PEÑUELA-PINEDA, Jahisber (2019) - Sanctuary-Temple in Genesis 1-3, A Reevaluation of The Biblical Evidence. Tesis Doctoral. Andrews University PDF

Andrews University
Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Dissertations Graduate Research
2019
Sanctuary/temple in Genesis 1-3: a reevaluation of

the biblical evidence
Jahisber Penuela Pineda
Andrews University, jahisber@andrews.edu
This research is a product of the graduate program in Religion, Old Testament Studies PhD at Andrews
University. Find out more about the program.
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Penuela Pineda, Jahisber, "Sanctuary/temple in Genesis 1-3: a reevaluation of the biblical evidence" (2019). Dissertations. 1688.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1688
This Project Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please
contact repository@andrews.edu.
ABSTRACT
SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION
OF THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
by
Jahisber Peñuela-Pineda
Adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Dissertation
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Title: SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION OF THE

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
Name of the researcher: Jahisber Peñuela-Pineda
Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan, D. Heb. Let., Th.D.
Date completed: June 2019
This dissertation reevaluates the most significant biblical evidence and theological
implications involved in the debate over possible vocabulary pertaining to a
sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3. Thus, this study addresses the following research
question: Is there evidence for the sanctuary/temple in the creation and Eden narratives,
and if so, what are the implications of this evidence?
Chapter I introduces the background to the problem by summarizing the most
significant scholarly arguments for and against allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen
1-3. In addition, this chapter projects particular implications related to the interpretation
of the Eden narratives (Gen 2:4b-3:24), the creation account (Gen 1:1-2:4a), and the
theology of the sanctuary/temple in the biblical canon.

Chapters II-III reexamine the biblical evidence in the Eden narratives of Gen 2-3,
specifically the arguments arising from the Hebrew word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8, the garden as a
mountain in Gen 2:10, the river of Eden in Gen 2:10, the Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫שָ מַ ר‬
in Gen 2:15, the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22, the
Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8, the Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Hebrew verb
‫ לָ ַבש‬in Gen 3:21, the Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24, and the eastern entrance to the
garden in Gen 3:24. The discussion leads to the conclusion that the Garden of Eden and
its cultic conceptual framework reflect the sanctuary/temple in the heavenly realm.
Accordingly, the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple)
is not the only type of the heavenly counterpart: the Eden narratives of Gen 2-3 portray in
vertical typology an equivalence of functionality (Ezek 28).
Chapter IV reveals that the motif of temple building and the creation account of
Gen 1:1-2:4a show a corresponding purpose by concluding with rest on the seventh day.
This connection indicates that just as God governs from his sanctuary/temple (in the
heavens), he governs the newly created earth (Gen 2:1-3; cf. Exod 20:11; 31:17; Pss
78:69; 132:7-8, 13-14; Isa 66:1-2). Similarly, the connection between the creation
account and the sanctuary/temple motif is observed when the special vocabulary of the
fourth day of the creation week is recognized (Gen 1:14-16), revealing the writer’s
intentionality to embed the historical narrative within a semantic or conceptual
framework.
Chapter V discusses the theological implications of the sanctuary/temple motif in
Gen 1-3. The biblical evidence points to the interpretation of the beginning and end of
Scripture (creation and re-creation) through the sanctuary/temple motif. Thus, the
historical development of God’s creative and redemptive acts is framed by the
sanctuary/temple. This conclusion is reached when considering the equivalence of
functionality between heaven and earth through vertical typology, a pattern that is
prevalent in Scripture. Accordingly, this vertical typology approach establishes the
concept of Eden as an archetypal framework from the beginning of the biblical narrative
to the end of it, and even beyond Heilsgeschichte into eternity.
Chapter VI summarizes the findings of this study. The reevaluation of the major
biblical arguments for the sanctuary/temple motif reveals the presence of this motif both
linguistically and conceptually in Gen 1-3. The protological and eschatological
intertextual relationship comprehends a correlational semantical framework: the
canonical/biblical narrative commences with Eden in heaven (Ezek 28), continues with
Eden on Earth (Gen 2-3), and ends with a heavenly Eden on earth (Rev 22). Therefore,
archetypically the Garden of Eden was, is, and will be the ideal place of rest in protology
and eschatology.
Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION
OF THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Jahisber Peñuela-Pineda
June 2019
© Copyright by Jahisber Peñuela-Pineda 2019
All Rights Reserved
Dedicated to
My father Matias
My mother Gladys
My brothers Gherson and Anderson
My beautiful and loving wife Marcelita

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. xii
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................ 1

Problem Statement .................................................................................... 12
Purpose Statement ..................................................................................... 12
Justification for this Study ........................................................................ 12
Scope and Delimitations ........................................................................... 13
Methodology ............................................................................................. 14
II. THE PRE-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN .......................................................20
Introduction ............................................................................................... 20
Genesis 2:4b-2:25 and the Sanctuary/Temple Motif ................................ 20
The Hebrew Word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Genesis 2:8 ................................................. 21
The Garden as a Mountain in Gen 2:10 ............................................... 40
The River of Eden in Genesis 2:10 ...................................................... 56
The Hebrew Verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Genesis 2:15 ............................... 66
The Hebrew Word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Verb ‫ ָבנָה‬in Genesis 2:21, 22 ............ 76
Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................... 87
III. THE POST-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN ....................................................89
Introduction ............................................................................................... 89
Genesis 3:1-3:24 and the Sanctuary/Temple Motif .................................. 89
The Hebrew Participle ‫ ִמ ְּתהַ לֵ ְך‬in Genesis 3:8...................................... 90
The Hebrew Word ‫ כֻּ ֹּתנֶת‬and the Verb ‫ לבש‬in Genesis 3:21 ................ 96
The Hebrew Word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Genesis 3:24 ......................................... 113
The Eastern Entrance to the Garden of Eden ..................................... 120
Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................... 124
IV. THE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS 1:1-2:4a....................................128
Introduction ............................................................................................. 128

Genesis 1:1-2:4a and the Temple-Building Motif .................................. 131
The Motif of Divine Rest ........................................................................ 141
Divine Rest in the Creation Account ................................................. 143
iv
Divine Rest in the Old Testament ...................................................... 148
Humankind’s (Israel’s) Sabbatical Rest ........................................ 149
God’s Sabbatical Rest ................................................................... 154
Sabbatical Rest: Engagement or Disengagement .......................... 160
The Fourth Day of Creation: Genesis 1:14 ............................................. 162
V. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................168
Introduction ............................................................................................. 168

A Conceptual Approach for the Sanctuary/Temple Motif ...................... 169
Canonical Biblical Theology of Genesis 1 ............................................. 177
The Semantic Framework of the Creation Narrative ......................... 177
Genesis 1 as a Temple Text........................................................... 177
The Seventh-Day Sabbath as Theological/Canonical Framework 191
Creation, Redemption, and Covenant ........................................... 211
Preliminary Conclusions .................................................................... 220
Canonical Biblical Theology of Genesis 2-3 .......................................... 221
The Semantic Framework of the Narratives of Eden ......................... 221
The Cosmological Framework of the Sanctuary/Temple Motif ... 222
The Archetypical Framework of Protology and Eschatology ....... 231
Preliminary Conclusions .................................................................... 237
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................242
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................261
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB The Anchor Bible
AJSLL The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
AQ American Quarterly
AR Adventist Review
ASV America Standard Version
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
AYBC The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
BEB Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BLE The Bible in Living English
BN Biblische Notizen
BRev Bible Review
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
vi
BT The Bible Translator
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CanTR Canadian Theological Review
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CEB Common English Bible
CEV Contemporary English Version
CJB Complete Jewish Bible
CQR Church Quarterly Review
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
CurBS Currents in Biblical Research
DBSJ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
DOTWPW Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings
EncJud Encyclopedia Judaica
ESV English Standard Version
ETS Evangelical Theological Society
FRCL French Common Language Version
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HR History of Religions
HTR Harvard Theological Review
vii
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOSOT International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament
ISBE The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
ISV International Standard Version
JAOS Journal of American Oriental Society
JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JOCABS Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical

Studies
JP Journal for Preachers
JR Journal of Religion
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LE Lutheran Education
LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
viii
LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly
MHT Modern Hebrew New Testament, copyrighted 1995, revised 2010
Min Ministry
MNT Moffatt Bible
MUSJ Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph
NAC The New American Commentary
NASB New American Standard Bible
NBD New Bible Dictionary
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NCV New Century Translation
NET New English Translation
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
NIV New International Version
NIVAC New International Version Application Commentary
NJBC The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
NKJV New King James Version
NLT The New Living Translation
NLV New Life Version
NOG Names of God Bible
NRS The New Revised Standard Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
ix
NZJCTP The New Zealand Journal of Christian Thought and Practice
OJB Orthodox Jewish Bible
OTL Old Testament Library
PD Perspective Digest
PNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary
PSCF Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
RSVCE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SDABC Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary
SDAIBC Seventh Day Adventist International Bible Commentary
SDS Dead Sea Discoveries
SEAJT South East Asia Journal of Theology
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature
SwJT Southwestern Journal of Theology
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
TEV Today’s English Version
Them Themelios
x
ThTo Theology Today
TJB The Jerusalem Bible
TLB Living Bible
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TS Theological Studies
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UBCS Understanding the Bible Commentary Series
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WEB World English Bible
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WW Word & World
WYC Wycliffe’s Bible
YLT Young Literal Translation
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZPEB The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Above all, I am most thankful to the Almighty God and Lord of creation. He has
lovingly sustained me while exploring the great motif of the sanctuary/temple.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to my father, Matias Penuela-Padilla, and my mother,
Gladys Pineda-Gelvis, for the Christian/Adventist education I received. I would like to
thank my two brothers, Gherson Penuela-Pineda (PhD) and Anderson Penuela-Pineda
(MD), and their families for the generous financial support and willingness to take me
into their homes. They set before me a life of sacrifice and dedication.
I submit my profound gratitude to my lovely wife Yuly Marcela Parra-Vanegas,
as well as to her family. Marcelita’s presence, patience, comfort, and love have become
the fulfillment of God’s promise: ‫עזֶר ְּכנֶגְּ ָֽדֹו‬

