of significance/application beyond the narrative. In marriage, man’s priorities change.
Throughout scriptures, the verb “leave” which can be translated “forsake” is used to describe the breaking of a covenant. To “hold fast” is also used elsewhere to describe the faithfulness to a covenant. Therefore, the man leaves the covenant relationship of his parents, only to enter and maintain a new covenant with his wife. There is a severing of ties, moving: “from the position of subjection to the parents to the position of honoring the parents.”[100] Breaking of ties does not mean leaving them physically, necessarily – they could still live with them for all kinds of reasons, but a metal, emotional, spiritual departure, so that going forward they look to each other and not to parents. They continue to love and now honour parents, but the focus is now on each other.
To cleave – is to stick like glue to each other. Often used in maintaining covenant (Deu 4:4, 10:20, 11:22, 13:4, 30:20). They are bound/tied to each other. Destiny bound as a team. Prager adds that, “God ordains here that one husband should cleave to one wife”.[101]
Marriage then is a lifelong covenant of man and woman before God, regardless of circumstances – not a convenient episodic adventure. It is not determined by health. It is not determined by having children or not – nothing is said at this point about procreation. Together they become one (echad) flesh, initiated/inaugurated by sexual intercourse. A sexual, emotional, spiritual, and family union.
The nature and purpose of marriage is founded in these chapters – bride and God. Fuchtenbuam says, “the first days of the first marriage remain a goal to which Israel hoped to return when the promises to Abraham were fulfilled.”
Headship
Man’s headship over woman before the fall is obvious and only spiritual blindness on this issue can cause a cloud controversy. Woman was made for man, and from man, brought to man, given to man, and named by man. NT authors would reach back to the creation account and point to these truths to teach about order within the home, society, and church worship.[102] In doing so they reveal the universal significance without cultural reasoning. It is God’s ordained order, not our opinion that matters.
Blessing, Commission, and Summary
Having performed surgery on the man, and making a woman from his rib, brought the two together in a marriage covenant, providing them a diet of vegetation, crop, and fruit, it is now that he blessed them. Adam with his helper was commissioned to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28).
How do they fulfil the commission of Genesis 1:28 to subdue? By being the image of God. Beale offers an insight into the potential meaning of this commission: “They were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth. Because Adam and Eve were to subdue and rule ‘over all the earth’, it is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth.”[103] That Eden was a sacred space does not mean the rest of the earth was deserted or chaotic: “he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!” (Isa. 45:18). Whether the actual boundaries of Eden were to be extended or not, as image bearers they would fill the earth and extend the image from the sacred space, so that God’s glorious presence and attributes were reflected and felt throughout the globe.
Adam’s various roles such as the priestly aspect to “work it and keep it” was an expression of the mission to subdue. He was given a lifelong teammate to help, and according to Beale, “1:28 includes an implicit promise to provide them ability to obey.”[104] A work undoubtedly of the Holy Spirit.
Having been given dominionship of the land, Adam the Son of God became the king of Eden, the king of humanity, who would bow the knee to God the Son. A kingdom requires a people group who live in the land and abide by the law of the King. Adam was to subdue and fill the earth with people, extending the glory of the garden and making the entire earth a special place for God to dwell. Valch remarks: “From the Garden of Eden onward it has been God’s desire for His people to rule over the earth in His direct presence.”[105]
In closing, God’s law went forth from the mountain of Eden. Adam became the first serving priest, a king of humanity blessed with a paradisal-garden home, a source for everlasting life, and the relationship between man and God was personal and complete. The first man and woman then, would be Edenites of the Kingdom of Eden. Everything was in place for success. In a land flowing with milk and honey, with a great people to descend from the newlyweds, Adam’s name would be made great, and in him all the families of the earth would be blessed. Or, so it could have been.
And God delighted in the garden and Adam and his bride.
The story then, begins with creation and marriage, and we know that it ends with re-creation and marriage.
Adam would reign the first millennium as a type of Messiah, but the last Adam, the true Messiah will rule the seventh. Adam didn’t make it to the second millennium, but Jesus will continue to the eighth and forevermore.
* * *
For a specific reference please contact us here.