ָ֖ ֵ ‫דם ְּלבַ ּ֑דֹו ֶ ָֽאעֱשֶ ּה־ל֥ ֹו‬
ָ֖ ָ ָ‫הא‬
ָֽ ָ ‫היֹ֥ות‬
ֱ ‫ל ֹּא־ט֛ ֹוב‬
(Gen 2:18).
As a dissertation writer I had the distinctive privilege of being guided through the
process by three exceptional advisors: Dr. Jacques B. Doukhan, who chaired the
committee, Dr. Richard M. Davidson, and Dr. Roy E. Gane. I owe a great deal to the
committee because they rendered invaluable mentoring help, as they always
demonstrated themselves to be thoughtful and patient advisors. I wish to express my
appreciation to them for encouraging me to pursue the knowledge of the sanctuary/temple
in Gen 1-3.
Thanks to all my professors at the Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary.
I am particularly grateful to the director of the PhD-ThD department, Dr. Thomas
xii
Shepherd. Dr. Shepherd’s gifted leadership provided an atmosphere that has facilitated
my academic journey.
My appreciation goes also to Mrs. Mabel Bowen, Mrs. Trisha Robertson, and
Mrs. Dorothy Show. I am also thankful to Mrs. Cynthia Helms and Mr. Terry Robertson.
In addition to the assistance noted above, the completion of this dissertation
would not have been possible without the North and South Colombian Unions of the
Seventh Day Adventist Church. I thank the Adventist University of Colombia
(Corporacion Universitaria Adventista - UNAC) for granting me time and financial
support for my studies.
Thanks to all my students because they had to endure my absence in those many
hours in which my research claimed my presence.
Indeed, this was a humbling and exciting journey and not list can express my
indebtedness. I trust God this dissertation helps to understand how the sanctuary/temple
is foundational to the theology of creation. My efforts toward contributing to the up-
building of God’s people.
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The opening chapters of the book of Genesis are among the most well-known
passages of Scripture.1 In recent years, more scholarly attention has been paid to
investigating the creation and Eden narratives2 in light of sanctuary/temple allusions.
These scholars’ works have generated meaningful questions, the pursuit of which is
likely to lead to a better understanding of Gen 1-3.3 Therefore, this dissertation
reevaluates major current scholarly arguments for and against allusions to the
sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3. Except when specific reference is made to a biblical text,
the words allusions and motif are used throughout this study to indicate the possibility of
sanctuary/temple imagery in these chapters. In this sense, allusions and motif do not refer
to a source text (see the “Methodology” section below). The expression sanctuary/temple
refers to the motif as it is found in the wilderness tabernacle, Israel’s temple in Jerusalem
1
Some scholars consider the opening chapters of the book of Genesis as a hermeneutical key for
the rest of Scripture. See, for example, Jiří Moskala, “The President’s Page: Creation—The Sine Qua Non
of Adventism,” JATS 15.2 (2004): 1-2; John Rankin, “Power and Gender at the Divinity School,” in
Finding God at Harvard: Spiritual Journeys of Christian Thinkers, ed. Kelly Monroe (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), 203; Deborah F. Sawyer, God, Gender, and the Bible (London: Routledge, 2002), 24,
29; Phyllis A. Bird, “Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh,” ThTo 50.4 (1994): 525, 527.
2
In this dissertation, the creation narrative will refer to Gen 1:1-2:4a and Eden narratives to Gen
2:4b-3:24.
3
See especially pages 9-10 of this dissertation.
1
(including the Zerubbabel Second Temple), the vision of a new temple given to the
prophet Ezekiel, and the heavenly sanctuary/temple.
The Hebrew Bible resembles a literary echo chamber because of the widespread
usage of intertextuality.4 Scholars who study the Old Testament with this approach have
found the book of Genesis a particularly rewarding resource.5 Although the creation and
Eden narratives have been connected to other parts of the Bible, few lines of investigation
have caused an effect as potentially significant (to the interpretation of Gen 1-3) as the
possibility of allusions to the sanctuary/temple. These allusions have been pondered and
summarized for some time in numerous scholarly works,6 but recently fresh interest has
4
Gary E. Yates, “The ‘Weeping Prophet’ and the ‘Pouting Prophet’ in Dialogue: Intertextual
Connections Between Jeremiah and Jonah” (paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society, San
Diego, CA, 2014), 1.
5
Representative works may include: Katharine J. Dell and William L. Kynes, eds., Reading Job
Intertextually (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013); S. D. Giere, A New Glimpse of Day One:
Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1.1-5 (New York: W. de Gruyter, 2009); Henk
Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy: An Intertextual Study, ed. B. Becking, Old Testament Studies
64 (Boston: Brill, 2014); John H. Sailhamer, “Creation, Genesis 1-11, and the Canon,” BBR 10.1 (2000);
Enrique Baez, “Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in the Book of Daniel: An Exegetical and Intertextual Study”
(PhD diss., Andrews University, 2013); Eric W. Bolger, “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in
the Pentateuch” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993); Dan Lioy, The Search for Ultimate
Reality: Intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine Prologues (New York: Peter Lang, 2005); Seth
D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene: Pickwick,
2011); Suk Peter Choi, “The Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 2005); Jose Maria Bertoluci, “The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of
the Controversy between Good and Evil” (ThD diss., Andrews University, 1985); S. Dean McBride,
“Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Prologue to the Pentateuch,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of
W. Sibley Towner, ed. W. Sibley Towner, William P. Brown, and S. Dean McBride (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), 11-15; Carlos Raul Sosa Siliezar, Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John (London:
Bloomsbury, 2015), see especially chapter 7 entitled “The Garden of Eden and Jesus' Passion and
Resurrection,” 174-90.
6
See, for example, Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology
of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 29-80; Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple
and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 283-98; James R. Davila, “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis,
and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” SDS 9.1 (2002): 1-19; Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The
History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008); Loren R. Fisher,
“The Temple Quarter,” JSS 8 (1963): 34-41; Loren R. Fisher, “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old
Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 313-24; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38.3 (1976); Jon D.
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco:
2
arisen, yielding insightful reassessments of this topic.7 The following paragraphs
summarize some of the most significant issues in the debate over possible allusions to the
sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3.
Scholars have identified sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1:1-2:4a on exegetical
and intertextual grounds.8 However, recent reassessment suggests a growing consensus
Harper & Row, 1988), 66-120; Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,”
in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein and David
Assaf (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 19-25; Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of
the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000); Angel M. Rodriguez, “Eden and
the Israelite Sanctuary,” Min 75 (April 2002); Angel M. Rodriguez, “Genesis 1 and the Building of the
Israelite Sanctuary,” Min 75 (February 2002); Joshua Berman, The Temple: Its Symbolism and Meaning
Then and Now (Northvale: Aronson, 1995); Richard M. Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming
Millennium,” JATS 11.1-2 (2000); Gregory K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church's Mission in the
New Creation,” JETS 48.1 (2005): 7-10; Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the
Lord: The Problem of Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3,” in Mélanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l'honneur
de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. André Caquot and M. Delcor (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 212; Roberto
Ouro, Old Testament Theology: The Canonical Key (Zaragoza: R. Ouro, 2008), 38-61; Meredith G. Kline,
Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 31,
32, 54-56; Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung,” in Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie, ed. Luis
Alonso Schökel and Ingo Baldermann (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 44-69.
7
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 72-92; John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 178-92; Jeff Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in
Genesis 1-3,” JOCABS 2.1 (2009): 1-13; L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic
Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 32-49; Gregory. K. Beale and Mitchell
Kim, God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2014), 17-64; L. Michael Morales, ed., Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-Centered Theology
(Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 13-389; T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An
Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 20-31; Daniel I. Block, “Eden: A Temple?
A Reassessment of Biblical Evidence,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and
Exegesis, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013); Richard Averbeck et al., “Four Responses
to Chapter Five,” in Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2013), 170-83; Laurence A. Turner, “A Theological Reading of Genesis 1,” in In the
Beginning: Science and Scripture Confirm Creation, ed. B. W. Ball (Nampa: Pacific Press, 2012), 73-77;
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2015).
8
The following list of allusions is not intended to be exhaustive. It represents an overview with the
purpose of illustrating the direction this research might take. Also, many of the connections are proposed
and summarized in Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 19-25; Donald W. Parry, “Garden of Eden:
Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt
Lake City: Deseret, 1994), 126-27; Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative,” 109-11; Richard M. Davidson,
“Earth's First Sanctuary: Gen 1-3 and Parallel Creation Accounts,” AUSS 53.1 (2015): 65-89. The basic
3
meanings of the following words are taken from Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
For the sake of clarity, these possible allusions are listed in the order of the biblical narrative:
(1) The Hebrew word ‫[ מֹועֵ ד‬môḗḏ; “appointed place or time; season”] in Gen 1:14 echoes
Israel’s cultic festivals. Cf. Exod 25: 31-40; Num 10:10; 15:3; 29:39. Walter Vogels, “The Cultic and Civil
Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation,” SJOT 11.2 (1997): 168-69; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-
Figured, 85; David J. Rudolph, “Festivals in Genesis 1:14,” TynBul 54.2 (2003): 40.
(2) The term ‫[ ָמאֹור‬mā’ôʹr; “lamp” or “luminary”] in Gen 1:14 is the technical term for the light
of the menorah. Cf. Exod 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:27; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16.
(3) Imago Dei. The expression ‫מּותּ֑נּו‬
ֵ ‫מנּו ִכ ְּד‬
ָ֖ ֵ ‫( ְּבצַ ְּל‬Gen 1:26) presumably indicates a priestly
calling (cf. Gen 2:8-17; 1 Pet 2:9). See John T. Swann, The Imago Dei: A Priestly Calling for Humankind
(Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017), 19-86; Gerald L. Bray, “The Significance of God's Image in Man,” TynBull
42.2 (1991): 197; Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building,” 3-4; Peter John Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum,
Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway,
2012), 200; L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the
Book of Leviticus, ed. D. A. Carson, NSBT 37 (Nottingham: Apollos, 2015), 46-48.
(4) Motif of temple building. Six divine speeches are dealing with divine creative activity and the
seventh speech is dealing with the Sabbath. Cf. Exod 25:1-30; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22–33; 30:34-37;
31:1-11; 31:12-17. This relationship becomes more apparent as particular literary devices are used in both
accounts during the divine speeches. For example, the “conclusion-formulae,” as explained by
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 275-76. For further detailed discussion see Peter J. Kearney, “Creation
and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40,” ZAW 89 (1977): 375-87; Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus:
The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), 213-15; Frank H. Gorman, The
Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990),
47; Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 268-72; Samuel
E. Balentine, The Torah's Vision of Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 136-41.
Davidson observes additional allusions in the following verbs: see, make/do, behold, finish, work,
bless, and sanctify/consecrate. Davidson also suggests that the verb ‫[ בָ ַדל‬bāḏál; “to divide” or “separate”]
“is used to describe the way God created by separation (Gen 1:4, 6-7, 18), and after the creation account the
next usage of the term bdl in Scripture describes the veil in the Mosaic sanctuary which divides between
the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33).” See Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 82-83.
Blenkinsopp also argues that the next biblical reference to the Spirit of God, after Gen 1:1, is
found in Exod 31:3, which constitutes a linguistic parallel. He concludes that this fact confirms “the
structural interdependence within P of creation, construction of the sanctuary, and occupation of the land.”
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 282. See also Richard M. Davidson, “The Holy Spirit in the
Pentateuch” (paper presented at IX Biblical-Theological Symposium, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, May 2011), 8.
(5) Motif of divine rest (this is actually part of the motif of temple building). This motif refers to
the association between the seventh day of the creation week and the commandment on the Sabbath at the
completion of the instructions for building the sanctuary (Exod 31:12-17). See Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple
and the Enthronement,” 501-2. Cf. Marc Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4: The Compositional Texture of the
Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History,
ed. André Wénin (Leuven: Leuven University, 2001), 50-53. For a development of this concept from the
perspective of the ancient Near East (henceforth referred to as ANE), see especially John H. Walton,
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew
Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 114, 157-60, 196-99; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 178-
84. It is also important to note that entrance into God’s sanctuary/temple is considered as “rest.” Cf. Exod
20:11; 2 Chr 6:41; Ps 132; Isa 66:1.
4
among critics with regard to the methods used by some interpreters of Gen 1. For
example, John H. Walton applies some allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1 to set
forth a “Cosmic Temple Inauguration” view.9 Although Walton provides some evidence
of biblical connections between the sanctuary/temple and the creation narrative, criticism
has been directed at his reliance on extra-biblical analogues, which has been termed
“excessive” and “quite troubling.”10 However, aside from the use of ANE texts or any
suggested ANE Sitz im Leben of Gen 1-3, Walton himself appears to introduce the first
contention. He writes, “The word ‘temple’ does not occur in the text, and nothing there
would alert the modern reader to any connection.”11 In fact, biblical evidence of the
cosmos as a sanctuary/temple primarily depends on the idea that “divine rest is in a
temple”12 (Gen 2:1-3). This idea is based on possible intertextual linkages (cf. Ps 132: 7-
9
Walton makes an effort to validate what he calls “functional creation” as more important than
material creation and completing the work of creation. According to Walton, the “functional creation” is
normative within the ANE. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 23-28; 127-39. But this contention
has been countered on the same grounds of ancient texts. See various examples of material creation in ANE
texts in Averbeck et al., “Four Responses to Chapter Five,” 172. See also Jacques B. Doukhan, “Review of
John H. Walton's Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology,” AUSS 51.1 (2013): 84-85.
10
Averbeck et al., “Four Responses to Chapter Five,” 73, 78; Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 19. Cf.
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 16-37, 78-86.
11
John H. Walton, “Reading Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology,” in Reading Genesis 1-2: An
Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013), 158. Moreover, it is
interesting to observe, with C. John Collins, that Walton proposes a parallel between Gen 1 and the
building/inaugurating of the tabernacle in Exod 35-40; See Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 89. But in
his more scholarly book he no longer draws this parallel; cf. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 178-
84. See more details in C. John Collins, “The Lost World of Genesis One: A Book Review,” Reformed
Academic, 26 November 2009, http://www.scribd.com/doc/143005290/Review-of-John-Walton-The-Lost-
World-Of-Genesis-One-by-C-John-Collins.
12
Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 60-63; Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 72-77. See
also Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 77. Cf. John Laansma, “‘I Will Give You Rest’: The Rest
Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4” (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997), 17-76. A secondary motif is temple building (Exod 25-31); see Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy,”
375-78. According to Weinfeld, Kearney’s parallelism of six commands is hardly convincing. However, it
is significant that the number of commands during the construction process is six. Weinfeld, “Sabbath,
Temple and the Enthronement,” 502. It is important to consider also Doukhan’s discussion on Kearney’s
5
14; Isa 66:1; 2 Chr 6:41, 42).13 According to Daniel Block, who thoroughly criticizes this
connection, neither Gen 2:1-3 nor any texts that look back on this moment have God
dwelling in the structure just constructed. Block argues that rather than referring to a
cosmos-sized temple, “when later texts speak of YHWH resting they are less concerned
with the creation of the cosmos than with Zion theology.”14 Collins aptly observes,
“Now, the idea of the cosmos as a temple might be illuminating. If we want to establish
it, though we would need more attention to the way the rest of the Hebrew Bible itself
actually reflects on Genesis 2:1-3.”15 Indeed, the reevaluation of this idea may yield some
dividends, considering the possibility of sanctuary/temple allusions and their implications
in the creation account.16
proposal, Jacques B. Doukhan, “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story” (PhD diss., Andrews
University, 1978), 79-81.
13
Some interpreters support the notion of divine rest in light of ANE texts. However, Doukhan has
already noted that “God’s rest in Genesis 2 is also fundamentally different from that of the gods in other
Near Eastern texts.” Doukhan, “Review of John H. Walton,” 87.
14
Block gives various arguments to conclude that Israel’s rest on the seventh-day Sabbath “says
nothing about a temple metaphor underlying Gen 1.” Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 6, 19-20.
15
Collins, “Lost World of Genesis One,” n.p.
16
For example, Vogels argues that Gen 2:1-3 is primarily concerned with time. Thus, inasmuch as
Gen 1 begins with time, mentions time in the middle, and ends with time, the connection between the first,
fourth, and seventh days indicates that the seventh day is one of the cultic calendars mentioned in the fourth
day. Vogels proposes that the parallels between the creation narrative (Gen 1:2-4a), the building of the
sanctuary (Exod 25-31; 25-40), and the investiture of the priests (Lev 8-9) represent the founding of sacred
time, of sacred space, and of sacred status. Vogels further states, “Many extra-biblical creation narratives
end with the building of a sanctuary. Not so for the biblical story. That story is concerned with time: The
founding of the cultic and civil calendars. Sanctuaries and priestly functions are all secondary. They can
change and even disappear.” Vogels, “Cultic and Civil Calendars,” 176, 178-79. Cf. Turner, “Theological
Reading of Genesis 1,” 74. Nahum M. Sarna also comments that this emphasis on time “is in striking
contrast to the Babylonian cosmology, which culminates in the erection of a temple to Marduk by the gods,
whereby asserting the sanctification of space.” Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989), 15.
6
Scholars have also advanced on exegetical and intertextual grounds the idea that
the pre-Fall narrative of Eden17 (Gen 2) and the post-Fall narrative of Eden18 (Gen 3)
17
See, for example, some of the proposed exegetical/intertextual allusions in Gen 2:
(1) The Hebrew word ‫‘[ עֵּ ֶדן‬edēn; “land of bliss,” “happy land”] in Gen 2:8 is associated with
Ezek 28:13 where ‫ עֵּ ֶדן‬is located in a heavenly sanctuary. For discussion on this, see Bertoluci, “Son of the
Morning,” 220-68; Elias Brasil de Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible:
Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005), 278-92.
(2) Garden as a mountain, Gen 2:10. Cf. Exod 15:17; Ezek 28:14, 16; 40:2. Richard J. Clifford,
“The Temple and the Holy Mountain,” in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern
Perspectives, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: Religious Studies Center of Brigham Young University,
1984), 122-23; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 7-120; Warren A. Gage, The Gospel of Genesis:
Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake: Carpenter, 1984), 50-58.
(3) The river flowing from Eden to water the garden, Gen 2:10-14. Cf. Ps 46: 5 [4]; Joel 3:18;
Ezek 47; Zech 14:8. Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 77-78; P. Kyle
McCarter Jr., “River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” HTR 66.4 (1973): 403.
(4) The Hebrew verbs ‫[ עָ ַבד‬ʽāḇáḏ; “to serve”] and ‫[ שָ מַ ר‬šāmár; “to guard”] in Gen 2:15 are
associated with the work of the priests in the sanctuary. Cf. Num 3:7-8; 8:26; 18:3-7. Victor P. Hamilton,
The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 210; Richard M. Davidson,
Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 47-48.
(5) The Hebrew word ‫[ צֵ לָ ע‬ṣēlā́ ʽ; “rib,” “side”] and the Hebrew verb ‫[ בָ נָה‬bānâ’; “to build”] in
Gen 2:21-22 are associated with the construction of the tabernacle (cf. Exod 25:12; 26:20, 26, 27; 27:7;
30:4; 36:31, 32; 37:3, 5, 27; 38:7) and with Solomon’s temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6:5, 8, 15, 16, 34; 7:3).
(6) Additional sanctuary/temple aspects allude to specific imagery of the garden: for example, the
gold, precious stones, arboreal imagery, and tripartite structure of the garden.
18
The following arguments are suggested exegetical/intertextual allusions in Gen 3:
(1) The Hebrew verb ‫[ הָ לַ ְך‬hāláḵ; “go, walk”], forming the participle ‫[ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬miṯhallēk;
“walking around”] in Gen 3:8 is associated with God’s presence in the sanctuary. Cf. Lev 26:12; Deut
23:15[14]; 2 Sam 7:6, 7.
(2) The Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬ ֹּ ֻּ‫[ כ‬kuttṓneṯ; “tunic”] and the Hebrew verb ‫[ לָ בַ ש‬lāḇáš; “to clothe”] in
Gen 3:21 are associated with the clothing of the priests. Cf. Exod 28:40; 29:8; 40:14; Lev 8:7, 13; Num
20:28. Robert A. Oden, The Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 92-105; Jacques B. Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their
Absence,” in Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, ed. Nancy J. Vyhmeister (Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 1998), 36-37.
(3) The Hebrew word ‫[ ְּכרּוב‬kərûʹḇ; “cherub”] in Gen 3:24 is associated with Israel’s sanctuary.
Cf. Exod 25:18-22; 26:31; 1 Kgs 6:23-28; Ezek 1:10; 28:14. Scholars observe a possible connection with
the sculpted images above the Ark of the Covenant. Victor A. Hurowitz comments that “these cherubs were
the private honor guard of the temple’s divine residence.” Victor A. Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House:
Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon's Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed.
John Day, LHBOTS 422 (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 87.
(4) The eastern entrance to the Garden, Gen 3:24. Cf. Exod 27:13-16; 38:13-18; Ezek 40:6. Angel
M. Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” AUSS 24.2 (1986); David Chilton, Paradise
Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler: Reconstruction, 1985), 29.
7
depict an archetypal (first) earthly sanctuary. Some interpreters of Gen 2-3 resort to extra-
biblical literature to support a temple-oriented reading of the biblical text.19 Nevertheless,
a recent reassessment of biblical evidence concludes that “every supposed link is either
illusory or capable of a different interpretation.”20 The rationale for this conclusion
becomes more visible when one recognizes that much of the cited biblical evidence
revolves around the interpretation of the Hebrew words ‫‘[ עֵ ֶדן‬ēden; “land of bliss,”
“happy land”] and ‫[ ְּכרּוב‬keruḇı̂ m; “cherub”]. Less evident, but much more prevalent, is
the fact that both advocates and critics of sanctuary/temple allusions seem to depend on
their interpretations of Ezek 28:11-19, which in scholarly literature tend to go in several
directions. For example, Gregory K. Beale comments that the association between the
words ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬and ‫ ְּכרּוב‬describes a temple scenario.21 Other commentators contend that
(5) Sailhammer suggests some comparisons between the Eden narrative and Deut 32. Israel’s
wilderness wanderings were in a land formless and void, but entrance into Canaan was entering the Garden
of Eden. John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:25.
(6) Davidson, in addition to exegetical/intertextual allusions, identifies various conceptual
connections, including, among others, investigative judgment, the sacrificial system initiated, and heptadic
patterns. See full discussion in Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 74-80.
19
For example, Jacob Rennaker argues that the connection with the Enuma Elish goes beyond Gen
1. He remarks that a temple-oriented conversation between Gen 1-3 and the Enuma Elish demonstrates that
temple imagery permeates Gen 2-3. Jacob Rennaker, “Temple Voices in Conflict and Chorus: A
Comparative Approach to Temple Imagery in Genesis 1-3 and the Enuma Elish” (paper presented to the
Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, 2014).
20
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 7.
21
Beale further comments that “Ezekiel 28:18 is probably, therefore, the most explicit place
anywhere in canonical literature where the Garden of Eden is called a temple.” Beale, Temple and the
Church's Mission, 75-76. Cf. Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House,” 87; Turner, “Theological Reading of
Genesis 1,” 75.
8
‫ ְּכרּוב‬is not restricted to sacred space, and therefore, the use of ‫ ְּכרּוב‬in Gen 3:24 and
Ezek 28 does not establish the garden as a sanctuary.22
The repercussions of such possible connections could affect scholarly
understanding of the entire Bible, due to the fact that among the variety of approaches23
as to what forms the theological center of Scripture, some scholars contend that
sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1-3 are a foundational interpretive key to biblical
theology.24 For the purpose of this study, the controversial implications are mainly related
to the interpretation of Gen 1-3 and the theology of the sanctuary.25
Laurence A. Turner suggests that “to see sanctuary theology here requires a
greater degree of literary engagement, a willingness to accept that these chapters might be
more than simple historical accounts of actual events, and an openness to new ways of
22
Block comments that there are several factors that argue against a primarily priestly
interpretation of Ezek 28:11-19. Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 9. See also Daniel I. Block, The Book of
Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 102-21.
23
Hasel has reviewed the most common scholarly proposals concerning the theological center of
scripture. See Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 139-71; Henning Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth
Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 145-78.
24
Davidson calls this approach a “multi-faceted theological center of Scripture,” which is based
on the creation and Eden narratives. Among the seven dimensions of Gen 1-3 that he observes, the seventh
facet demonstrates that “the first chapters of Genesis present the Garden of Eden as a Sanctuary. The
sanctuary is the setting of the rise of the Great Controversy on earth, just as it was the setting for its prior
inception in heaven, as described in Isa 14 and Ezek 28.” Richard M. Davidson, “Back to the Beginning:
Genesis 1-3 and the Theological Center of Scripture,” in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in
Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle, ed. Daniel Heinz, Jiří Moskala, and Peter M. Van Bemmelen (Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 2009), 5-29; Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative,” 104-13. Roberto Ouro also
understands the link between the sanctuary and creation in the context of the Garden of Eden narrative as
an essential canonical key for Old Testament theology. Ouro, Old Testament Theology, 38-57.
25
One may concur with Rodriguez. He writes that “the narrative of the Garden of Eden provides
some of the most important elements of a theology of the sanctuary and its services in the Israelite system
of worship.” Rodriguez, “Eden and the Israelite Sanctuary,” 30.
9
utilizing Scripture.”26 Gordon J. Wenham is also open to a cultic interpretation of these
chapters in view of sanctuary/temple allusions.27 Some scholars consider that such
allusions seem to warrant the idea that Gen 1-3 is primarily a temple/cultic text,28 rather
than a historical record of material origins.29
Possible substantiation of sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1-3 brings up
important questions concerning the relationship between creation and redemption.30 Do
allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3 substantiate the notion that the creation is
26
Turner further states that “the fact that the biblical text weaves sanctuary symbolism into its
account of creation also constitutes a significant counter to frequent exhortations from certain quarters that
the only legitimate approach to Genesis 1 is to read it ‘literally.’ This position assumes the text to be one-
dimensional. Rather, it is a complex and subtle narrative that works at more than one level, rewarding both
literal and theological/symbolic readings.” Turner, “Theological Reading of Genesis 1,” 77-78.
27
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 20.
28
In this dissertation the word cultic is employed to mean “related to any setting of worship.” This
term refers to “all those fixed conventions of worship, observed by both the individual and the group, by
which the benefits of divine favor in everyday life could be realized.” See Brevard S. Childs, Old
Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 198), 155. Cf. Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom
and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East
(Missoula: Scholars, 1977), 9-11. Scholars sometimes prefer to use the word liturgy. This term refers
narrowly to words and actions performed by cultic officials or laity in the course of worship. See J. W.
Hilber, “Liturgy and Cult,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity,
2012), 514.
29
See John H. Walton, “Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order out of
Disorder after Chaoskampf,” CTJ 43.1 (2008): 58-62. See also Walter Brueggemann, Reverberations of
Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 40;
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 22. Terence Fretheim recognizes a cultic origin
of the creation narrative, yet Fretheim maintains that the text in its present form and context is to be
interpreted literally. Terence E. Fretheim, “Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long? Yes,” in
The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 26. Cf. Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 48; Eugene H. Maly, “Israel: God's
Liturgical People,” in Liturgy for the People, ed. William J. Leonard (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963), 13.
30
Gage comments that the relationship between creation and redemption is primarily
soteriological. He proposes that Scripture depicts six great redemptive reenactments of creation, which
describe “divine victory over the anti-creative beast followed by the establishment of a royal residence or
temple.” Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 17-19.
10
subordinated to soteriological considerations?31 A more precise question would be: Do
allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3 speak about redemption and/or covenant,
and if so in what way?32
Implications regarding sanctuary/temple theology are also vital.33 Since an
intertextual approach is essential to establish sanctuary/temple allusions, for some
scholars the justification of these connections seems to imply that “the earthly sanctuary
is not primarily a type of heavenly counterpart but a reflection of the cosmos or
creation.”34 This observation raises some questions: Are such allusions in Gen 1-3 merely
a reflection of an earthly sanctuary/temple, or do they necessarily require the existence of
a cosmic sanctuary/temple? In addition, is the existence of a cosmic sanctuary/temple in
Gen 1-3 in harmony with the existence of a heavenly sanctuary/temple? If so, what is the
implication of a heavenly sanctuary/temple (as reflected in Gen 1-3) for the fate of the
cosmos?
31
Cf. Gerhard Von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1966), 131-43; Claus Westermann, Creation (London: SPCK, 1974), 113-23; Brueggemann,
Reverberations of Faith, 40-43.
32
Gen 3:15 has been at the center of attention with regard to covenantal allusions in the opening
chapters of Genesis. However, the focus here is rather on the sanctuary/temple allusions. For example,
Collins observes that Gen 2:15-17 is a covenant. See various covenantal “hints” in C. John Collins, Genesis
1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2006), 112-13.
33
The festival of Kippur (Day of Atonement) in Leviticus 16 had cosmic implications. According
to Doukhan, “the cleansing of the sanctuary is in fact the sign of the total purification of the whole earth on
the day of God’s judgment. Biblical theology understood the Israelite sanctuary as representative of the
whole world that God created.” Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish
Prince in Exile (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 129.
34
Souza further explains that, according to the parallelism between Daniel 7 and 8, “the sanctuary
in these chapters is not an amorphous or ethereal cosmic temple—or world temple for that matter—but a
sanctuary in heaven with structural and functional links with the sanctuary temple described elsewhere in
the Hebrew Bible.” Elias Brasil de Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” JATS 24.1
(2013): 25, 26, 39, 40.
11
Problem Statement
There is a lack of agreement among biblical scholars who investigate possible
evidence for allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3. The question remains: Is there
evidence for the sanctuary/temple in the creation and Eden narratives, and if so, what are
the implications of this evidence?
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this dissertation is to reevaluate major current scholarly arguments
for and against allusions to the sanctuary/temple in the creation and Eden narratives. In
the process, I will explore the implications of sanctuary/temple allusions in these
chapters, in particular the implications related to the interpretation of Gen 1-3 and the
theology of the sanctuary.
Justification for this Study
Sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1-3 have been utilized independently to put
forward various concepts.35 Scholars also mention such allusions in Bible
commentaries,36 but referring mainly to some seminal studies.37 Although some
sanctuary/temple allusions are mentioned in these studies, they are not the central focus
of research.
35
Two common scholarly proposals are Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 29-80; Walton,
Lost World of Genesis One, 68-86.
36
See, for example, Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers
(Eugene: Resource, 2014), 39-49; K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, NAC 1a (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1996), 177, 205-7.
37
Representative authors may be Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 66-120; Wenham,
“Sanctuary Symbolism,” 19-25; Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House,” 63-110; John M. Lundquist, “What
Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George
E. Mendenhall, ed. George E. Mendenhall (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205-19.
12
Many of these scholars’ works have considerable merit, but room exists for
further research. While some of these studies focus on specific aspects of the creation and
Eden narratives, no work has thoroughly investigated (as a whole) allusions to the
sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3. In fact, despite the growing interest and reassessment,
various fundamental issues remain unresolved.38
A recent contribution in this research area is a book edited by L. Michael Morales,
Cult and Cosmos, which reprints a collection of seminal essays dealing mainly with the
relationship between cosmos and cult, often citing sanctuary/temple allusions in the
creation and Eden narratives.39 Yet, there is limited scholarly dialogue between these
studies. Moreover, it is often the case that sanctuary/temple allusions are dealt with
separately (for example, the cultic meaning of the fourth day,40 divine rest,41 the temple-
building motif,42 the Garden as holy mountain,43 and the river in Eden,44 among others).
Exploring interconnections between possible allusions, this dissertation brings together,
reevaluates, and synthesizes the biblical data currently available in scattered studies.
Scope and Delimitations
The focus of this dissertation is Gen 1-3 in relation to major current scholarly
arguments for and against allusions to the sanctuary/temple. The analysis of these
38
See pages 3-8 of this dissertation.
39
L. Michael Morales, ed., Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-Centered Theology
(Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 1.
40
Vogels, “Cultic and Civil Calendars,” 163-80.
41
Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement,” 501-12.
42
Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy,” 375-87.
43
Clifford, “The Temple and the Holy Mountain,” 122-23.
44
McCarter, “River Ordeal,” 403.
13
arguments is based on the final form of the biblical text, and a comprehensive exegesis of
the biblical text is not attempted. Only those aspects of the text that are relevant to the
research question will receive special attention. In the process of this reevaluation I will
delimit this research primarily, but not exclusively, to discussion of the following aspects:
1. The Hebrew word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8.
2. The garden as a mountain in Gen 2:10.
3. The river of Eden in Gen 2:10.
4. The Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Gen 2:15.
5. The Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22.
6. The Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְּתהַ לֵ ְך‬in Gen 3:8.
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ לָ בַ ש‬in Gen 3:21.

7. The Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬
8. The Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24.
9. The eastern entrance to the garden in Gen 3:24.
10. The motif of temple building (divine rest) in Gen 1:1-2:4a.
11. The Hebrew words ‫ מֹועֵ ד‬and ‫ מָ אֹור‬on the fourth day of creation.
Methodology
A review of the scholarly arguments (see “Background of the Problem” above)
indicates that advocates and critics of the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3 have
employed intertextual theological analysis and biblical exegesis. Accordingly, I will
combine both approaches in order to determine on the same grounds the extent and
implications of such allusions. The following considerations will be taken into account in
this study.
14
Scholars stress two fundamental exegetical methods for Old Testament studies:
synchronic and diachronic.45 Daniel H. Ryou, drawing from Eep Talstra’s work, writes
that these two approaches have different purposes in reading the text and are to be seen as
complementary to each other.46 Talstra advances the idea that priority should be given to
the former over the latter. He explains:
Of these two forms of textual analysis the synchronic analysis has an “operational
priority” over the diachronic. The terminology is R. Polzin’s. He rightly stresses the
use of the term “operational.” For the point is not that the synchronic is
fundamentally privileged above the diachronic. The operational priority of the
synchronic analysis means only that one first reads a text as a whole, as a unity, in an
attempt to establish the structure of meaning of the whole and the contributions of the
constituent parts of the text to the total meaning. Then comes the diachronic question
of whether all the constituent parts of the text presuppose the same time and situation
of origin.47
45
Biblical studies can be approached from two perspectives: diachronic and synchronic. Oeming
explains that “this means the focus can be on either the historical development of texts, in which the later
one draws on an earlier one, or on a possible interrelation between texts that can be discerned by someone
who reads them together, especially when, as in the case of the Hebrew Bible, they form part of a defined
corpus (canon).” Manfred Oeming, “To Be Adam or Not to Be Adam: The Hidden Fundamental
Anthropological Discourse Revealed in a Intertextual Reading of ‫ אדם‬in Job and Genesis,” in Reading Job
Intertextually, ed. Katharine J. Dell and William L. Kynes (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013),
21.
46
Ryou further comments that “the final text must be treated as a legitimate literary entity, even if
it may contain layers of tradition and redaction such as historical data or aspects. One should not
overestimate the later. After all, the exegetical process must start synchronically. In fact, the linguistic layer
of a text should be studied as extensively as possible without inquiring into authors, genres or historical
situations. This means that in order to prevent too much subjectivity in the use of such criteria (i.e.,
historical data) one should first make an analysis of the facts as they present themselves in the text. It
would be quite wrong to start from a specific historical situation and allow this to determine the exegesis.
Daniel H. Ryou, Zephaniah's Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of
Zephaniah 2:1-3:8 (New York: Brill, 1995), 5.
47
Eep Talstra, Solomon's Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8:14-
61, trans. Gebed Van Salomo (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 83-84.
15
Thus, in a synchronic exegetical analysis, “it is not the text in its historical process of
development which is central, but only the text itself as a result of this process.”48 E. J.
van Wolde describes this synchronic approach when an intertextual analysis is employed:
The reader is in the central position, on the basis of the idea that the reader is the one
who allows the texts to interfere with one another. A reader who does not know any
other texts cannot identify any intertextual relationships. The reader is the one who,
through his or her own reading and life experience, lends significance to a great
number or possibilities that a text offers. Consequently, the presumed historical
process by which the text came into being is no longer important, but rather the final
text product, which is compared with other texts in synchronic relationships.49
In this sense, this dissertation adopts a mainly synchronic approach to biblical
exegesis and intertextual analysis,50 which deals with the final form51 of the Masoretic
Text.52 For our research, a synchronic exegetical/intertextual analysis entails a study of
48
Van Wolde calls this type of analysis a literary-structural approach (synchronic), in contrast to
a literary-historical approach (diachronic). E. J. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of
Genesis 1-11 (New York: Brill, 1994), 201.
49
E. J. Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives,” BibInt 5.1 (1997): 6.
50
Ryou further comments that “it must be remembered that diachronic questions arise from
synchronic analysis (syntactic and stylistic analysis). . . . By separating synchronic matters from the
diachronic ones, the exegetes thus arrive at good position to see the text clearly. This has, of course, clearly
a heuristic value in dealing with the text.” Ryou, Zephaniah's Oracles, 7. One may concede, with Ulrich
Luz, that “the quest for intertexts is primarily a synchronic quest.” Ulrich Luz, “Intertexts in the Gospel of
Matthew,” HTR 97.2 (2004): 122.
51
This study refrains from the highly conjectured enterprise of historically reconstructing the
sources of the Masoretic Text. Accordingly, major current scholarly arguments for and against allusions to
the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3 are examined in the order of the biblical narrative.
52
A number of scholars have demonstrated an explicit acceptance of this canonical argument.
Brevard S. Childs remarks, “The final form of the text performs a crucial hermeneutical function in
establishing the peculiar profile of a passage.” He observes also that “to work with the final form is to resist
any method which seeks critically to shift the canonical ordering.” Brevard S. Childs, “The Canonical
Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J.
Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 42-43. See Craig G. Bartholomew, Canon and Biblical
Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Walter Brueggemann and Tod Linafelt, An Introduction
to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster, 2012); Rolf
Rendtorff, “What We Miss by Taking the Bible Apart,” BRev 14.1 (1998); John H. Sailhamer, “The
Canonical Approach to the OT: Its Effect on Understanding Prophecy,” JETS 30.3 (1987); James A.
Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).
16
Gen 1-3 as a whole, and also of the use of words (Leitworte)53 and the themes that play a
role in possible allusions to the sanctuary/temple. Two areas of investigation will be
combined in this synchronic exegetical/intertextual task: linguistic/syntactic analysis54
and literary analysis.55
Consequently, the task of reevaluating major current scholarly arguments for and
against allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3 is not primarily concerned with
determining a source text.56 Rather, the analysis of intertextual allusions focuses on the
possible motif of the sanctuary/temple in these chapters.
Interpreters identify different kinds of intertextual markers, which often occur in
conjunction with one another. For the sake of clarity, in this dissertation there is no
attempt to categorize each possible sanctuary/temple allusion. Nevertheless, it is
profitable to identify the most common kinds of literary markers. Scholars use the
53
Bakon defines Buber’s notion of Leitworte as “the words and their derivatives or even
synonymous that are repeated in various contexts in the Bible.” Shimon Bakon, “Creation, Tabernacle and
Sabbath,” JBQ 25.2 (1997): 80.
54
Hebrew grammar is instrumental in this analysis.
55
Literary/stylistic analysis is used to investigate the literary devices employed in the biblical text.
56
Susan Hylen, following Udo J. Hebel’s work, comments that synchronic analysis “does not
distinguish between an earlier (source) text and a later (alluding) text. Intertextuality may be best
understood as a feature of texts; it is a way of understanding how texts intersect, destabilize, and transform
one another.” Susan Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (Berlin: Gruyter, 2005), 49-50. Cf. Udo J.
Hebel, Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical Studies (New
York: Greenwood, 1989), 8, 13.
17
following terms for these markers: allusions,57 key words and motifs,58 quotations,
echoes, and analogy.59 There are some cases when the relationship may not be
deliberately proposed by the biblical author and/or not be exegetically verifiable. Waltke
calls this kind of intertextual relation “conceptualization.” He remarks:
Texts may also be connected by conceptualization. For example, as will be shown,

themes such [as] people, land, law, rebellion, exile, and restoration that can be
extrapolated from the Garden of Eden narrative can be connected with those same
semantic themes in the rest of Scripture only by those conceptions, apart from
citations, key words, or obvious allusions in the text.60
57
Sommer offers a comprehensive analysis of intertextuality. He writes, “First, the reader
recognizes what Ben-Porat calls a marker, an identifiable element or pattern in one text belonging to
another independent text. The marker is one aspect of a sign in the referring text. The sign may be a poetic
line or sentence or a phrase, or it may consist of a motif, a rhythmic pattern, an idea, or even the form of a
work or its title. The second stage in the recognition of the allusion is the identification of the evoked text.
This is not identical with the first stage, because it is possible that a reader will recognize a marker as
referring to another text without recalling what the evoked text is. The third stage is the modification of the
interpretation of the sign in the alluding text. The reader brings certain elements of the evoked text of the
marked to bear on the alluding text, and these alter the reader’s construal of meaning of the sign in the
alluding text.” Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford:
Stanford University, 1998), 11-12.
58
Waltke suggests that “just as the repetition of a key word gives coherence and focus to an
individual text, so also the repetition of abstract words in numerous texts may signal their intertextual
connections and biblical themes.” Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 129.
59
Leene argues that this concept refers to similar syntactic patterns existing in clauses, besides
their agreements in vocabulary. Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy, 6.
60
Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 142. A word of caution is in order, however. There are
punctual elements to reconsider when evaluating intertextual relationships. Zakovitch comments, “One
must not be carried away by coincidental associations between one biblical narrative and another, but rather
care must be taken from the start to determine that a relation between the two narratives was intended:
common expressions, plots with similar themes, and which are constructed in parallel or similar fashion.”
Yair Zakovitch, “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections/Inversions of Genesis Stories in the Bible,”
BibInt 1.2 (1993): 139-40. In view of this risk, Van Wolde proposes important criteria for intertextual and
literary analysis in the Hebrew Bible: (1) Study the texts on their own; (2) Compile an inventory of
repetitions in the compared texts; and (3) Analyze the new network of meaning originating from the
meeting of the two texts. Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue with Texts," 7-8. In the process of analyzing the
meeting of the two texts, James Barr’s observation should also be considered—that “the distinctiveness of
biblical thought and language has to be settled at sentence level, that is, by the things the writers say, and
not by the words they say them with.” James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford
University, 1961), 270.
18
Finally, the trajectory of investigation in this study is as follows: After reviewing
the background of the problem (chapter I), this dissertation reevaluates major current
scholarly arguments for and against allusions to the sanctuary/temple in the pre-Fall
narrative of Eden recorded in Gen 2:4b-2:25 (chapter II), in the post-Fall narrative of
Eden recounted in Gen 3:1-3:24 (chapter III), and in the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:4a
(chapter IV). This order of study was chosen because major scholarly arguments for and
against allusions to the sanctuary/temple motif have emerged from Gen 2-3. Although
interpreters also find evidence in the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:4a, the most common
arguments are taken from the Eden narratives. Additionally, this study seeks to determine
the extent and theological implications of sanctuary allusions in the creation and Eden
narratives (chapter V). Lastly, a conclusion that includes a synthesis of the results
(chapter VI) summarizes the contributions of this dissertation.
19
CHAPTER II
THE PRE-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN
Introduction
The scholarly discussion of textual evidence of the sanctuary/temple motif in the
narrative of Eden (Gen 2:4b-3:24) has offered a wider spectrum of interpretation than that
regarding the creation narrative (Gen 1:1-2:4a).1 For this reason, in this chapter, I will
first review the scholarly literature and reevaluate the textual/conceptual evidence
purportedly related to the sanctuary/temple in the pre-Fall narrative of Eden (Gen 2:4b-
2:25). The prominent syntactic and literary characteristics of this narrative that scholars
have regarded as having a connection with the sanctuary/temple motif are: the Hebrew
word ‫ ;עֵ ֶדן‬the garden as a mountain in Gen 2:10; the river of Eden; the Hebrew verbs
‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ ַמר‬in Gen 2:15; and the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22.
Genesis 2:4b-2:25 and the Sanctuary/Temple Motif
The pre-Fall narrative of Eden introduces to the biblical canon the concept of the
primeval paradise, an idea very well known in ancient literature.2 Yet, a number of
factors in Gen 2:4b-2:25 suggest that the author presents this narrative depicting the
garden of Eden as a real place: rivers, trees, animals, flowering plants, etc.3 Thus, one
1
2
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 161.
3
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco: Word Books, 1998), 61-62.
20
initial point can be made. Although the author describes Eden as a paradisiacal place, he
distinguishes the garden from its surroundings with particular features. As has been
pointed out by commentators, these particularities reverberate in the biblical canon.4 The
question that is at issue for the purposes of this dissertation is this: Is the concept of Eden
(and its surroundings) related to the sanctuary/temple motif?
The Hebrew Word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Genesis 2:8
What is the meaning of Eden? The word ‫‘[ עֵ ֶדן‬ēden; “land of bliss,” “happy
land”]5 in Gen 2-3 is described in association with the word ‫[ גַן‬gan; “garden”]. The
etymology of this word “should be sought in relation to the Hebrew root ‘adan, which
has the connotation of ‘pleasure’ and ‘delight’ (Ps 36:8; Jer 51:34),”6 perhaps linked with
the sense of “a place where there is abundant water-supply.”7 Furthermore, ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in the
Hebrew Bible when it relates to the ‫ גַן‬of Gen 2 is identified as the “garden of the Lord”
‫גַן־יְּ הוָ ּ֑ה‬, a place where joy, gladness, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody will be
found (Isa 51:3; cf. Ezek 28:13 NKJV), in other words, a paradise (cf. Rev 2:7).8
4
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 206. Cf. Bolger, “Compositional Role,” 163-24; Munther B. I. Isaac,
“From Land to Lands, from Eden to the Renewed Earth: A Christ-Centred Biblical Theology of the
Promised Land” (PhD diss., Middlesex University, United Kingdom, 2014), 1-12.
5
The lexeme occurs fourteen times in the Hebrew Bible, but with the reference to the garden of
Gen 2 only seven times (Isa 51:13; Ezek 28:13; 31:9, 16, 18; 36:35 and Joel 2:3). Scholarship generally
favors the meaning of the term rendered by the LXX τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς (Gen. 3:23): “the land of
luxury/splendor/light.” See A. R. Millard, “The Etymology of Eden,” VT 34.1 (1984): 103, 105. This is the
meaning probably used in Rev 2:7: “Paradise of God.”
6
Jacques B. Doukhan, Genesis, ed. Jacques B. Doukhan, SDAIBC 1 (Silver Spring: Review and
Herald, 2016), 75.
7
David T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation,
JSOTSup 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 136.
8
Carl Schultz, “‫עֵ ֶדן‬,” TWOT 646. See also G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 21:316.
21
Yet, as crucial as this information has proven, it is by itself insufficient to
determine the semantic framework that ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬may carry. The canonical semantic field of
the word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is probably for some scholars “the most explicit place anywhere in
canonical literature where the Garden of Eden is called a temple,”9 especially in light of
Ezek 28:13.10 Other commentators, however, are critical of this concept and advance the
idea that the terminology of Ezek 28 does not establish the garden as a
sanctuary/temple.11 For this reason, intertextual analysis can be helpful to open up
possibilities to determine meaningful canonical concepts. Advocates and critics of the
sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2-3 often find Ezek 28:11-19 to be the key passage. The
Hebrew text and its translation read:12
13
‫ וַיְּ ִ ֥הי ְּדבַ ר־יְּ הוָ ָ֖ה אֵ ַל֥י לֵ א ָֹּֽמר׃‬28:11
28:11
The word of the LORD came to me,
saying,
“Son of man, take up a lamentation ‫ל־מֶ֣לֶ ְך צּ֑ ֹור‬ֶ ַ‫שא ִקינָ ָ֖ה ע‬ ֥ ָ ‫ בֶ ן־אָ ָ ָ֕דם‬28:12
28:12
for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus ֙ ‫הוִ֔ה אַ תָ ה‬ ִ ְּ‫אדֹּנָ ֶ֣י י‬
ֲ ֙ ‫כה אָ מַ ר‬ ֹּ ֹּ֤ ‫וְּ אָ ַמ ְֶּ֣רתָ ּ֗לֹו‬
says the Lord GOD: “You were the seal of
perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in ‫ליל ָֽ ֹּי ִפי׃‬
֥ ִ ‫ּוכ‬
ְּ ‫חֹותֶ֣ם תָ ְּכ ִ ִ֔נית מָ ֵל֥א חָ ְּכ ָמָ֖ה‬ ֵ
beauty.
‫ֱֹלהים הָ ִיּ֗יתָ כָ ל־אֶ ֙בֶ ן‬ ִִ֜ ‫ ְּבעֵ ֶ֙דן גַן־א‬28:13

28:13
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering: ‫ֲֹלם‬ּ֗ ‫יְּ קָ ָרֹּ֤ה ְּמסֻּ כָ תֶ ֙ך ֙ ֶ֣ ֹּא ֶדם ִפ ְּט ָדה וְּ ָיה‬
The sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl,
onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and ‫שיש ֹֹּׁ֙שהַ ם ֙ וְּ יָ ְֶּ֣ש ִ֔ ֵפה סַ ִפֶ֣יר ִֹּ֔נפֶ ְך ּובָ ְּר ַ ָ֖קת‬
֥ ִ ‫תַ ְּר‬
9
Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 75-76. Cf. Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House,” 87.
Turner, “Theological Reading of Genesis 1,” 75.
10
Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 67.
11
For example, Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 9. See also Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 102-21.
12
Unless otherwise indicated, English translation of the Hebrew text is taken henceforth from the
NKJV.
13
For a careful commentary on the grammatical and syntactical features of the Hebrew text see
Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 278-80.
22
emerald with gold. The workmanship of ‫לאכֶ ת תֻּ ֶפֹּ֤יך ּונְּ קָ בֶ ֙יך ֙ ִָ֔בְך ְּביֹ֥ום‬ ֶ ֹׁ֙ ‫וְּ ז ָָהּ֑ב ְּמ‬
your timbrels and pipes was prepared for ‫ִהבָ ַראֲךָ֖ כֹונָ ָֽנּו׃‬
you on the day you were created.
“You14 were the anointed cherub who ‫ּסֹוכ ְּ֑ך ּונְּ תַ ִּ֗תיך‬
ֵ ַ‫־כ ִ֔רּוב ִמ ְּמ ַשָ֖ח ה‬
ְּ ‫ אַ ְּ֙ת‬28:14
28:14
covers; I established you; You were on the ‫ֵי־אָ֖ש‬

ֵ ‫ֱֹלהים ֙ הָ ִִ֔ייתָ ְּבת֥ ֹוְך אַ ְּבנ‬ ִ ‫ק ֶדש א‬ ֹּ ֹּ֤ ‫ְּבהַ ֙ר‬
holy mountain of God; You walked back
and forth in the midst of fiery stones. ‫ל ְּכתָ ׃‬ ָֽ ָ ַ‫ִה ְּתה‬
‫מים אַ תָ ה ֙ ִב ְּד ָר ִ֔ ֶכיך ִמיָֹ֖ום ִה ָ ָֽב ְּר ָאְּ֑ך‬ ֹּ֤ ִ ָ‫ ת‬28:15

28:15
You were perfect in your ways from
the day you were created, till iniquity was ‫עַ ד־נִ ְּמ ָצ֥א עַ וְּ ָלָ֖תָ ה ָ ָֽבְך׃‬
found in you.
“By the abundance of your trading ‫תֹוכך֛ חָ ָמָ֖ס‬ ְּ ‫רב ְּרכֻּ לָ ְּת ּ֗ך מָ ל֧ ּו‬ ֹּ ֶ֣ ‫ ְּב‬28:16
28:16
You became filled with violence within, ֙ ‫ֱֹלהים וָ ָֽאַ בֶ ְּדך‬

ֹּ֤ ִ ‫חֱט ּ֑א וָאֶ חַ לֶ ְּלך ָ֩ מֵ הַ ֙ר א‬ ָ ֶ‫וַ ָֽת‬
And you sinned; therefore I cast you as a
profane thing out of the mountain of God; ‫ֵי־אש׃‬ ָֽ ֵ ‫ּס ִ֔ ֵכְך ִמתָ֖ ֹוְך אַ ְּבנ‬
ֹּ ַ‫ְּכ ֶ֣רּוב ה‬
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
from the midst of the fiery stones.
“Your heart was lifted up because of ָ֖‫ ג ַָבֹּּ֤ה ִל ְּבך ֙ ְּבי ְָּפ ֶיִ֔ך ִש ַח֥תָ חָ ְּכמָ ְּתך‬28:17
28:17
your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom ‫ל־א ֶֶ֣רץ ִה ְּשלַ ְּכ ִּ֗תיך ִל ְּפנֵ ֧י‬ ֶ ַ‫עַ ל־יִ ְּפעָ ֶתּ֑ך ע‬
for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to
the ground, I laid you before kings, That ‫בְך׃‬ ָֽ ָ ‫אוָה‬ֲ ‫ר‬ ֥ ַ ‫ְּמלָ ִ ֛כים נְּ תַ ִ ָ֖תיך ְּל‬
they might gaze at you.
“You defiled your sanctuaries ָ‫רב עֲֹו ּ֗ ֶניך ְּבעֶ ֙וֶל ֙ ְּרכֻּ ָל ְֶּ֣ת ִ֔ך ִח ַל ְָּ֖לת‬ ֹּ ֶ֣ ֵ‫ מ‬28:18
28:18
By the multitude of your iniquities, by the ‫ל ְּתך‬ ַ ִ֔ ָ‫היא אֲכ‬ ֶ֣ ִ ֙ ‫ֹוכך‬ְּ ‫א־אֹּ֤ש ִמ ָֽת‬ֵ ‫ָֽאֹוצ‬
ִ ָ‫ִמ ְּק ָד ֶשּ֑יך ו‬
iniquity of your trading; therefore I
brought fire from your midst; It devoured ‫וָאֶ תֶ נְּ ךֹּ֤ ְּלאֵ ֙פֶ ר ֙ עַ ל־הָ ִ֔ ָא ֶרץ ְּלעֵ ינֵ ָ֖י כָ ל־‬
you, and I turned you to ashes upon the ‫רֹּ ֶ ָֽאיך׃‬
earth In the sight of all who saw you.
‫ל־יֹודעֶ ֙יך ֙ ָ ָֽבעַ ִִ֔מים שָ ְּממָ֖ ּו עָ ֶל ּ֑יך‬

ְּ ָ‫ כ‬28:19
28:19
All who knew you among the peoples
are astonished at you; you have become a ‫ד־עֹולם׃ פ‬ָֽ ָ ַ‫בַ לָ הֶ֣ ֹות הָ ִִ֔ייתָ וְּ אֵ ינְּ ךָ֖ ע‬
horror, and shall be no more forever.”
14
The attribution of the cherub as the subject of the dirge or as playing the same role as in Gen
3:24 depends on which text is adopted (in relation to the pointing of ‫)אַ ְּ֙ת‬. Bertoluci’s examination of this
issue observes that the MT makes the cherub the subject of the dirge, while the LXX sets the cherub as the
garden dweller. Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 262-63. However, regardless of how it is read here, the
semantic framework of both perspectives arrives at the same description of the cherub as a living creature
in a very sublime place. Cf. Cooke, Book of Ezekiel, 317; Kalmon Yaron, The Dirge over the King of Tyre,
Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 303; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979), 2:85-86.
23
The interpretation of this passage15 raises at least two pertinent questions that
need reconsideration. Is the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3 the same reality as the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13? If
they are not the same, where on earth (or somewhere else) is the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13
located? Most importantly: Is ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬a sanctuary/temple, as some scholars contend? While
there is abundant scholarship that examines either Gen 2-3 or Ezek 28, there seems to be
relatively little work that examines both passages to explore any possible correlations
between them concerning the sanctuary/temple motif. In the following paragraphs, I will
summarize the relevant arguments that have been advocated, and then I will discuss any
relevant exegetical factors for and/or against the biblical evidence of the sanctuary/temple
motif. Let us consider four issues in the text over which scholarly interpretations diverge.
15
Some scholars find that the text of Ezek 28 shares common elements with the tradition of ANE
culture; for example, see Crawford H. Toy, “The Babylonian Element in Ezekiel,” JBL 1 (1881): 62-64;
Cooke, Book of Ezekiel, 315; Peter D. Feinman, “Where Is Eden?: An Analysis of Some of the
Mesopotamian Motifs in Primeval J,” in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Hermann Gunkel's
Chaoskampf Hypothesis, ed. Richard Henry Beal and Jo Ann Scurlock (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013),
172-89; I. G. Matthews, Ezekiel (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1939), 105; Alfred
Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel (Leipzig: Mohr, 1897), 147. However, this idea has been not substantiated
properly and these common elements are “descriptive allusions, and we should not neglect the substantial
differences.” See John L. McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18,” JBL 75.4 (1956): 323;
John L. McKenzie, “Myth and the Old Testament,” CBQ 21.3 (1959): 281-82. Cf. Bertoluci, “Son of the
Morning,” 125-26. See Steven Pulley for additional arguments against the idea that the Ezekiel narrative
has a literary dependence on ANE myths. Steven R. Pulley, “The Qinah Concerning the King of Tyre in
Ezekiel 28:11-19” (MDiv diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1982), 13-15.
24
First, the oracles against Tyre in Ezek 28 have two literary units:16 vv. 1-10 and
vv. 11-19,17 although they are closely connected as one single theme.18 This observation
is essential to distinguish between the identity of the addressees: ‫( ִלנְּ גִ ֙יד ִֹּ֜צר‬to the prince
of Tyre in v. 2) and ‫ל־מֶ֣לֶ ְך צּ֑ ֹור‬

ֶ ַ‫( ע‬for the king of Tyre in v. 12). Scholars addressing this
issue have reached a variety of conclusions. For example, some scholars take these two
16
Scholars often conclude, regardless of their interpretation of the figurative language, that there
are two distinct literary panels having divergences in genre, style, and content. Cf. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel
20-48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 92; Lamar E. Cooper, Ezekiel, NAC 17 (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), 268; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 73. See, for example, a comparative table from
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 88-89.
A Comparison of Ezekiel 28:1-10 and 28:11-19
vv. 1-10 vv. 11-19
Genre judgment speech lament (qînâ)
Literary style standard narrative prose elevated prose
Addressee nĕgîd ṣōr, “prince of Tyre” melek ṣōr, “king of Tyre”
Issue the arrogant claim the glorious reality
Manner of punishment through agents by Yahweh himself
The role of the nations agents of judgment witnesses of judgment
17
Davidson observes here (Ezek 28:12-19) a chiastic structure. Davidson’s study reveals that this
passage is the center of the entire book of Ezekiel, and that this literary arrangement describes the origin
(A-F) and destiny (A`- F`) of the cherub. See Richard M. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the
Book of Ezekiel,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David
Merling (Berrien Springs: Institute of Archaeology Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum of Andrews
University, 1997), 75. See also Jiří Moskala, “Notes on the Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” in
Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala (Berrien
Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University,
2016), 105-10. Davidson’s chiastic structure:
A Inclusio (vv. 12b-13).
B “The anointed cherub who covers” (v. 14).
C “I establish you” (v. 14).
D “on the holy (qodesh) mountain of God” (v. 14).
E "In the midst of the stones of fire” (v. 14).
F “Perfect in your ways from the day you were created” (v. 15a).
F` “Til iniquity was found in you, and you sinned” (vv. 15b, 16).
E` “From the midst of the stones of fire” (v. 16).
D` “From the mountain of God a profane thing (hll)” (v. 16).
C` “I will destroy you” (v. 16).
B` “O covering cherub” (v. 16).
A` Inclusio (vv. 17-19).
Choi, “Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28,” 117-18; Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 230; Souza,
18
“The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 281.
25
expressions as conclusive evidence for different authors or periods of time.19 Also,
commentators often observe in these two expressions two different entities.20 A common
argument asserts that ‫“ נָגִ יד‬is an expression attested only for humans,”21 and that the
word ‫ ֶמלֶ ְך‬in the book of Ezekiel “always refers to an earthly king.”22 Therefore, some
scholars conclude that the primary referent in both oracles is the human king of Tyre.23
However, there are a number of textual particularities24 that prompt us to think that the
two literary units of vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-19 are the product of one single author25 and
present a transition from the earthly historical realm to the heavenly realm.
The distinction between the two literary units of vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-19 can be
observed in the use of the terms ‫ נָגִ יד‬and ‫מֶ לֶ ְך‬. At the beginning of the Israelite
monarchy, the writers’ usage of these two terms seems to indicate rulership on two
different levels. Frequently the writers say that God designated Saul, David, or another
19
Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 90; Yaron, Dirge over the King, 45-46; Pulley, “Qinah Concerning the
King,” 30.
20
John Skinner, The Book of Ezekiel (New York: Armstrong and Son, 1908), 13:252-53.
21
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 93. Cf. Nicolas Wyatt, “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements
in West Semitic Royal Ideology,” UF 18 (1986): 425; Cameron Mackay, “The King of Tyre,” CQR 117
(1934): 239; Norman C. Habel, “Ezekiel 28 and the Fall of the First Man,” CTM 38.8 (1967): 517.
22
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 103. Cf. 17:12; 19:9 (Babylon); 29:2–3 (Egypt); 27:33; 28:17
(kings of the earth); 34:24; 37:25 (Davidic ruler).
23
A. A. Bevan, “The King of Tyre in Ezekiel XVIII,” JTS 4 (1903): 500. B. S. Childs, among
other scholars, considers “that the mythological motifs are employed for illustrative purposes only, as
extended figures of speech.” Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, SBT (London:
SCM, 1960), 70-71.
See further arguments in Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 231, 246, 249, 256; Souza, “The
24
Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 282-84, 290.

25
The idea that these literary units were produced by different authors in separate periods of time
seems to overlook the vocabulary usage. Note for example the use of ‫“( חָ ְּכמה‬wisdom”) three times in vv.
1-10 (vv. 4, 5, 7) and twice in vv. 11-19 (12, 17); ‫“( י ֳִפי‬beauty”) occurs once in vv. 1-10 (v. 7) and twice in
vv. 11-19 (vv. 12, 17); ‫“( ְּרכֻּ לָ ה‬traffic, merchandise”) occurs once in vv. 1-10 (v. 5) and twice in vv. 11-19
(vv. 16, 18); the association of the words ‫ לֵ ב‬and ‫ָבּה‬ ַ ‫“( ג‬heart” and “to be high”) occurs twice in vv. 1-10
(v. 2, 5) and once in vv. 11-19 (v. 17).
26
charismatic leader as the ‫ נָגִ יד‬over his people, while the term ‫ מֶ לֶ ְך‬would refer to God
himself as the true King (cf. 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 12:12; 13:14; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 7:8; 1 Kgs
1:35; 14:7; 20:5; 2 Kgs 20:5; 1 Chr 11:2; 2 Chr 32:21). The fact that the “ruler” (‫ )נָגִ יד‬of
Tyre in vv. 1-10 is called “king” (‫ )מֶ לֶ ְך‬in vv. 11-19 suggests that there is something
different about the one addressed in the lament.26 This difference suggests to some
interpreters that the prophet Ezekiel in vv. 11-19 depicts a figure with a position of super-
terrestrial glory.27
Another point to consider is that while the designation “cherub” (Ezek 28:14, 16),
used elsewhere in the book of Ezekiel for members of the divine entourage, describes a
supernatural being,28 Ezek 28:1-10 suggests that the ‫ נָגִ יד‬is a human being, as 28:2 and 9
make clear: “yet you are a man and not God.” This seems to emphasize that despite all
the pride and glory of the historical “prince” (‫ )נָגִ יד‬of Tyre, he remains a mere human
being. It should be noted that vv. 2 and 8 locate the “prince” in “the heart of the seas,” an
appropriate description for the geographical location of Tyre, and concurring with the
actual setting of the human ruler. Evidently, the phrase “you were in Eden, the garden of
God” (v. 13) is the most difficult obstacle to the interpretation of the king of Tyre as the
literal king of the city.29 In fact, since v. 17 reports that the cherub was thrown to the
26
Cooper, Ezekiel, 266-67.
27
See Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 9:233. It is noteworthy that Dan 9:25 refers to Christ in the messianic
prophecy as ‫נָגִ יד‬, but in Rev 15:3; 17:14, and 19:16 Christ is called King (βασιλεύς). This characterization
could indicate the differences in Christ’s mission on earth and in heaven.
28
See Ezek 10. Cf. Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord
(Chicago: Moody, 1969), 160-64; Skinner, The Book of Ezekiel, 253; Hugh R. Page, The Myth of Cosmic
Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 157.
29
See Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: With the New
International Version of the Holy Bible, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1976), 6:883.
27
earth, the cherub’s earlier location must have been outside the earth. The above biblical
evidence would suggest that the two oracles may not only refer to two different
personages, but that the ‫ נָגִ יד‬and the ‫ מֶ לֶ ְך‬are portrayed in two different settings.30 The
prophet’s description gives the impression that vv. 11-19 transcend the historical figures
of the earthly realm. In point of fact, a study of Isa 14 provides intertextual evidence to
support a similar vertical dynamic focusing on the fall of a supernatural figure behind the
historical king of Babylon.31 Thus, these prophetic writings refer not only to immediate
historical events, but also to realities beyond themselves.
Second, the usage of the word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2-3 and in Ezek 28:13 is highly
significant. One may agree with C. John Collins’s contention that Ezekiel has a “fall
story” based on Gen 3, yet it may be inadequate to consider this passage only “as a
rhetorically powerful application of that story to the Phoenician king.”32 The fact that the
30
Similar conclusions have been offered by Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His
Prophecy: An Exposition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1876), 260; Skinner writes that the point of view is
very different in these two sections because “in the first the prince is still conceived as a man; . . . in the
second, however, the king appears as an angelic being . . . sinless at first, and falling from his high state
through his own transgression.” Skinner, The Book of Ezekiel, 252-53. Cf. Mackay, “The King of Tyre,”
239, 241. Thus, there is substantial evidence that in these two oracles “there is a movement from the local,
historical realm, of the early ‘prince’ (nāḡîʹḏ, ‫ )נָגִ יד‬in Ezek 28:1-10, to the heavenly realm of a cosmic
‘king,’ (‫)מֶ לֶ ְך‬, the supernatural ruler of Tyre, in Ezek 28:11-19.” See Davidson, “Chiastic Literary
Structure,” 87.
31
Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 289-91. Cf. L. G. A. Roberts, Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Isaiah (London: Covenant, 1931), 39-41; A. R. Fausset, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” in A
Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), 3:610; L. Sperry Chafer,
Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-1948), 2:44-50; H. A. Ironside, Expository
Notes on the Prophet Isaiah (New Jersey: Loiseaux Brothers, 1952), 88-92; Merril F. Unger, Biblical
Demonology (Weathon: Van Kampen, 1953), 184-85; Giovani Papini, The Devil (New York: E. P. Dutton,
1954), 31-32; Herbert Lockyer, All Doctrines of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 134-35;
Charles F. Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody, 1969), 163.
32
Contra C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should
Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 69. Norman Habel has observed:
If we argue that Ezekiel is borrowing directly from the text of Gen. 2-3, despite the obvious
divergences between the two portraits of the first man, then it becomes evident that Ezekiel was led to
ignore certain elements of the Genesis narrative as secondary in communicating the primary message
28
two literary units of Ezek 28 (vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-19) describe two different scenarios,
one natural and one supernatural,33 makes it difficult to identify the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3 as the
same ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13.34 Even if this vertical movement is not recognized, the
differences between the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3 and the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13 are equally
noteworthy.
There are important reasons to think that Ezek 28:1-19 does not report the same
events as the creation, sin, and fall of the first human beings in Gen 2-3. In Ezek 28:13
‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is described as the ‫ֱֹלהים‬

ִִ֜ ‫( גַן־א‬garden of God); in contrast Gen 2 reports that God
planted a ‫ גַן‬for the benefit of humankind. In Ezek 28:14 ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is located ‫ק ֶדש‬
ֹּ ֹּ֤ ‫ְּבהַ ֙ר‬
of the Fall to another situation. Furthermore, he was apparently not compelled by an earlier text (or
tradition) to adhere to details but felt free, under the guidance of God, to modify certain features to
make them more appropriate for his proclamation.
Habel aptly outlines the evidence to substantiate that the writer of Ezekiel had in mind the fall of
another being. Yet, Habel’s conclusion depends upon his idea that Ezek 28:12-19 represents the
reformulation of the fall tradition. Habel, “Ezekiel 28 and the Fall,” 522-24. Similarly, Bevan writes that
Ezek 28:14, 16 “is not simply borrowed from the account of the Garden of Eden and of the fall of man In
the early chapters of Genesis, for some of the features which are most prominent in Ezekiel's description
for example, the holy mountain of God and the stones of fire have no counterpart in Genesis.” Bevan,
“King of Tyre,” 501. However, as we will see below, the holy mountain of God and the stones of fire do
indeed have counterparts in Gen 2-3.
33
Mackay, “The King of Tyre,” 239-41. Mackay argues that the supernatural figure in Ezek
28:11-19 is the patron deity of Tyre, Merlkart, though this theory has been already disallowed in Zimmerli,
Ezekiel, 90.
34
Habel, for example, observes that the rejection of the being is definitive and “no symbol of
reconciliation grace is to be expected. Rather, he is to be exposed before kings.” Habel, “Ezekiel 28 and the
Fall,” 520, 522. McKenzie also recognizes that “in Ezekiel the garden is full of precious stones; there are
no trees; the being is clothed; he is endowed with marvelous attributes; he does not keep and till the garden,
which located on the mountain of God; there is no serpent; and, most important of all, there is no woman.”
John L. McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2-3,” TS 15.4 (1954): 552. See more
divergences in Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel Abrahams
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 1:74-81; Herbert G. May, “King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel
28:12-19,” in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (Harper, 1962), 168-69;
Theodor Herzl Gaster and James George Frazer, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A
Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's Folklore in the Old Testament (New York:
Harper & Row, 1969), 622-24; McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions,” 324.
29
‫( אֱֹל ִהים‬on the holy mount of God), while in Gen 2 ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is planted on earth, and the text
reports that it is situated ‫( ִמ ֶ ּ֑ק ֶדם‬in the east).35
Although the divergences between the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3 and the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13
have been identified,36 both narratives are connected through an edenic setting. This
semantic framework cannot be easily dismissed because the setting of the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek
28:13 portrays several features that provide strong links with sanctuary/temple imagery.
The nine stones listed in Ezek 28:13 seem to be analogous to the jewels adorning the
chestpiece of Israel’s high priest (cf. Exod 28:17-20 and 39:10-13).37 The expression
“you were the anointed cherub who covers” (‫ּסֹוכ ְּ֑ך‬

ֵ ַ‫־כ ִ֔רּוב ִמ ְּמ ַשָ֖ח ה‬
ְּ ‫ )אַ ְּ֙ת‬in Ezek 28:14
seems to echo the cultic and sacred functions of cherubim in the rest of the Old
Testament: (1) They faced each other and overshadowed the ark (Exod 25:18-20, 22;
37:8, 9); (2) God is represented as revealing his will from between them (Num 7:89); (3)
Two cherubim in Solomon’s temple resembled those of the desert tabernacle (1 Kgs
6:23-28; 8:6-8; 2 Chr 3:10-13); (4) Cherubim were part of the decorations of the
tabernacle and temple (curtains: Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 2 Chr 3:14; walls and doors of
the temple: 1 Kgs 6:29, 32; Ezek 41:18); (5) The cherubim are referred to as the carriers
of God (2 Sam 22:11; Ps 18:10); (6) God is described as enthroned between cherubim (1
35
Although Block does not see a vertical movement in Ezek 28:1-10 and 11:11-19, he affirms that
the title for this personage is ‫( ֶמלֶ ְך‬Ezek 28:12), and when he is identified otherwise, he is ‫ ְּכרּוב‬, a role
fundamentally different from the ‫רּובים‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ‬in Gen 3:24. Furthermore, he argues that the renowned figure in
Ezek 28 is not characterized by a cultic role, but by wisdom, which the Hebrew Bible never associates with
priests, but does with kings. Thus, the renowned personage is primarily a royal figure. See Block, “Eden: A
Temple?,” 9-10.
36
Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 136-39, 257-58.
37
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 106. Cf. W. Emery Barnes, “Ezekiel's Denunciation of Tyre,” JTS
35 (1934): 51-52. The MT of Ezek 28:13 presents nine of the twelve stones of Exodus in a alternative
order, but the LXX of Ezekiel provides all the stones listed in Exodus.
30
Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 99:1; cf. 2 Kgs 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Is 37:16); (7) In the NT the
author of Hebrews refers to the cherubim above the ark (Heb 9:5). The evident difference
with Gen 3:24 is that Ezekiel’s cherub is singular, not plural, and he walks about in the
garden, rather than being stationed at the entrance east of the garden.
Within the context just described, another connection to sanctuary/temple imagery
in this edenic setting is the verb ‫( חָ לַ ל‬ḥālál; “pollute,” “profane”). ‫ חָ לַ ל‬is used in the
Mosaic law in the piel stem with the meaning of desecration or profanation (for example,
the altar in Exod 20:25; the Sabbath in Exod 31:14; YHWH’s name in Lev 18:21; 19:12;
the sanctuary in Lev 21:12, 23; cf. Lev 22:15; Num 18:32). In Ezek 28 ‫ חָ לַ ל‬occurs in v.
16 “I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God” (‫ֱֹלהים‬

ֹּ֤ ִ ‫)וָאֶ חַ לֶ ְּלך ָ֩ מֵ ַה ֙ר א‬
and in v. 18 “You defiled your sanctuaries” (‫) ִח ַל ְָּ֖לתָ ִמ ְּק ָד ֶשּ֑יך‬. It is significant that ‫חָ לַ ל‬
is used in connection with the expressions “the mountain of God” and “sanctuaries”
because in this way the edenic setting is furnished with cultic connotations.
Moreover, the biblical evidence seems to specify the locale of the
sanctuary/temple alluded to in Ezek 28:11-19. The fact that the terms “heaven,” “Eden,”
“the sides of the north,” and “the temple” refer to basically the same place further
indicates a connection with a cultic scenario (cf. Pss 116:19; 135:2; 92:12, 13). “The
expressions like ‘guardian cherub’ (vv. 14, 16), ‘my (your) sanctuaries’ (v. 18), and ‘fiery
stones’ (vv. 14, 16), seem to indicate that the ‘garden of God’ mentioned in the passage
under discussion should be identified with a sanctuary,”38 or at least they should be
Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 260-61. Cf. H. J. Van Dijk, Ezekiel's Prophecy on Tyre: A
38
New Approach (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 117-18.
31
interpreted as cultic.39 According to Pss 36: 8-10; 92:12-14; Ezek 31:2-3; Isa 14:8-14, the
expressions “house of God” and “garden of Eden” are interchangeable, and there is no
clear dividing line between the “house of the Lord” and “the mountain of God.”40 It is
possible to argue from Isa 14:13 that there is no differentiation between “heaven,”
“Eden,” “the side of the north,” and “the temple.”41
This interchangeable terminology has been reexamined by Souza, who has written
a comprehensive study tracing the heavenly sanctuary/temple through the Old Testament.
According to his line of reasoning:
It must be noted that since v. 17 reports that the cherub was cast to the earth, he must
have been located in some place outside the earth. Additionally, that the "cherub" was
covered with “precious stones” among the “stones of fire” indicates a location at the
very presence of YHWH, as implied in Ezek 1:13 and 10:2. Moreover, the
connections with Isa 14:12-15 also indicate a heavenly setting for Ezek 28:11-19,
which strengthens the probability that the sanctuary referred to in the latter pericope
is the heavenly sanctuary.42
This terminological framework has led to the recognition of cosmic connotations
related to sanctuary/temple narratives.43 This factor has been known as a precursor of the
correlations between a heavenly Zion and Eden, which is a notion that has long held
39
Some interpreters find the Tyrian sanctuary in these allusions. For example, Bevan comments
that “Solomon was closely allied with the king of Tyre and that the temple at Jerusalem was built by
Tyrians. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the style and decorations of the Solomonian temple were
mainly, if not entirely, copied from Tyrian models.” Thus, he concludes: “the Tyrian sanctuary, as Ezekiel
figured it to himself, must have borne a great resemblance to the temple at Jerusalem.” See Bevan, “King of
Tyre,” 502.
40
See the following section entitled “The Garden as a Mountain in Gen 2:10.”
41
Yaron, Dirge over the King, 40-45.
42
Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 290.
43
William Foxwell Albright, the dean of American Biblical Archaeologists, for several years
postulated cosmic symbolism in the temple of Solomon. See William F. Albright, Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1956), 148-51.
32
scholarly attention.44 An article by Levenson asserts: “No wonder temples in the ancient
Near East sometimes contained a paradisal garden and no wonder that Zion, the Temple
mountain, ‘perfect in beauty’ (Ps. 50:2; Lam. 2:15), was equated with the Garden of
Eden.”45 According to Levenson’s analysis, this literary correspondence evokes cosmic
symbolism of the temple of Jerusalem.46 Indeed, that creation was symbolically
expressed in terms of temple architecture was common in Egyptian temple theology.47 If
the canonical biblical text portrays Zion typologically representing the ‫עֵ ֶדן‬/dwelling
place of God and his creatures in heaven (Ezek 28:11-19), then ultimately Gen 2-3 would
describe the ‫עֵ ֶדן‬/dwelling place of God and his creatures on earth. The landscape of Gen
2-3 provides an indicator that “the garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis
44
For a detailed scholarly survey of biblical evidence concerning the heavenly sanctuary/temple,
see Kim Papaioannou and Ioannis Giantzaklidis, eds., Earthly Shadows, Heavenly Realities: Temple-
Sanctuary Cosmology in Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Jewish Literature (Berrien Springs:
Andrews University, 2016), especially 31-108.
45
Levenson, “Temple and the World,” 297. The significance of Zion in the Hebrew Bible (Cf.
Ezek 5:5; 38:12) reveals that the Temple of Jerusalem (Mount Zion) is spoken of in terms of “heaven and
earth” (Cf. Pss 78:69 [Hebrew]; 76:3 [Hebrew]; 134:1-3 [Hebrew].
46
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 95. See also S. L. Klouda, “Zion,” DOTWPW 938.
Gage comments that “the temple of Zion, as a sanctuary that God has established, becomes a microcosmic
metaphor of creation itself.” (Cf. Pss 78:69; 150:1). He argues further on this idea and finally claims that
“the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple appears to have been a very conscious symbolic reconstruction of
the Garden of Eden.” Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 54, 57.
47
Cf. Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and
the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 171-73; Byron E. Shafer,
“Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview,” in Temples of Ancient Egypt, ed. Byron E. Shafer and
Arnold Dieter (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1997), 8; Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (1948;
repr., New York: Harper and Row, 1961), 153; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient
Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948),
152; E. A. E. Reymond, The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969),
208; William A. Ward, “Temples and Sanctuaries: Egypt,” ABD 6:369; Richard H. Wilkinson, The
Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 52; Eric W. Baker, “The
Eschatological Role of the Jerusalem Temple: An Examination of Jewish Writings Dating from 586 BCE to
70 CE” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2014), 22.
33
simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a
place where God dwells and where man should worship him.”48
The above evidence warrants a homogenous terminological framework, namely,
that the sanctuary/temple motif embraces the narratives of the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2-3 and the
‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Ezek 28:13. Wallace also notes this fact and remarks: “Gen 2-3 is probably meant
to be understood primarily as a dwelling place of Yahweh rather than simply a place of
human habitation.”49 In accordance with this understanding, “one should not overlook the
correspondence between the earthly sanctuary and its heavenly counterpart.50 The cosmic
overtones derived from the terminological framework of the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Ezek 28:13 may set
forth a similar conceptual vertical relationship in the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3. As Gage also points
48
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 399. Cf. John H. Walton, “Garden of Eden,” DOTP 205.
Note some possible instances in the Hebrew Bible where gardens were settings for vegetation cults (Cf.
Gen 12:6; 18:1-16; Judg 6:11-24). See Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 122-26, 137.
49
Wallace observes that ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is clearly associated with Paradise, a heavenly dwelling set aside for
the righteous and faithful. He argues that “the issue has to do with the question of whether Eden was
understood as a human paradise or a divine dwelling. It ultimately bears on the meaning of the narrative.
The argument that the garden was created after the first human and therefore could not have been
Yahweh’s dwelling misses the subtlety of the situation. Many of the motifs of Eden are also those of the
divine dwelling described in Mesopotamian and Canaanite myth. These include the unmediated presence of
the deity, the council of the heavenly beings, the issuing of divine decrees, the source of subterranean life-
giving waters which supply the whole earth, abundant fertility, and trees of supernatural qualities and great
beauty.” Howard N. Wallace, “Eden, Garden of,” ABD 2:281-82.
50
See Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 39. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:30-35, 41-50; 2 Chr
30:27; Isa 6:1-7; Heb 8:1-5; 9:23-26. Davidson has validated in a thoroughgoing study the typological
meaning and implications of the Hebrew term ‫[ תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ; “shaped,” “form,” “pattern,” “model”] in
view of the correlations and analogies between the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly counterpart. See
Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical τύπος Structures, Andrews
University Seminary Doctoral Dissertations Series 2 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1981), 367-88.
Some scholars have concluded that for the ancient Near Eastern mind there was a natural association
between the earthly tabernacle and the heavenly archetype. See, for example, the detailed treatment in
Bernhard W. Anderson and Steven Bishop, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1999), 201; Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 546; Caroline Waerzeggers, “The Pious King: Royal
Patronage of Temples,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, ed. Karen Radner and Eleanor
Robson (Oxford: Oxford University, 2011), 725-51.
34
out: “The conception of the earth in scripture is consistently after the pattern of
heaven.”51
Third, the royal status of the figure in Ezek 28:11-19 should not be overlooked.
Block correctly observes the kingship depiction of the ‫ מֶ לֶ ְך‬- ‫כרּוב‬,

ְּ but he overstates the
differences between kingship and priestly functions in the Hebrew Bible as an either/or
dichotomy,52 and thus he rejects any allusion to a cultic framework. As Karl Deenick has
shown, the priestly and kingship roles are not mutually exclusive.53 The supernatural
ruler of Tyre seems to be regarded in this oracle as having both cultic and royal status, a
royal priesthood portrayal,54 and consequently, the precious stones could be related to the
51
Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 51. Cf. Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1980), 35; Childs, Myth and Reality, 85.
52
Contra Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 9-10.
53
Deenick argues this by reference to 1 Sam 2:35, 2 Sam 6, and Heb 7. The books of Samuel do
not address the absence of a king but the failure of the priesthood. Deenick has demonstrated that the rise of
the priest will come neither from the house of Eli, nor from the house of Aaron. He comments:
The sons of Eli are disobedient and Eli and his household are cut off, and the demise of the house of
Aaron is foreshadowed. In this context Yahweh promises a new priest, an "anointed." One naturally
expects that Samuel will be that person. But his sons, too, prove unfaithful and the people ask for a
king (1 Sam 8:1-5). In the light of earlier biblical history those who heard this promise of 1 Sam 2:35
would surely have understood “anointed” to refer to a priest. But the most surprising fact in these
early chapters of Samuel is that the first person to be anointed after the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 is not a
priest, but a king. In Ch. 10 Saul is anointed king.
Furthermore, he concludes by saying that “the strong connection between the Davidic covenant
and the promises of 1 Sam 2:35 clearly suggests that it is through David's line that the promised priest will
come.” See Karl Deenick, “Priest and King or Priest-King in 1 Samuel 2:35,” WTJ 73.2 (2011): 335-38.
See also Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC 7 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 331-32, 351. Cf.
Gordon J. Wenham, “Were David's Sons Priests?” ZAW 87.1 (1975): 79-80. Thus, Block’s remark that
wisdom in the Hebrew Bible is never associated with priestly functions but with kingship needs
reconsideration, since Block himself admits that in the ancient world heads of state often combined royal
and priestly functions. Contra Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 9.
54
See further discussion of this concept in Eugene H. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old
Testament Messianic Motif,” BSac 150.597 (1993): 57-61. Cf. John 1:49; 18:37; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 7:1; Rev
15:3; 19:16. It has been also well documented that royal priesthood is pervasive in the ANE. See Helmer
Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 60.
35
walls of the temple and/or to the clothing of the mentioned figure.55 If this is the case, the
terminological framework of ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Ezek 28 implies that the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Gen 2-3 could also
be associated with a cultic notion in a royal/palatial setting.56 Undeniably, royal/palatial
notions are present in the Pentateuch, but the most important “kingdom” concepts occur
in poetic passages such as Gen 49; Num 23:21; 24:7, and especially the song of the sea
found in Exod 15:1-18. “According to the message of this poem, God himself at creation
prepared and ‘planted’ his own sanctuary ‘in the mountain of his inheritance’ (Exod
15:17).”57 The intended framework of redemption in Exodus and that of creation
converge at this point. Therefore, it seems reasonable to perceive the deity’s sovereignty
at creation as endowing Adam and Eve with priestly and royal (pre-Fall) roles as
ambassadors and bestowing royal/palatial significance on the newly created center of
worship (Eden).
55
Barnes, “Ezekiel's Denunciation of Tyre,” 51-52.
56
Consider, for example, some cosmic hints of royal ideology in Gen 2-3 in a comparative study
between the garden of Eden and royal gardens in the ANE; see Jericke Detlef, “Königsgarten und Gottes
Garten: Aspekte der Königsideologie in Genesis 2 und 3,” in Exegese vor Ort: Festschrift für Peter Welten,
ed. Christl M. Maier (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 161-76. Certainly, at first glance, this
concept seems speculative since the words “priest” and “king” are not used in Gen 2-3, yet this notion gains
considerable weight when the peculiar terminological framework is viewed together. Gregory Wagenfuhr
has advanced the idea that Gen 1-3 should not be understood in terms of the sanctuary/temple. He argues
that “Eden is best understood as the name of a palace (with gardens) and a kingdom, very much in contrast
to Enoch of Cain. God visits his gardens from the throne room in the cool of the day to walk and hold
conference with his vicegerents.” Although he prefers to see in Gen 2-3 only a palace setting (I do not find
his arguments entirely convincing), Wagenfuhr’s work is helpful in showing the link between
temples/sanctuaries and palaces. See Gregory P. Wagenfuhr, “Toward a Palatial Biblical Theology
(Conference Title: Reconsidering the Cosmic Temple: Palaces and the Priesthood of All Believers)” (paper
presented at Evangelical Theological Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2017), 1-8; Gregory P.
Wagenfuhr, “Problems with the Cosmic Temple,” 5 April 2016,
https://www.academia.edu/24070814/Problems_with_the_Cosmic_Temple, 2-7.
57
John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and
Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 572-73.
36
There is a fourth additional element to ponder: Who is the personage described in
Ezek 28:11-19? Numerous interpretations have been proposed for this passage, but the
characterization of the individual in these verses, in light of the intertextual comparison
within the whole biblical canon, points to the conclusion stated by Davidson:
The implicit linking of the start of the Cosmic War and the Sanctuary in Revelation
12 becomes explicit and even emphatic when we go to the two OT passages that form
the counterpart to Revelation 12, namely Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Here we see a
spotlight upon the heavenly Sanctuary setting for the rise of the cosmic conflict.58
The origin of evil in a glorious created being called “Day Star, Son of Dawn” (Isa 14:12;
traditionally rendered Lucifer, following Jerome’s Vulgate)59 is carefully
intertwined/linked with the heavenly ‫עֵ ֶדן‬, that is, the sanctuary/temple in heaven. In
58
Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative,” 106. See also Richard M. Davidson, Ezekiel 28:11-19 and
the Rise of the Cosmic Conflict, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015), 59-63. For
striking parallels between cosmic conflict and kingship motifs in Babylonian religion and Biblical
literature, see Roy E. Gane and Constance Gane, “Cosmic Conflict and Divine Kingship in Babylonian
Religion and Biblical Apocalypses,” in Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard
M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala (Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016), see especially the temple motif in 293-302.
59
Traditionally the following explication has been offered in order to link Lucifer with the
renowned figure of Ezek 28:11-19:
The serpent was known for his craftiness (Gen 3:1), his deceit, and his anti-God attitude (3:4), leading
humanity to sin (3:6–7).82 Elsewhere he is presented as a deceiver (Rev 12:9; 20:2), an instigator of
evil (John 13:2, 27), one who seeks worship as a god (Luke 4:6–8; 2 Thess 2:3–4), and one who seeks
to get others to renounce God (Job 2:4–5). He appears as an angel of God (2 Cor 11:14) and as the
father of lies and violence (John 8:44), distorts Scripture (Matt 4:6), opposes believers (2 Cor 2:11),
and finally is judged (Matt 25:41; Rev 19:20–21; 20:13–15). Therefore the conclusion that the figure
behind the poetic symbol is the serpent (also known as the adversary, the devil, Satan; Rev 12:9) is a
logical one.
See Cooper, Ezekiel, 268. Cf. Isa 14:12-15; Ps 82:6, 7; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; 2 Pet 2:4: Rev
12:3, 4, 7-9. See more details in Paul P. Enns, Ezekiel: Bible Study Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1986), 131-32; Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel, 162-63; W. A. Criswell, Expository
Sermons on the Book of Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 149; Davidson, “Cosmic
Metanarrative,” 107-8; Richard M. Davidson, “Satan's Celestial Slander,” PD 1.1 (1996): 31-34; Page,
Myth of Cosmic Rebellion, 35-49; Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 160-62. For the interpretation of the church fathers, rabbinic
interpretations, and some issues dealing with the LXX, see Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King
of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series
20 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 41-178.
37
interpreting Gen 2 with this typological vertical view, we should consider the
chronological setting: the oracle of Ezek 28:11-19 describes the heavenly ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬before the
creation of earth (Gen 2) and therefore before the fall of Adam and Eve (Gen 3). In other
words, the description of the heavenly Garden of Eden portrays the covering cherub
before the rise of evil, while he was still perfect. This, in turn, suggests that the cultic and
royal depictions in both passages, Ezek 28:11-19 and Gen 2, share a common element in
terms of time before sin, but also present a difference in terms of locale (heaven/earth).
In sum, there are three concluding observations to contemplate in relation to the
word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8 and its intertextual semantic framework. First, the differences
between Ezek 28:11-19 and Gen 2-3 subtly nuance the nature and function of both places
called ‫עֵ ֶדן‬. As demonstrated by Souza, “one should hold in mind that the allusions to the
Garden of Eden contribute to corroborate the sanctuary setting [Eze 28:11-19]”60
indicating a location in the very presence of YHWH: in heaven. Second, since the
connection between temple and garden is quite obvious to the Eastern mind (cultic-royal
symbolism),61 and because of the similar terminological scenery between Gen 2-3 and
Ezek 28:11-19, it might be held that we are dealing in both passages with a
sanctuary/temple framework, or even with a “palace” framework.62 Third, the biblical
60
Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 286, 290-92.
61
According to Terje Stordalen, it is beyond doubt that gardens were connected to temples having
a royal symbolism. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 112, 115-16. “A ‘temple’ in the ancient East was not a
building but a sacred enclosure round a (small) shrine. The earliest Semitic sanctuaries were gardens
planted in oases where the unexpected fertility of the soil suggested to the Semite the presence of a
beneficent deity. The Solomonic temple preserved the memory of Eden the garden-sanctuary, for its walls
were adorned with figures of guardian Cherubim (cf. Gen 3: 24), palm-trees, and flowers (cf. 1 Kgs 6: 29,
32).” See Barnes, “Ezekiel's Denunciation of Tyre,” 51. Cf. W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion
of the Semites (London: A. and C. Black, 1901), 97-106, 136; Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 503.
62
In this sense, Walton concurs with this notion. He argues that temples and palaces shared
common accoutrements in the ANE. See Walton, Lost World of Adam, 117. Cf. especially the symbolism
38
evidence reviewed thus far suggests that the writer of Ezek 28 did not necessarily have
Gen 2-3 in mind, although he might have been familiar with the text and edenic
scenery.63 On the one hand, if the vertical movement found from Ezek 28:1-10 to Ezek
28:11-19 is correctly identified, then Gen 2-3 is built upon a historical retrojection of a
preexisting (before Gen 1-3) sanctuary/temple. On the other hand, as Doukhan puts it:
“Obviously, the author of Genesis did not have in mind all the connections between Zion,
the temple of Jerusalem, and the garden of Eden, which belong to a later time (Ps 48:1-
2).”64 In other words, this implies that the earthly sanctuary/temple (wilderness
tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple) is not the only type of the heavenly counterpart, but the
narrative of Gen 1-3 also portrays a similar typology.65 This could partly explain why the
construction of the tabernacle is narrated with terminology evocative of creation.66
of palaces and gardens in Manfred Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten:
Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte,
ed. Bernd Janowski, Beate Ego, and Annette Krüger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 290-93; Elizabeth
Bloch-Smith, “Solomon's Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place:
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. Barry M. Gittlen (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 83-94;
Stephanie Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced
(Oxford: Oxford University, 2013), 127-78.
Undeniably, “creation language is employed as a powerful paradigm to describe the origin of
63
sin.” Martin G. Klingbeil, “Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An Intertextual
Approach,” in The Genesis Creation Account and its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A.
Klingbeil (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2015), 282.
64
Doukhan, Genesis, 78. Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible
(Minneapolis: Winston, 1985), 129-31.
65
Cf. J. Daniel Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God's Dwelling Places from
Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 20-27.
66
See, for example, Menahem Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965):
191-226.
39
Now one may inquire about the relationship between the sanctuary/temple and the
covenant (redemption) in biblical/canonical theology.67 The fact that the tabernacle came
to be constructed after God’s people obtained freedom from slavery does not limit either
the covenantal relationship between God and his people or the sanctuary/temple
framework of functions prior to Sinai.68 Is creation the theological foundation for the
entire sanctuary/temple system? Or is the sanctuary/temple system the theological
foundation for the created cosmos? Answers to these questions might argue in favor of a
canonical temple theology.69 The theological implications of this biblical evidence will be
discussed in chapter V of this research. At this point, it needs only to be mentioned that
the exegetical evidence points to the presence of the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2-3,
thus forming a conceptual framework.
The Garden as a Mountain in Gen 2:10
Scholars who support sanctuary/temple symbolism in Gen 2 often cite
comparative studies with the ANE milieu, particularly in relation to the concept of the
Weltberg/Länderberg or “world/cosmic mountain.”70 Consequently, the notion of the
67
For an examination of recent canonical approaches to Old Testament theology, see Richard
Schultz, “What Is ‘Canonical’ about Canonical Biblical Theology?: Genesis as a Case Study of Recent Old
Testament Proposals,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 83-99.
68
Contra Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 31-32.
69
On this point, Margaret Barker has made a valuable contribution. As a Methodist theologian,
she is breaking new ground and filling in blank spots in Old Testament temple theology. See further in
Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 2004), 17.
70
A tendency still pervasive in some scholarly studies is to believe that all cosmological narrative
is derived from Babylonian mythology. For a brief overview of the so-called pan-Babylonianism, see Omar
Carena, History of the Near Eastern Historiography and its Problems: 1852-1985; Part One 1852-1945,
AOAT 218/1 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1989), 101-11. See additionally some seminal contributors to
the idea of the sacred space of a cosmic mountain as the center of the cosmos/universe (axis mundi):
Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, 1959); Ronald
40
cosmic mountain of God has been considered central to the ANE worldview,71 mainly for
the people of Israel.72 The line of reasoning behind this support goes like this: “. . . given
that the cosmic mountain informed the temple cults of the ancient Near East, including
that of Israel, then one might expect mountain narratives to contain temple symbolism.”73
Although the perception of that mountain encompassing cosmic dimensions has been
debunked and rejected for some time,74 recently scholars have renewed this debate in
light of the Eden narrative.75 While the pages ahead will be dedicated to reevaluating the
scholarly arguments, it should be taken into account that the focus of this research is on
E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), 2-3; Michael A. Fishbane, “The Sacred
Center,” in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth
Birthday by his Students, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer and Paul R. Mendes-Flohr (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 6-27; Jon
D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48, Harvard Semitic Monographs 10
(Missoula: Scholars, 1976); Gary A. Anderson, “Celibacy or Consummation in the Garden: Reflections on
Early Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Garden of Eden,” HTR 82.2 (1989): 121-48; Levenson,
“Temple and the World,” 275-98; Gary A. Anderson, “The Cosmic Mountain: Eden and Its Early
Interpreters in Syriac Christianity,” in Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden, ed.
Gregory A. Robbins (Lewiston: E. Mellen, 1988), 187-224.
71
The association between mountain (as divine abode) and temple in the ANE is well
documented. See for example Clements, God and Temple, 2-3; James A. Montgomery, “The Holy City and
Gehenna,” JBL 27.1 (1908): 28. In relation to the ziggurats in Babylon and the pyramids in Egypt see
respectively Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 113; Andrzej Wiercinski, “Pyramids and Ziggurats as
the Architectonic Representations of the Archetype of the Cosmic Mountain,” Katunob 10 (1977): 71-87;
Stefan Paas, “‘He Who Builds His Stairs into Heaven ...’ (Amos 9:6a),” UF 25 (1993): 319-25; William F.
Albright, “The Babylonian Temple-Tower and the Altar of Burnt-Offering,” JBL 39.3-4 (1920): 141-42;
Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament,” in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Studies, ed. Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf, W. Richard
Lesher, and Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 64.
72
Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge:
Harvard University, 1972), 98. See also Robert L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies
(Chico: Scholars, 1981), 3.
73
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 1.
74
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 9-33, 190. See also Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward
Theory in Ritual, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987), 16.
75
Cf. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 86-99.
41
the biblical evidence.76 Thus, exegetical/conceptual features of the text involve, broadly,
the following aspects: mountain as sacred space and the dwelling place of God in the
Hebrew Scriptures.77 The question to be answered is this: What is the biblical canonical
evidence to recognize the garden as a mountain? Let us reconsider four arguments that
have been advanced to justify this interpretation.
First, obviously, the words for “mountain” or “hill” do not occur in Gen 1-3.78
One is left with two options: any linkage between garden and mountain is implicitly
indicated or not present at all. There is one piece of textual evidence that scholars often
find convincing. The Hebrew expression ‫( וְּ נָהָ ר ֙ ֹּי ֵצֶ֣א מֵ ִ֔ ֵע ֶדן ְּלהַ ְּשקָ֖ ֹות אֶ ת־הַ גָ ָּּ֑֑ן‬translated
in the NKJV as “Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden,” Gen 2:10) subtly
reveals information about the location of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. While the four headwaters of the
river provide information about the geographical location of the Garden of Eden,79 the
course of the river allows for a more captivating theological inquiry. The phraseology of
Gen 2:10, particularly regarding the verb ‫[ יָצָ א‬yāṣā́ ’; “go (come) out,” “go (come)
76
It would be an error to assume a monolithic religious understanding across the ANE, in our case
concerning a cosmic mountain. See Walton’s principles for comparative studies: Walton, Ancient Near
Eastern Thought, 26-27. I would contend that if there is an overlapping similar understanding between
ancient Israel and the rest of the ANE nations, the differences at the conceptual level are more significant.
Cf. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 190-92; Cohn, Shape of Sacred Space, 4-5.
77
There is an important scholarly consensus concerning the significant role of space in cult. See,
for example, Eliade, Sacred and the Profane, 20-32; Se Young Roh, “Creation and Redemption in Priestly
Theology” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1991), 177-90.
78
To be sure, Block is right in observing that “the absence of explicit reference to a mountain is
striking.” Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 15.
William F. Albright, “The Location of the Garden of Eden,” AJSLL 39 (1922): 18-28; Edward
79
Conklin, Getting Back into the Garden of Eden (Lanham: University Press of America, 1998), 9; Edward
L. Ochsenschlager, Iraq’s Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden (Philadelphia: University Museum
Publications, 2005), 1-2; Doukhan, Genesis, 77-78; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 64-67; Sarna, Genesis, 19-20.
42
forth”],80 is quite often used in the Bible with reference to the headwaters of a river,
stream, or fountain.81 E. A. Speiser, later followed by Victor P. Hamilton, notes that
when ‫ יָצָ א‬is followed by the preposition ‫[ ִמן‬min; “go (come) out,” “go (come) forth”], it
does not mean “flow from” but rather “rise in.”82 Yet, Wenham’s reading of the text
seems a better choice. He remarks that “the phraseology suggests that the river rose in
Eden and then flowed into the garden to water it,”83 with the implication that the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬
was situated on uneven elevated ground.84 One may posit, then, as Fishbane goes on to
explain:
A geography of primordial space is thus mapped out which serves to supplement Gen
1:1 – 2:4. . . . The prototype of this symbolic image is often found in ancient religious
iconography: a navel releasing life-giving water to the four corners of creation,
together with a world mountain is only indirectly suggested in Gen 2:10-14, by its
reference to the streams’ downward flow. A later reflex of the Eden motif (Ezek
28:11-19) preserves this component more explicitly: The garden is found on a
“mountain of God” (v 14). It is undoubtedly on such a primal landscape, sustained by
providential fertility, that man is placed in Gen 2:15.85
Lifsa Schachter picks up the same idea: “Putting the story's visual clues together leads to
placing Eden on a mountain top, because the rivers flow downward from there.”86 As
80
This verb in Gen 2:10 appears as qal participle masculine singular: ‫יֹּ ֵצֶ֣א‬.
81
Cf. Exod 17:6; Num. 20:11; Judg 15:19; Ezek 47:1; Joel 4:18 [Eng. 3:18]; Zech 14:8.
82
Speiser’s and Hamilton’s semantic observation allows them to go so far as to conclude that
“what is pictured here is not a river emerging from the garden and subsequently branching into four
separate rivers, but rather a river that is formed just outside the garden by the convergence of four separate
branches.” Speiser, Genesis, 19-20. Cf. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 167-68.
83
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 64.
84
Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2001), 86; Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 256. Cf. also Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E.
Biddle (Macon: Mercer University, 1997), 36; Evan Eisenberg, The Ecology of Eden (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1998), 90-91; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 129.
85
Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts (Oxford:
Oneworld, 1998), 17. Cf. Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 118.
86
Lifsa B. Schachter, “The Garden of Eden as God's First Sanctuary,” JBQ 41.2 (2013): 74. See
also Fishbane, Text and Texture, 17.
43
such, the conclusion one finds is that although the words for “mountain” or “hill” do not
occur in Gen 1-3, the ‫ן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ַג‬seems to be at least in an elevated location, due to the
flowing river.87
Second, there seems to be a pattern of “going through the waters to the mountain
of God for worship” in Gen 1-3 and in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.88 Morales advances
this idea indicating that “Noah is delivered through the deluge waters and brought to the
Ararat mount (Gen 6-9); Moses foreshadowing the Exodus of Israel is delivered through
the waters of the Nile and brought to the mount Horeb (Exod 1-19); Israel is delivered
through the sea waters and brought to the Sinai’s mount (Exod 14-24).”89 One key point
that should be highlighted in Morales’s idea is that this pattern is generally found in
describing a nation’s or individual’s deliverance. This means that this pattern would only
work if it were recognized that the earth was delivered though the primal waters and
Adam was brought to the Eden mount. A weakness in Morales’s pattern is that it implies
the mythological motif of God’s battle with the chaos waters (chaoskampf).90
Yet, there is indeed a pattern of “returning to the mountain” in the Hebrew Bible.
This pattern, which is purportedly depicted with cosmic dimensions, contrasts and
incorporates two places as sacred: God’s sacred mountain and the tabernacle. Questions
87
Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 510; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 129.
88
It is common among scholars to maintain that mountain ideology is an important element of
temple liturgy in the ANE. See, for example, the section “Sanctuary Ideology in the Ancient Near East” in
John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in
Exodus 19:6, JSOTSup 395 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 141-44.
89
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 4-5; 54-60.
90
A theory reevaluated in David T. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the
Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), especially 143-95. For
example, Isa 40:12 and Ps 136:6 seem to portray God’s sovereignty as a “no-conflict” relationship with the
created cosmos.
44
such as “Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord?” “Who may stand in his holy place?”
(Ps 24:3), “And Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle?” “Who may dwell in your holy
hill?” (Ps 15:1) inescapably admit this pattern.91 Fundamentally, this pattern functions as
a typological apparatus to illustrate conceptually the sacred space of God’s dwelling in
the Hebrew Bible, beginning with the Eden narrative. Note for example that Exod 15:13,
17 reveals God’s plan to return (or to plant)92 Israel to a distinctive place and sacred
status: “to your holy dwelling,” “to the mountain of your inheritance,”93 “to God’s
dwelling holy sanctuary which was established by himself” (Cf. Isa 65:9). This portion of
the song of the sea offers a double directionality: First, this poem post-figures the Eden
narrative (if not also the whole of the creation narrative),94 and second, this poem pre-
figures the cultic context of the heavenly sanctuary and foretells God’s original/ultimate
91
This pattern is also attested by Mark Boyer’s study. He explores the biblical concept of divine
presence and concludes that mountains are common settings for supernatural revelations and theophany.
See Mark G. Boyer, Divine Presence: Elements of Biblical Theophanies (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017), 1-
9. Cf. Morales, Who Shall Ascend, especially chap. 2, “Longing for Eden: Genesis, the Narrative Context of
Leviticus,” 39-74; Daniel J. Harrington, “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary, ed. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 596-629; Benedict T. Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E.
Murphy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 630-674.
92
It is noteworthy that the divine planting motif in the Hebrew Bible occurs in cultic contexts. Just
as God planted ‫[ נָטַ ע‬nāṭáʽ; “to plant”] the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫( ג‬Gen 2:8), God envisions planting Israel and his worship
in the Promised Land (Cf. Gen 21:33; Exod 15:17; Num 24:6; 2 Sam 7:10; 1 Chr 17:9; Isa 5:2-7; 17:11;
51:16; Jer 2:21; 11:17; 24:6; 32:41; 42:10; Amos 9:15). See also Ouro, Old Testament Theology, 49.
93
This expression is not found elsewhere in the Bible. See Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus: The
Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991),
82.
94
Sailhamer notes that “the author of Exodus 15 understands the garden of Eden in Gen 2 in terms
that anticipate the tabernacle sanctuary (Exod 21-31).” Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 577, 581.
45
plan of “returning to the mountain” where the immense crowd of the redeemed will sing
a song of victory (Rev 15:2-4).95 This point coincides well with Dumbrell’s insight:
The details of this old hymn present the redemption of the Exodus as a new creation.
Our attention is drawn by the features of the hymn to the goal of the Exodus, which is
the establishment of Israel in the Promised Land. This land is viewed in verse 17 as a
sacred site, God’s own mountain. The reference to the “mountain” does not convey
with it an anticipation of later temple centralization at Jerusalem as some have
argued, but in terms of Ps 78:54 is a reference to the Land of Palestine viewed totally
as a divine sanctuary.96
Dumbrell, who gives substance to Fishbane’s contention,97 argues that some key literary
motifs in Rev 21 and 22 originated and developed in Gen 1-3 and in the rest of the Old
Testament. Thus, in view of cosmographical correspondences between Eden and Zion,98
the return to Eden of Adam and Eve (and humankind) or the return to the holy mountain
of God would be the pattern envisioned all through the Scriptures. This was precisely the
purpose of the Exodus redemption. On Horeb’s mount, Moses is commanded to go to
Egypt to bring Israel to the Mountain of God (Exod 3:1, 12). The Israelites were
promised that the proper religious/cultic experience at the sanctuary/temple (particularly
Sabbath day worship) would open the way to that edenic reality. God promised: “Even
them I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer”
95
Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse through Hebrew Eyes
(Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002), 143. Cf. Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 573.
96
While Dumbrell’s motifs are well developed (the New Jerusalem, the New Temple, the New
Covenant, the New Israel, and the New Creation), a few aspects detract from his book. Yet, the underlying
unity and continuity of this conceptual framework of the biblical narrative are noteworthy. William J.
Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament (Homebush West: Lancer
Books, 1985), 40.
97
One may agree with Fishbane’s proposal that the recurrent motifs are key semantic frameworks
that give coherence and cohesion to the biblical narrative. Fishbane, Text and Texture, 12-17.
98
A detailed analysis of these cosmographical correspondences between Zion and Eden is
provided by Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 50-54.
46
(Isa. 56:6, 7 NKJV).99 Doukhan notably has demonstrated that “the ultimate lesson that
the Bible has retained is the prophetic promise that one day we shall return to the Garden
of Eden.”100
Third, this argument comes from an intertextual observation. It was shown above
that the writer of Ezekiel places the king of Tyre far above any royal dignitary on earth,
“in the holy mountain of God” (Ezek 28:14). This depiction entails the origin of evil in
Eden, specifically in the heavenly sanctuary/temple setting. In view of this claim, it has
also been a long-held position that a parallel passage of this pretentious Ezekelian royal
figure is Isa 14:12-14. Notably, the prophet Ezekiel places the guardian cherub in the
heavenly Eden, and the same personage is described by the prophet Isaiah as intending to
ascend to heaven and install his throne ‫ר־מֹועָ֖ד‬

ֵ ַ‫“( ְּבה‬on the Mount of the congregation”
Isa 14:13 NKJV),101 specifically on the farthest sides of the north.102 The similar
phraseology in Ezek 28:14 (‫ֱֹלהים‬

ִ ‫ ) ְּבהַ ֙ר ֹּ֤ ֹּק ֶדש א‬and in Isa 14:13 (‫ר־מֹועָ֖ד‬
ֵ ַ‫)בה‬
ְּ seems to
substantiate the connection between the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬and the ‫ר־מֹועָ֖ד‬
ֵ ַ‫בה‬,
ְּ not in the sense of
99
Cf. Collins, Genesis 1-4, 91; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 16.
100
Doukhan, Genesis, 78. This fact would detract from Clement's contention that “the patriarchal
religion had thought of the divine presence in a personal and clan relationship, while the Canaanite
sanctuaries strongly emphasized the belief in a divine attachment to certain places.” Clements, God and
Temple, 27. Israel’s notion of God’s presence was generally attached to this pattern of returning to the
Promised Land. The divine presence was indeed associated with historical events and framed within real
and figurative sanctuary/temple elements. This growing experience clearly developed Israel’s
consciousness of the divine.
101
Souza explains the biblical evidence of the connection between the sanctuary/temple motif and
the Hebrew words ‫ הַ ר‬and ‫מעֵ ד‬
ֹּ . Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 258-61.
102
Mount Zion is described as being “on the sides of the north” in Ps 48:2. As Winfried Vogel has
noted: “The climax of the usage of the mountain motif as referring to a cultic location in the OT context
undoubtedly has to be seen in the tradition of Mt. Zion.” Winfried Vogel, “The Cultic Motif in Space and
Time in the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1999), 36. See also Bertoluci, “Son of the
Morning,” 92-94, 200-203.
47
being equivalent, but in the sense of being a comparable cultic location par excellence.103
Davidson rightly observes that “Isa 14:12 calls the heavenly Sanctuary the Mount of the
congregation implying the original worship function of the Sanctuary before sin. The
heavenly Sanctuary, on the holy mountain, was the location of the throne of God, and
here the unfallen universe came to worship the Most High God.”104 To an important
degree, it could be argued that the notion of a mountain with religious significance
comprises a cultic semantic framework reflected in the history of Israel.105 Accordingly,
the location of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬in Gen 2 seems to be demarcated at a moderately elevated
position and could be assimilated within the semantic framework provided by the Hebrew
word ‫[ ַהר‬har; “mountain,” “range”].
Fourth, if the above proposition is correct, then it follows to expect that the
semantic framework of the Hebrew word ‫ הַ ר‬is a case to compare the particular
characterization of Jerusalem with the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. “The phrase 'holy mountain' is familiar to
us from the Prophets and the Psalms as a designation of the sanctuary of Jerusalem. In
most places, the local sanctuary seems to have stood on an eminence overlooking the
city.”106 As shown above, the oracle against the supernatural ruler of Tyre (Ezek 28:11-
19) describes him upon the heights of the holy mountain (vv. 13, 14), Moreover,
103
In the Old Testament, since the sanctuary/temple was situated on a mountain, both realities are
frequently interchangeable. Cf. Exod 15:17; Isa 2:3; 56:7; 66:20; Jer 26:18.
104
Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative,” 107-8.
105
See particular examples in Martha Himmelfarb, “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in
Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira,” in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces:
Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jamie S. Scott and Paul Simpson-
Housley (New York: Greenwood, 1991), 66, see also 198-99, 202, 212.
106
Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 504.
48
Ezekiel’s vision of the New Eden also portrays a temple/city on a very high mountain
(Cf. 40:2; 47:12),107 a notion one may describe as temple/city/garden.108 A fine example
of this particular characterization is found in Ps 48:1-2:
‫ּומהֻּ ָל ֶ֣ל ְּמ ּ֑ ֹּאד ְּב ִע֥יר‬

ְּ ‫ ג ָֹּ֤דֹול יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה‬48:1
48:1
Great is the Lord, and greatly to be
praised ‫ֹלהינּו הַ ר־קָ ְּד ָֽשֹו׃‬ ֵ ּ֗ ‫ֱִ֜א‬
In the city of our God,
In his holy mountain.
48:2
Beautiful in elevation, ‫ר־צ ִ֭יֹון‬
ִ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶ֥רץ ַה‬
ָ ָ֫ ָ‫י ְֵּפ֥ה נֹוף֘ ְּמשׂ֪ ֹוש כ‬ 48:2
The joy of the whole earth,
Is Mount Zion on the sides of the ‫י ְַּר ְּכ ֵתֶ֣י צָ פּ֑ ֹון ִִ֜ק ְּר ַיּ֗ת ֶמ ֶ֣לֶ ְך ָ ָֽרב׃‬
north,
The city of the great King.
Two correlations seem to stand out: first, the comparison between ‫ֹלהינּו‬
ֵ ּ֗ ‫“ ְּב ִע֥יר ֱִ֜א‬in the
city of our God” and ‫ר־ק ְּד ָֽשֹו‬

ָ ‫“ ַה‬his holy mountain”; second, the comparison between
‫ר־צ ִ֭יֹון‬
ִ ‫“ ַה‬Mount Zion” and ‫“ ִִ֜ק ְּר ַיּ֗ת ֶמֶ֣לֶ ְך ָ ָֽרב‬The city of the great King.”109 Clearly, the
association of these places/concepts indicates that the dwelling place of God is in an
overlooking location. Then, what is the mountain that YHWH has chosen as his
abode/sanctuary, and how does it relate to the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ?ג‬Usually scholars contend that the
strongest candidate is Sinai because “the early date of the text [Exod 15] would eliminate
Zion from the list.”110 However, as noted above, if the return of Adam and Eve (and
107
It should be considered that John’s description of the re-created Eden in Rev 21:10 places it
upon a very great and high mountain.
108
Alexander, From Eden, 21.
109
Sometimes the meaning of Mount Zion is extended to the entire city (Lam 2:6-8) and even the
entire land of Israel (Isa 57:13; Ps 126:1).
110
See Seung Il Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain: Textual Presentations of Sacred
Space in the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 2008), 158. Other places have been
proposed, such as Gilgal, Shiloh, Carmel, Tabor, Gerizim, and the land of Canaan in Israel’s northern
highlands. See more in William Henry Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AYBC 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 564.
49
humankind) to Eden or the holy mountain of God is a pattern envisioned all through the
Scriptures, the comparison of the particular characterization of Jerusalem with the ‫גַן־עִֵ֔ ֶדן‬
enhances this view and identifies the original dwelling place of God on earth.111
YHWH’s chosen abode/sanctuary on earth was the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, embodied later in the biblical
narrative in Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem.112 As illustrated in Ps 78:1-2,113 Mount Zion
(Jerusalem) is the place God has elected. Indeed, Isa 51:3, Ps 46:5 [Eng. 46:4], and Ps
65:10 [Eng. 65:9] relate Zion to the luxurious paradise of Gen 2. Levenson has
successfully criticized the theory that Sinai/Moses and Zion/David represent two
contradictory sets of traditions.114 One may add that instead of representing two
competing views, these two sacred mountains are interconnected via the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬and refer
to the same motif/concept/reality, though their historical functions have important
nuances. In effect, Israel’s eschatological hope was woven into the reestablishment of an
edenic sanctuary/temple.115 Gage brings out this insight: “Since the temple of Zion
represented the cosmic house of creation to the Israelite, we may assume that the
cosmological correspondence between the temple (microcosm) and creation (macrocosm)
111
Meaning before any cultic architectural institutions were installed, such as the wilderness
tabernacle and/or Solomon’s temple.
112
This fact would explain some of the cosmic characterizations of Solomon’s temple on Mount
Zion. See further George Ernest Wright, “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East: Part III
The temple in Palestine-Syria,” BA 7.4 (1944): 74-75. Cf. Clements, God and Temple, 65-67.
113
Similarly, Ps 132:11-18 and Isa 2:2-4.
114
Levenson argues that there is no subordination of Zion/David tradition in the south to
Sinai/Moses tradition in the north. He associates Zion with the ANE’s notion of the cosmic mountain and
equates it with the Garden of Eden/paradise. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 111, 131.
115
Anderson, “Celibacy or Consummation,” 129. Cf. Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City,
trans. D. Pardee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 189; Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 52-54.
50
would largely reduce to the concepts of the mountain, the garden, and the city.”116 In
brief, Jerusalem may be seen as a reminiscence of the Garden of Eden.117 Just as the
“garden of the Lord” ‫ גַן־יְּ הוָ ּ֑ה‬is identified as a place where joy, gladness, thanksgiving,
and the voice of melody will be found (Isa 51:3; cf. Ezek 28:13 NKJV), the new created
city of Jerusalem will be a place of joy and happiness (Isa 65:17-19).118
Finally, one may adduce from the above four arguments that if this interpretation
of the Garden of Eden as an elevated location (mountain) is regarded as valid, it implies
that a common ideology from the ANE is present in the Hebrew Bible: namely, that
mountains or elevated locations were considered sacred locations, particularly Mount
116
Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 55.
117
The biblical evidence is summarized in Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain,” 78-92.
Here are the main points:
a. Sacred waters as source of life: As the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬gives life through the waters of the river,
Jerusalem is said to have not a perennial river or natural stream, but a spring of water: Gihon
(Ps 36:9-11 [Eng. 36:8-10]; 46:2-8; 65:10; cf. Isa 33:20-22; Joel 3:17-18; Zech 14:8). This
was the primary source of water for temple rituals, and significantly the location of religious
events such as the anointing of King Solomon (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45). For further treatment of
Gihon see Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 131; M. Görg, “Gihon (Place),” ABD, 1018-1019.
b. Sacred waters in prophetic perspective: As the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬gives life through the waters of the
river, the prophet Ezekiel, describing a pictorial prophecy in a literal economy, envisages a
river “coming out from under the threshold of the temple” in Ezek 47:1-2, 5, 7. “The
sufficiency of this life-giving water from the throne of God is portrayed in language
reminiscent of the Garden of Eden and is similar to that of Rev 22:1-4.” Cooper, Ezekiel, 411.
For structural correspondences within the book see Davidson, “Chiastic Literary Structure,”
74-79.
c. The restoration of Jerusalem (or Zion) in Ezek 36: 33-35 is described in terms reminiscent of
the Garden of Eden; the prototypical plan was to restore the city to make it like the original
garden God himself planted in Gen 2 (cf. Isa 51:3), “well-watered everywhere like the garden
of the Lord” (cf. Gen 13:10). See Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament,
9:440.
118
Jiří Moskala, “Does Isa 65:17-25 Describe the Eschatological New Heavens and the New
Earth?,” in Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala
(Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews
University, 2016), 194-95.
51
Zion.119 Certainly it is worthy of careful consideration that the restoration of Eden upon
Mount Zion was the hope of the Bible writers.120 The above connections between Gen 2
and ‫ר־ק ְּד ָֽשֹו‬

ָ ‫( ַה‬his holy mountain) or ‫ר־צ ִ֭יֹון‬
ִ ַ‫( ה‬Mount Zion) seem to correspond with
the notion of considering the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬a sacred space.121 One aspect stands out in this
119
Isa 31:4; 33:5, 14; 52:1; 56:7; 60:14; 64:10; 66:20; Jer 31:23; Joel 2:1; Obad 16-17; Zech 8:3;
Dan 9:16; cf. Isa 14:13-14; Ezek 28:14-16.
120
The author of Hebrews refers to Mount Zion as the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem “whose building and maker is God” (Heb 11:10; 12:22).
121
A good definition for sacred space may be “the locus of divine revelation and of continued
divine-human interactions.” See Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain,” 59. It has been recognized
that the following elements of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬have associations with sacredness (or cultic settings):
a. The ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is the designated location for God-human encounters. God’s presence creates
sacred space. David P. Wright explains this fact in a coherent way:
Primary evidence for the garden’s sanctity is the presence of the deity. This, from the
native Israelite point of view, is the chief determinant of holiness. The deity, for example,
manifests himself in the burning bush at Horeb. The ground is therefore holy and Moses
must remove his shoes (Exod 3:5; cf. Josh 5:15). The god’s appearance at Sinai makes
the mountain holy, and the people need to purify and guard against encroachment (Exod
19:9-25). The sanctifying effect of the god’s appearanœ is implied in the subsequent
erection of altars and massebot (Gen 12:7; 28:17-18, 22; 35:1-7, 9-14; Judg 6:20-24). The
dedication of the wilderness tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and Ezekiel’s temple are all
accompanied by the appearance of the deity which, in addition to dedicatory rites,
consecrates the structures (Exod 40:34-35; Lev 9:4; 6:23-24; Num 9:15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2
Chr 5:11-14; 7:1-3; Ezek 43:1-5; 44:1-3).
See further details in David P. Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Bib
77.3 (1996): 307.
b. Gen 3:8 presents God walking in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, similarly to Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14], where God
walks in Israel’s camp. See the section on this topic in chapter III of this dissertation.
c. The river flowing from ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬ ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, which was later divided into four streams, seems connected
with the symbolic nature of the number four in Scripture (for example, the four corners of the
earth in Isa 11:12; the prophet’s vision of four horses that patrol the entire world in Zech 1:8;
the four heavenly winds in Jer 49:36; cf. Ezek 37:9; Zech 2:10 [Eng. 2:6]; 6:5). Thus, the
implication is that the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is the center of the world, reaching the four corners of it.
Centrality is consequential to sacredness. See Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain,”
63.
d. Trees in general terms may be considered sacred or related to sacred locations of God’s self-
disclosure (Gen 2:9; cf. Gen 12:6-7; 18:1). Walton, Lost World of Adam, 116-18, 124. “Tree
symbolism permeates the Bible and is present in different forms throughout the ancient
Middle Eastern civilizations. In all cases the tree symbolized life, a concept that first appeared
in the Garden of Eden.” Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 196. Sacred trees may be seen
represented in the sanctuary/temple itself. Doukhan affirms that the menorah in the tabernacle
52
scenario: God’s presence. “Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden appears
also to represent the removal from their former proximity to God. The perception that the
Garden of Eden, like the tabernacle and the Temple, is a place where God dwells, stands
as a unifying factor that underlines the connections and analogies among these places.”122
In this regard, Block critiques Walton’s proposal that Gen 2 develops the idea of
considering the Garden of Eden as the holy of holies of the cosmic temple or a place for
God’s presence.123 Gen 2 does not establish the founding of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬in cosmic terms,
but it is evident that Gen 2 does indeed establish the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬as a place for God’s
presence. In all likelihood, the sanctuary/temple motif found in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, as the sought-
alluded to the tree of life, symbolizing the gift of life. Doukhan, Genesis, 77. Cf. Carol L.
Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult,
American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 2 (Missoula: Continuum
International, 1976), 118-20, 169-72, 174-81; John D. Garr, God's Lamp, Man’s Light:
Mysteries of the Menorah (Atlanta: Restoration Foundation, 2001), 93-102. Block admits that
“the tree of life probably inspire[d] the menorah in the tabernacle (Exod 25:31-36),” although
he emphasizes that the context determines its function. See Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 10.
This is unquestionably the case in all occurrences of the sanctuary/temple motif in the Hebrew
Bible. Functionality varies in harmony with context; however, this fact does not lessen its
sacredness or its role as such. Another point of reference is Exod 3. In this text, the word for
“bush,” seneh (‫“ ) ְּסנֶה‬is most likely word play on Sinai, an intimation of the Sinaitic
revelation foreshadowed in verse 12.” See Sarna, Exodus, 14. For an ANE comparative study
on this venue, see G. H. Skipwith, “The Burning Bush and the Garden of Eden: A Study in
Comparative Mythology,” JQR 10.3 (1898): 489-502. Similarly, a tree along with standing
stones could become a sacred location (cf. Josh 24:26; Deut 16:21-22; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs
17:10; 21:3; 23:13-14; 2 Chr 33:3). See B. A. Nakhai, “What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Spaces
Functioned in Ancient Israel,” BAR 20.3 (1994): 18-29; Elizabeth C. LaRocca-Pitts, Of Wood
and Stone: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and its Early Interpreters
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 125-228. Cf. Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative
Religion (Cleveland: World, 1963), 265-71.
e. As we will see in chapter V of this dissertation, protology and eschatology (via ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ )ג‬in
biblical canonical theology meet within the relationship between the concepts/motifs of the
mountain/city/temple. See the relevance of this aspect in the book of Daniel in Vogel, “Cultic
Motif,” 29-67.
122
Eliyahu Assis, The Book of Joel: A Prophet between Calamity and Hope (581; New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013), 131.
123
Thus Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 7. Cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 125; Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 186.
53
after sacred land in Scripture (key word ‫)הר‬,
ַ becomes an overarching narrative in
biblical canonical theology.124
Consequently, another point to which more exegetical/theological significance
should be attached is that this notion should be understood, following Morales, via
vertical typology “whereby an earthly mountain symbolizes the heavenly abode of the
deity (cf. ‫ ַת ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ of Exod 25:9.”125 This typology seems to imply that just as the
wilderness tabernacle was patterned according to the model (the primordial
sanctuary/temple “mountain”),126 the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was patterned with the same architectural
model.127 Furthermore, noting that the restoration of Eden upon Mount Zion was the hope
of the Bible writers, it is from this perspective that the following Aramaic verses of Dan 2
should be interpreted:
‫הוָ ֛ת ְּלט֥ ּור‬

ֲ ‫י־מ ָחֶ֣ת ְּלצַ ְּל ּ֗ ָמא‬ ְּ ‫ וְּ אַ ְּבנָ ֶ֣א׀ ִ ָֽד‬2:35
2:35
And the stone that struck the
image became a great mountain and filled ‫ּומ ָל֥ת כָ ל־אַ ְּר ָ ָֽעא׃‬ ְּ ‫רב‬ ָ֖ ַ
the whole earth.
124
See Joel 2:1; Amos 1:2; Obad 17; Mic 4:2; Zech 1:17; 8:3; Rom 11:26; 1 Pet 2:6; cf. Heb
12:22; Rev 14:1.
125
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 6, 12, 19. Cf. Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 352-58;
Barker, Gate of Heaven, 16; Andreasen, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 66-68; Eric Burrows, “Some
Cosmological Patterns,” in The Labyrinth: Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the
Ancient World, ed. Samuel H. Hooke (London: SPCK, 1935), 60-66.
126
One may ask, where is this primordial sanctuary/temple “mountain”? The biblical evidence
points to the heavenly/cosmic realm. In this sense, it is consistent with Mircea Eliade’s key proposal: the
Temple Mount is central and primordial (prior to the creation of the cosmos). Eliade, Sacred and the
Profane, 36-47. Or, as Levenson prefers to say it, “protological.” “The cosmic mountain is situated at the
center of the world; from it, everything else takes its bearings.” Levenson, “Temple and the World,” 282-
83.
127
The fact that the Eden narrative canonically precedes the tabernacle narrative does not
necessarily preclude this theological implication. The theological content of a text can indeed predate its
compositional historical role in the biblical canon. Following this idea, Davidson concludes that “if the
earthly Eden is a copy of the heavenly original Eden sanctuary, we may reasonably conclude that the
earthly Eden also functioned as a sanctuary where Adam and Eve worshiped and communed with their
Creator.” Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 68-69.
54
ָ֩ ‫ּטּורא‬
ָ ‫ח ַ֡ ַזיְּ תָ ִ ֶ֣די ִמ‬
ֲ ‫ כָ ל־קֳ ֵב ֶ֣ל ִ ָֽדי־‬2:45
2:45
Inasmuch as you saw that the stone
was cut out of the mountain without hands ‫ידיִ ן‬
ּ֗ ַ ‫י־ל ֶ֣א ִב‬ ָ ‫ִא ְּתגְּ ֶז ֶ֙רת ִ֜ ֶאבֶ ן ִד‬
...
“The coincidence between the origin and the outcome implicitly testifies to the
kingdom’s divine nature.”128 The conceptual framework of the “mountain” from the
perspective of vertical typology is key for understanding the climax of the great
controversy depicted in the biblical narrative (cf. Dan 11:45; Rev 16:16).129 At this apex
of human history, God reestablishes his supreme sovereignty on earth, as it has been on
his sanctuary/temple “mountain” in heaven, by defeating the evil forces of the lawless
one. Therefore, it is evident that the motif of the “mount” enhances the connection
between heaven and earth,130 in the context of the conflict between good and evil.
This conceptual framework would follow the theological implication that the
earthly tabernacle is primarily a vertical type of the heavenly counterpart and not merely
a reflection of the cosmos or creation. Levenson, Beale, and Walton, among other
scholars, claim that when the heavenly sanctuary/temple appears in the biblical narrative,
it only refers to the heavens, cosmos, or creation.131 Rather, the earthly tabernacle reflects
128
Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, 38.
129
The eschatological battle located in a place called Ἁρμαγεδών (Armageddon/Mountain of
Meguiddon ‫ )הר מגידו‬portrayed by the prophet John seems to be an allusion to Daniel’s mountain-like
final spiritual battle of cosmic dimensions (cf. Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1). See Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, 177;
Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 164-65, 176-77; Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 60. Cf. Stephen R. Miller,
Daniel, NAC 18 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 312; Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus
Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2002), 488-89, 494-
95.
130
The stone is a common symbol in Babylonian thought. The name of the temple of Enlil in the
ancient city of Nippur meant “a great mountain,” and it was known as “the house of the great mountain of
the land” because it touched the sky, supporting the heavenly abode of the deity. Roy Allan Anderson,
Unfolding Daniel's Prophecies (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1975), 60; Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, 38.
131
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 97; Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 32-33;
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 123-27; Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 78-92; Walton,
55
the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬of creation by means of the original model (the primordial and heavenly
sanctuary/temple “mountain”). Thus, “the earthly Eden sanctuary functioned as an earthly
sign of the preexistent heavenly Eden sanctuary (cf. Heb 8:5).”132
The River of Eden in Genesis 2:10
Is the river a merely incidental and auxiliary reference in the parklike landscape
description of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ?ג‬The presence of water seems to be logically understandable
within this edenic arboreal scenario, since it is a characteristic of nature. Yet, the inquiry
set before us is to reevaluate the credibility of the arguments proposed by some scholars
concerning the biblical evidence—in this case, that the presence of a flowing river
allegedly contributes to the semantic framework of a sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2. As
Gage has put it: “The cosmography in Gen 2-3 depicts Eden as containing the world
mountain from whose numinous summit descended the great river of paradise.”133
It should be mentioned that Bible scholars often state that the cosmologies of the
ANE “consistently portray the sacred mountains surrounded by cosmic waters,”134 and
generally, these accounts associate temples with springs of water.135 This association is
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 106-19. Cf. William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible,
Science, and the Ecology of Wonder (New York: Oxford University, 2010), 33-37; J. Gerald Janzen,
Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 269.
132
Doukhan, Genesis, 114.
133
Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 50.
134
Paul H. Seely, “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10,” WTJ 59.2
(1997): 231-55; Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 176; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 20-25.
On life-giving waters as a tenet of ANE thought, see William F. Albright, “The Mouth of the Rivers,”
AJSLL 35.4 (1919): 161-95.
135
John H. Walton, Victor Harold Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), see commentary on Ezek 41:1. “The
oldest sanctuaries of the Semites were natural gardens, that is to say, spots naturally fertile with a perennial
56
based on the ancient Near Eastern idea that the earth’s water originates on the mountain
of the gods.136 Walton explains this ancient worldview:
This association between ancient Near Eastern temples and spring waters is well
attested. In fact, some temples in Mesopotamia, Egypt and in the Ugaritic myth of
Baal were considered to have been founded upon springs (likened to the primeval
waters), which sometimes flowed from the building itself. Thus, the symbolic cosmic
mountain stood upon the symbolic primeval waters. On this point, then, the ancient
world and the biblical picture agree.137
In the particular case of the biblical material, apart from the ANE conceptual worldview,
there are at least three scholarly observations to reevaluate. The first is the framework
that arises from the concepts of sacred space and the presence of waters. For example,
this conceptual relationship between primeval waters and sacred waters may be observed
in Gen 1:2.138 Yet, specifically in Gen 2, scholars maintain that the relationship between
waters (or rivers) and the sacred mountain follows a significant cultic pattern that is a
conceptual backdrop in the Hebrew Bible. This seems to be evidenced by the connections
supply of water.” Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 503. See further in Smith, Religion of the Semites, 165-212;
Lundquist, “What Is a Temple,” 208.
136
Jerome F. D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous
in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61.1 (1999): 42.
137
Walton, “Garden of Eden,” DOTP 205. There is one particular parallel between the biblical text
and the ANE worldview that seems substantiated by some scholars. The so-called river judicial ordeal
builds upon a Mesopotamian phenomenon of trial by river ordeal, where emerging from the water is
victory/innocence and being overpowered by water means the divine verdict of guilt. See McCarter, “River
Ordeal,” 403-12; Mary K. Wakeman, God's Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden:
Brill, 1973), 90-91; Bertrand Lafont, “The Ordeal,” in Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (eds. Bottéro
and Finet; Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 2001), 199-210. The problem with this apparent parallel is
that those biblical passages are reframed to fit the ancient combat myth ideology and/or decontextualized.
While it is true that some of God’s judiciary actions employ waters (Gen 6-9), the biblical material does not
use this image in the sense of creating a watery abode of the dead, as the cosmic waters of Canaanite
cosmology do. See Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 29-30. More to the point, some of the assumed
ordeals (Exod 14) are not in actuality a trial/judgment. Besides this fact, water is not the only natural means
God uses to accomplish his judgments (for example, fire in Gen 19), and when God uses and/or has
dominion over the elements of nature (cf. Gen 1; Pss 66:12; 77:18 [Eng. 77:17]; 78:13; 104:10; Isa 41:18;
Joel 4:18 [Eng. 3:18]; Hab 3:8-12), he does so not confronting a divine equal, but executing his sovereign
power over creation/creatures.
138
Eccl 1:7; See Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 20-27.
57
between Eden, Jerusalem, Mount Zion, God’s presence, and the life-giving waters of
rivers.139 For example, in the theological framework of the Promised Land, the notion of
Zion/Jerusalem as Eden recognizes a common motif of waters flowing from the
temple,140 where the loss of Jerusalem is conceived as the loss of Eden, and it is restored
as Eden.141 In view of these connections, the river motif becomes central to the
description of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬in Gen 2,142 and in the rest of the Bible.143 Fundamentally, the
river in later biblical passages is an illustrative reminiscence of a source of beauty and
fruitfulness. Gen 13:10 exemplifies this fact when Lot compares, as well watered lands,
139
Ps 46:5 [Eng. 46:4] indicates that there is a river in the city where God dwells; Ps 65:10 [Eng.
Ps 65:9] describes that God purposefully waters his land to provide food); Ps 36:9 [Eng. 36:8] shows that
there is a river of delights [literally Eden] at the house of God; Isa 33:21-22 portrays Mount Zion as
Jerusalem, the holy city like a place of rivers where God reigns. See also Pss 133:3; 134:3.
140
Lawrence E. Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden,” BAR 26.3 (2000): 41. Terje Stordalen provides
convincing evidence for intertextual associations on this matter; T. Stordalen, “Heaven on Earth—Or Not?:
Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2-3)
and Its Reception History, eds. Christoph Riedweg and Konrad Schmid (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008),
31-41. However, contrary to this notion and ironically to most commentators, in examining the topography
of Eden and the Temple, Stordalen calls the Eden narrative utopian, asserting that “biblical Eden is s place
that never ‘really’ existed, but that nevertheless is conceivable through its echoes (blueprints) in the human
world.”
141
Bernard Gosse, “L' inclusion de l'ensemble Genèse-II Rois, entre la perte du jardin d'Eden et
celle de Jérusalem,” ZAW 114.2 (2002): 211. Among other reasons, from the point of view of a post-flood
geography, the location of the Garden of Eden was probably the Promised Land of the patriarchs and Israel.
See Doukhan, Genesis, 77. Cf. Yair Zakovitch, “A Garden of Eden in the Squares of Jerusalem: Zechariah
VIII, 4-6,” Gregorianum 87.2 (2006): 301-11; Ray Porter, “Where Was the Garden of Eden?,” Origins 1.3
(1987). Although most scholars suggest Mesopotamia as the Garden’s location, others prefer to conclude
that the text does not enable the reader to identify the exact location. See James McKeown, Genesis (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 33.
142
See a detailed etymological explanation of the meaning of the rivers’ names in Wallace, “Eden,
Garden of,” ABD 2:283. See also Nicolas Wyatt, “A Royal Garden: The Ideology of Eden,” SJOT 28.1
(2014): 10-12.
143
Warren A. Gage comments that “this original Eden speaks in figure of the heavenly sanctuary
paradise, for the new edenic mountain (cf. Rev 21:10) is watered by the river of the water of life. The
source of these springs is the throne of God, and its streams give drink to the tree of life (cf. Rev 22:1, 2;
Zech 14:8-11).” Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 87.
58
the Jordan valley, the fertile Nile delta, and the Garden of the Lord (‫)כגַן־יְּ הוָה‬,
ְּ “a
veritable Eden, perennially watered.”144
A second observation is that the literary arrangement of Gen 2 is centered on the
presence of God.145 William H. Shea observes the significance of the literary arrangement
of the pre-Fall Eden narrative. He writes that “at the center of the creation narrative in
Genesis 2 lies the description of the four rivers which flowed from the Garden of
Eden.”146 This literary feature underlining Gen 2:10 is strengthened by the fact that the
connection between the trees and the rivers is noticeable in Gen 2:9. The intertextual
relationship between the trees and rivers points to God’s presence. Davidson has put it
like this:
The tree of life was “in the midst” (bəṯôʹḵ) of the garden (Gen 2:9), and this is the
precise term for the living presence of God “in the midst” (bəṯôʹḵ) of his people in the
sanctuary (Exod 25:8; Lev 26:12). In the Mosaic sanctuary and Solomonic Temple,
the ark (symbolizing the Presence of God on his throne, Ps 80:1), was located at the
exact center of the quadrangle of holy space containing the sanctuary building
proper.147
The implicit functional centrality of the rivers that flow from the center of Eden
(Gen 2:10) discloses the life-giving presence of God as it progressively flows/expands
from Eden to the ends of the earth. Shea notes this literary centrality as follows:
The description of these rivers has been outlined in a decrescendo form, and each of
the successive descriptions becomes shorter and shorter. The first description names
the river, states its location, and describes the precious metals and stones that were
present. The second description names the river and the land around which it flowed,
but no detailed information about that land is given. The third description also names
144
Cf. Deut 11:10. See Sarna, Genesis, 99.
145
Contra Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 7.
146
William H. Shea, “Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1 and 2,” Origins 69.2 (1989):
49.
147
Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 70. Cf. Ouro, Old Testament Theology, 49.
59
the river and its location, but even this description is shorter than that of the previous
river. The fourth river is only named; the country or countries by which it flowed are
not named, and no description is given.148
The life-giving presence of the river is also shown via intertextual connections with the
Hebrew Psalter. The picture drawn by the inspired psalmist in Ps 36:6-10 [Eng. 36:5-9] is
a remarkable example. The Hebrew text and its translation read:
‫ יְּ ִ֭הוָה ְּבהַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם חַ ְּס ֶדּ֑ך ֱִ֜א ָֽמּונ ְָּת ּ֗ך עַ ד־‬36:6
36:5
Your mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens;
Your faithfulness reaches to the clouds. ‫ְּשחָ ִ ָֽקים׃‬
‫י־אל ִמ ְִּ֭שפָ טֶ ך ְּתהֶ֣ ֹום‬ ֵ ּ֗ ‫ ִצ ְּד ָ ָֽק ְּתך֙׀ ְּ ָֽכ ַה ְּר ֵר‬36:7
36:6
Your righteousness is like the great
mountains; Your judgments are a great ‫תֹושֶ֣יעַ יְּ הוָ ָֽה׃‬
ִ ‫־ּובהֵ ָמָ֖ה‬ ְּ ‫ַר ָבּ֑ה ָא ָ ָֹּֽ֤דם‬
deep; O Lord, You preserve149 man and
beast.150
‫ּובנֵ ֥י אָ ָדּ֑ם‬
ְּ ‫ מַ ה־י ָ ָ֥קר חַ ְּס ְּד ּ֗ך א ֱָֹ֫ל ִ ֥הים‬36:8
36:7
How precious is Your lovingkindness,
O God! Therefore the children of men put ‫ָפיך ֶיחֱסָ יָֽ ּון׃‬ ֶ ּ֗ ‫ְּב ֵצ֥ל ְִּ֜כנ‬
their trust under the shadow of Your
wings.151
148
Shea, “Literary Structural Parallels,” 49-50. Shea explains this literary decrescendo form like
this:
The section begins with a general observation: “And a river went out from Eden to water the garden,
and from there it was divided and became four heads” (v. 10). The identification and description of
each river follows:
1. “The name of the first was Pishon; it was the one which went around the whole land of
Havilah where there is gold — and the gold of that land is good — there is (also) bdellium and
onyx stone.”
2. “The name of the second river was Gihon; it went around the whole land of Cush.”
3. “The third river was the Tigris; it went east of Assyria”,
4. “The fourth river was the Euphrates” (vv. 11-14).
149
Literally “saved,” a hiphil form of the verb ‫יָשַ ע‬.
150
It is notable that the characteristics of good kingship/rulership (mercy, faithfulness, and
righteousness) are described in cosmic dimensions, encompassing the heavens and earth, as the entire
creation includes men and beasts: the totality of creation. The following verses would point to the center of
God’s sovereignty and salvation.
Cf. Ps 91:1. Craigie and Tate, not unreasonably, remark that “God’s provision of protection is
151
expressed by the words ‘shadow of your wings’ (v 8), sometimes taken to allude to the wings of the
seraphim in the temple.” In other words, this would allude to the most holy place of the sanctuary/temple.
See Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 1-50, WBC 19 (Waco: Word Books, 2004), 292.
60
‫יתּ֑ך וְּ נַ ָ֖חַ ל ע ֲָדנֶ ֶ֣יך‬
ֶ ֵ‫ יִ ְִּ֭רוְּ יֻּן ִמ ֶדֶ֣שֶ ן ב‬36:9
36:8
They are abundantly satisfied152 with
the fullness of Your house,153 and You ‫תַ ְּש ֵ ָֽקם׃‬
give them drink from the river154 of Your
pleasures.155
‫אֹור ּ֗ך נִ ְּראֶ ה־‬

ְּ ‫י־ע ְִּ֭מך ְּמקֶ֣ ֹור חַ ִי ּ֑ים ְִּ֜ב‬
ִ ‫ ִ ָֽכ‬36:10
36:9
For with You is the fountain of life;
In Your light we see light.156 ‫ָֽאֹור׃‬
The linkages in Ps 36:6-10 [Eng. 36:5-9] between the flowing river, Eden, the
sanctuary/temple, and life reveal that “true life and sustenance are found in the presence
of God.”157 The psalmist highlights the cosmic central distinctiveness of God’s presence
as the life-giving water fountain. Jerome F. D. Creach identifies this very notion in Ps
1:3. The Hebrew text and its translation read:
‫ ְּוָֽהָ ָיּ֗ה ְּכעֵ ץ֘ שָ תׂ֪ ּול ַ ָֽעל־פַ ְּל ָ֫ ֵגי ָמ֥יִ ם א ֲֶשֹּ֤ר‬1:3
1:3
He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water, ‫כל‬ ֹּ ָ֖ ְּ‫ִפ ְּריֹ֙ו׀ יִ ֵּ֬ ֵתן ְּב ִע ּ֗תֹו וְּ עָ ֵל֥הּו ָֽל ֹּא־יִ בּ֑ ֹול ו‬
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither; ‫אֲשֶ ר־ ַיע ֲֶשֶ֣ה י ְַּצ ִ ָֽליחַ ׃‬
And whatever he does shall prosper
Creach’s linguistic analysis of the Hebrew word ‫[ ָ֫ ֵפלֶ ג‬péleḡ; “canal”]
demonstrates that four of the nine appearances of a word derived from this root designate
152
Literally “drink copiously,” a qal form of the verb ‫ ָרוָה‬.
153
The context indicates that the Hebrew expression ‫יתּ֑ך‬
ֶ ֵ‫ ב‬refers to God’s sanctuary/temple. Cf.
Pss 23:6; 27:4. This sanctuary/temple, according to the previous verse, is alluding to the most holy place.
See Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the
Whole Bible (New York: George H. Doran, 1921), 1:358.
The abundance of God’s sanctuary/temple from which creation drinks copiously is the life-
154
giving water of his ‫ ָ֫ ַנ ַחל‬river (literally meaning a “torrent” or “stream”).

155
The expression ‫( וְּ נַ ַָ֖חל ע ֲָדנֶ ֶ֣יך‬literally “river of your Edens”) may allude subtly to the
concept/reality of ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬.
156
Indeed, God himself is the fountain of living waters (Jer 2:13; cf. John 4:10, 14).
157
Beale and Kim, God Dwells Among Us, 23.
61
water channels flowing from the holy mountain (cf. Isa 30:25; 32:2; Pss 46:5; 65:10). He
writes:
These data on the location of peleg in these four texts viewed alone would be
inconclusive; however, they are suggestive in light of the parallels between Ps 1:3a
and Ezek 47:12. The fact that the word "streams" and the vocabulary used to describe
the leaves and fruit of the tree occur most prominently (and in some cases
exclusively) in descriptions of the temple mountain seems more than accidental.
Indeed, it seems probable that the writer of the psalm includes the particular image of
"streams of water," as well as the description of the tree as fruitful and evergreen, in
order to portray the righteous person as a tree firmly rooted because it is planted in
the temple and is made secure by the temple stream.158
Ps 1:3 pertains to the conceptual framework of God’s presence as the life-giving water
fountain, implicitly connected with the sanctuary/temple as the only place where the
righteous are secure (cf. Pss 50:10; 92:13-15 [Eng. 92:12-14]).159
This textual and conceptual centrality is further confirmed when the Eden
narrative describes the river as fructifying the four corners of the earth, meaning the
totality of creation. The life-giving waters are to be the source of sustenance for the
whole earth, as the number four (Gen 2:10-14)160 in the Bible symbolizes the entire
terrestrial dimension,161 and divides the earth into various regions.162 This is indeed
observed, as demonstrated by Doukhan, in the seven literary rhythmic and thematic
Creach, “Like a Tree Planted,” 43. Cf. Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms I, AYBC (Garden City:
158
Doubleday, 1966), 4.
159
Other psalms seem to depict the same notion without the simile of the tree (cf. Pss 11, 15, 23,
24, 29, 46, 48, 61, 63, 73, 122, and 132).
160
Nira Stone traces the history of interpretation of the number four in this passage during
medieval times; see Nira Stone, “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical
Story of Paradise (Genesis 2-3) and Its Reception History, ed. Christoph Riedweg and Konrad Schmid
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 227-47, especially 229-34.
161
Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 53. Cf. Jer 49:36; Dan 7:2; Zech 6:5; Rev 7:1; 20:8. See also
Boyer, Divine Presence, especially chap. 2 entitled “Sacred Numbers,” p. 12, also 10-25.
162
Daniel Patte and Judson Parker, “A Structural Exegesis of Genesis 2 and 3,” Semeia 18 (1980):
67.
62
correspondences between Gen 1 and 2, where Gen 1:9-13 and 2:9-15 are concerned with
the ideas of waters and land delimitation.163 The above would imply, as Walton and Beale
have labored to demonstrate, that Gen 2 shows a gradation of holiness. Just as in Gen 2
the river flows from God’s presence to water the garden, and then to the rest of the earth,
in the eschatological temple (cf. Ezek 47:1; Rev 22:1) the river flows from God’s throne
into the temple, and then to the nations outside.164 Although the lands outside the ‫גַן־עִֵ֔ ֶדן‬
are not yet populated, the parallelism seems reasonable.
The ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫“ ג‬is not only the dwelling place of God. It is also the source of all the
creative forces that flow forth from the Divine Presence, that energize and give life to the
creation in a constant, unceasing outflow of vivifying power.”165 Therefore, the presence
of the river is not an incidental or auxiliary detail in the parklike landscape of the ‫גַן־‬
‫עִֵ֔ ֶדן‬.166 Gen 2:10-14 is not an excursus, as suggested by C. John Collins.167 Canonical
biblical intertextuality provides evidence that the cultic connection between the flowing
163
Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 42.
164
Beale and Kim, God Dwells Among Us, 21. Cf. Walton, Genesis, 167-68, 182-83. This is a
common perception among biblical scholars. For example, Richard S. Hess observes this gradation of
holiness in Israelite daily life in three concentric spheres: at the center the priests, at the next level the
Israelites, and at the outer fringe the nations of the world. Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An
Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 183-84. Perhaps the most comprehensive
study on this theme is found in Seth D. Kunin, God's Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place
in Judaism (London: Cassell, 1998), 9-45.
165
David Neiman, “Gihon and Pishon: Mythological Antecedents of the Two Enigmatic Rivers of
Eden,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, held at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 13-19 August, 1973 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977), 1:324.
166
Anderson, “The Cosmic Mountain,” 197.
167
Collins, Genesis 1-4, 102-3, 119. Cf. John Scullion, Genesis: A Commentary for Students,
Teachers, and Preachers, OTS 6 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), 36. However, it should be admitted that
grammatically vv. 10-14 present a different verbal emphasis. This is not to be considered a sort of
parenthesis: instead, this textual nuance shows the opposite. The participle, the infinitive, and weqatal in
vv. 10-14 appear to be highlighted over the rest of the narrative. As demonstrated by Shea, vv. 10-14 stand
at the center of the narrative. Shea, “Literary Structural Parallels,” 49.
63
waters, Eden, and the sanctuary/temple forms a semantic framework that constitutes
sacred space.
A third observation concerns the flowing river in Gen 2:10 as a giver of life in the
‫גַן־עִֵ֔ ֶדן‬. Gregory K. Beale and Mitchell Kim put it like this:
This river in Eden gives life to many trees growing on its banks, including the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (Gen 2:10, 17; 3:24). This water
flows out of Eden to water the garden before flowing outward to give life to the rest
of the earth and places where nations would reside (Gen 2:10-14). Similarly, in later
depictions of the temple, a river flows with trees of life on its banks.168
The two most commonly known passages in the Bible that describe a river flowing from
God’s presence are Ezek 47:5-12169 and Rev 22:1-2. In these two texts, many scholars
have read concomitant echoes, allusions, and/or references to each other.170 “The answer
to this phenomenon is not to be found in borrowing but is evidence that there are two
independent witnesses each with its vision describing the same area.”171 Both passages
168
Beale and Kim, God Dwells Among Us, 20.
169
Perhaps the other two close analogues to Ezek 47:5-12 are Joel 4:17-18 [Eng. 3:17-18] and Ps
46:5 [Eng. 46:4]. Wenham, commenting on Ezek 47:1-12 and Ps 46:5, concludes that “in every case the
river is symbolic of the life-giving presence of God.” Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 65. Cf. Patte and Parker, “A
Structural Exegesis,” 153-57; Steven Shawn Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Genesis
2:10-14,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. W. Sibley Towner, William P.
Brown, and S. Dean McBride (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 171-89.
170
See, for example, Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, 280; Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 699; Cooper, Ezekiel,
409-14; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary Critical, 618; Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House,”
80; Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden,” 37; John Timmer, “The Bible and the City: From Eden to the New
Jerusalem,” RJ 23.8 (1973): 21-25; G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use
of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1153-54. Some scholars find cosmic symbolism in
these passages: see Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel
40-48 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 164; Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 370-71; Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical
Tradition (Louisville: Westminster, 1992), 157-59, 176-77; John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: An Introduction and
Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1969), 278.
171
Cooper, Ezekiel, 409-10.
64
refer to Jerusalem as the source of life and nourishment,172 and in them the Zion-river
association conforms to a central characteristic of the temple (cf. Ps 46:5 [Eng. 46:4] and
Ps 36:9-10 [Eng. 8-9]; Zech 14:5-11).173 The water coming from the river is indeed
associated with the trees of the garden. Doukhan has observed this: “the tree was
represented in the tabernacle through the shape of the menorah (the stylized golden
candlestick) whose light symbolized the gift of life to Israel.”174
However, the intriguing question that remains is this: Do the passages Ezek 47:5-
12 and Rev 22:1-2 indicate a valid intertextual theological/conceptual relationship with
Gen 2? Is it legitimate to view Gen 2:10, Ezek 47:5-12, and Rev 22:1-2 as pertaining to
the same semantic framework? Block writes that “few doubt that Ezekiel’s vision of a
life-giving stream has been influenced, at least in part, by Gen. 2:10-14, which portrays
paradise as a garden, rendered fruitful by a river flowing out of Eden and dividing into
four branches, and which Yahweh visits daily (3:8).”175 Inasmuch as the fruits and leaves
of the tree of life in Rev 22:1-4 recreate this, the river gives life and nourishes the trees
around it, just as in Gen 2 (cf. Ezek 47:12).176 Thus, there seems to be meaningful
172
Just as the waters of rivers in the biblical narrative are the source that nourishes the natural
world, they symbolize God’s fellowship with his people (cf. Isa 35:6-9; 41:17-20; 43:18-20; Joel 3:18).
173
Scholars favor the interpretation that this text is neither wholly symbolic nor wholly literal,
meaning that the best approach is to consider this text as both literal and symbolic. See A. B. Davidson,
Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: With Notes and Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1892), 349-
50. Cf. Cooper, Ezekiel, 407. For example, taking the literal approach, it has been argued that the prophet
Ezekiel might have been familiar with the Gihon spring in the Kidron Valley, an important source of water
in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kgs 1:38). However, nowhere is it associated with the temple, according to Zimmerli,
Ezekiel, 511. Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 696-97.
174
Doukhan, Genesis, 76-77; Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 197-98. Cf. Meyers, The
Tabernacle Menorah, 118-20, 174-81.
175
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 696.
176
Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 196.
65
evidence to confirm the presence of a sacred motif in these three passages, especially the
common references to fruitfulness, food, and healing, altogether substantially connected
with God’s throne in the garden-temple.
In view of this semantic framework of life-sustaining similarities, this scenario
endowed with the most glorious fertility, it is possible to determine that “the sufficiency
of this life-giving water from the throne of God is portrayed in language reminiscent of
the Garden of Eden and is similar to that of Rev 22:1-4.”177 The aspect of water serves as
a unifying conceptual framework, and we may already begin to see how the pre-Fall
Eden narrative is constructed upon a sanctuary/temple motif.
The Hebrew Verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Genesis 2:15
The Garden of Eden “was not only a luxurious place to be enjoyed, it was a place
where man had work to do.”178 However, what kind of “work” was supposed to be done
in the pre-Fall state of humankind? Certainly, this is an intriguing statement.
The terms describing this work and seemingly associated with the underlying
sanctuary/temple motif are the verbs ‫[ עָ בַ ד‬ʽāḇáḏ; “serve”] and ‫[ שָ מַ ר‬šāmár; “keep
watch,” “guard”]. Critics of the sanctuary/temple motif, on the one hand, often argue that
the combination of these two verbs is better translated in the context of cultivation, as
some English translations have rendered them.179 Undoubtedly, this would be nonsensical
177
Cooper, Ezekiel, 411. Cf. Cooke, Book of Ezekiel, 521-22. The theological implication that
seems to be substantiated here, as Beale and Kim argue, is that “Eden is a place of God’s presence, and the
place of God’s presence is a place of worship.” See more in Beale and Kim, God Dwells Among Us, 29.
178
Schultz, “‫עֵ ֶדן‬,” TWOT 647.
179
Note the similarities and differences in the following English versions concerning this nuance:
ASV “to dress it and to keep it,” CJB “to cultivate and care for it,” CEB “to farm it and to take care of it,”
66
in a sanctuary/temple motif, as Block has rightly observed.180 On the other hand,
supporters of the sanctuary/temple motif reason that “since the garden is, inferentially, a
temple, human beings are inferentially priests.”181
Nevertheless, there is one aspect that calls for reevaluation. The collocation of the
semantic framework of ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬exclusively in the context of cultivation seems to
leave an even starker paradox. This particular collocation would be reasonable if the
object were ‫[ א ֲָד ָמה‬ʽăḏāmâʹ; “ground”] (cf. Gen 4:2; 4:12; 2 Sam 9:10; Zech 13:5; Prov
12:11; 28:19),182 and not ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, as the text of Gen 2:15 states. Since the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is more
than soil, it appears that the verbal idea of cultivation is not the only warranted rendition.
Additionally Block considers, admittedly, that the conjunction of these two verbs in
association with the tabernacle suggesting priestly functions “were reminiscence of
humankind’s role in the garden, but the reverse is unwarranted.”183 The historical
correlation approach for exegesis, which is a diachronic concern, should not invalidate
the theological significance of synchronic intertextuality.184 Therefore, if the priestly
functions of the Levites echo/allude to Adam and Eve’s status/role, it is also exegetically
NASB “to cultivate it and keep it,” NIV “to tend and watch over it,” NRSV “to till it and keep it,” YLT “to
serve it, and to keep it.”
180
181
Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 259. This conclusion has been reached from several
perspectives; see Margaret Barker, Creation: A Biblical Vision for the Environment (London: T & T Clark,
2010), especially chap. 5 entitled “The Highpriest of Creation,” 193-236.
182
The basic meaning of ‫ א ֲָדמָ ה‬indicates arable farmland. See Hans H. Schmid, “‫א ֲָדמָ ה‬,” TLOT
1:43. See further in Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study
of Genesis 2-3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 13.
183
184
See methodology in chapter I of this research.
67
legitimate to explore the theological meaning of Adam and Eve’s status/roles in light of
the Levites.
Scholars often find connections through intertextual linkages with later
sanctuary/temple narratives.185 For example, Doukhan affirms that “the juxtaposition of
these two verbs is associated with the priestly role in the tabernacle (Num 3:7-8; 8:26;
18:5-6; cf. Exod 12:25).”186 Evidently, Doukhan’s observation implies a foundational
notion, namely, the priestly function in the pre-Fall Eden narrative. Yet, one may query:
What would be the textual/conceptual hints in the text of Genesis to ascribe priestly
functions to Adam and Eve’s work? In order to determine if the “work” assigned to
Adam and Eve in Eden relates to the priestly “work” of later sanctuaries/temples, it is
necessary to establish and reevaluate its terminological framework.
The objection to the notion of priestly functions in the pre-Fall Eden narrative
seems clear: if none had sinned, they had no need of a substitutionary sacrifice or an
intercessory priest. Scholars advocating the priestly roles of Adam and Eve often argue
that “the absence of references to sacrifices and altars should not detract from seeing
temple imagery in the opening chapters of Genesis.”187 The terminological connections
(Gen 2:15; cf. Num 3:7-8; 8:26; 18:5-6; Exod 12:25) have distinct strengths/weaknesses,
and useful information can be derived from a semantic study of these verbs. Therefore, if
185
See full discussion in Walton, Genesis, 172-74, 185-87.
Doukhan, Genesis, 78-79; Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 42n1. See also Cassuto,
186
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 122-23.

187
68
the Garden of Eden narrative uses the terminological framework of the sanctuary/temple,
at least four considerations might be offered concerning the alleged verbal connections.
First, the verb ‫ עָ ַבד‬in Gen 2:15 appears only here with this morphology as an
infinitive construct (‫דּה‬

ָ֖ ָ ‫)לעָ ְּב‬,
ְּ having a third-person singular feminine suffix, which
functions to point out the direct object and nearest antecedent ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬.188 It is significant
that most of its occurrences as infinitive construct in the Pentateuch and the book of
Joshua indicate “to honor” YHWH and/or “to serve” at the tent of meeting.189 Moreover,
the Hebrew noun ‘ăḇôḏâʹ (‫עב ָֹּדה‬

ֲ ) that appears five times in the Old Testament with the
preposition lamed,190 thus mirroring the infinitive construct of Gen 2:15, is sometimes
used in cultic settings.191 This usage would indicate that part of its semantic range applies
to cultic settings. This does not prove that the infinitive construct of Gen 2:15 should be
understood with cultic connotations, but it raises the possibility, depending on contextual
factors. Although it may not be immediately apparent, the intertextual relationship seems
to allow for such consideration when the objects of ‫ עָ בַ ד‬are put in perspective. The
188
The grammatical problem is evident: the pronominal suffix is feminine and the nearest
antecedent is the masculine ‫גַן‬. There is no clear solution to this dilemma unless the expression ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is
considered feminine. See Paul Jouon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Gregorian
and Biblical, 2006), 134-35. Gregor suggests that this grammatical anomaly indicates a subtle reference to
the Hebrew feminine noun ‫“ ֶָ֫א ֶרץ‬earth,” meaning that Adam and Eve’s service “would gradually be
extended to the entire earth.” Paul Gregor, “Creation Revisited: Echoes of Genesis 1 and 2 in the
Pentateuch,” in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A.
Klingbeil (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2015), 143.
189
Cf. Gen 2:5; 3:23; Exod 10:26; Num 3:7, 8; 4:23, 24, 30, 47; 7:5; 8:11, 15, 19, 22; 16:9; 18:6;
Deut 29:17; Josh 22:27; 24:15, 16, 19, 22.
190
Cf. Gen. 2:15; Num. 4:35, 39, 43; 1 Chr. 25:1, 26:8. See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 205-11.
191
Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew word ‘ăḇôḏâʹ (‫עב ָֹּדה‬
ֲ ), sometimes used to mean
“cultic service” (cf. 1 Chr 9:28; Num 4:25; Exod 12:25), has the same root consonants as the infinite
construct of the verb ‫עָ בַ ד‬.
69
semantic framework formed by “to honor” YHWH, “to serve” at the tent of meeting, and
to “work” the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬reflects a unifying theme in the book of Genesis and a foundational
belief in canonical biblical theology. God created Adam and Eve with the purpose of
serving him, and with the aim of fulfilling this role, God himself provided a paradisiacal
place for human happiness: ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. In light of this observation, Doukhan stresses the
importance of the usage of ‫’[ ָ֫ ֶא ֶרץ‬éreṣ; “earth”] in Gen 1 and 2 and suggests a connection
between the cosmic dimension of ‫ ָ֫ ֶא ֶרץ‬and the particular chosen place for the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. He
explains:
This means that in the book of Genesis the theology of the land is more than a mere
nationalistic concept. God, the Creator, the owner of the earth, is behind that special
land, whether the Garden of Eden or the Promised Land. Interestingly, this is the very
lesson that is suggested by the structure of Genesis. The book begins in Eden and
ends with the prospect of the Promised Land.192
This implies, as Doukhan further comments, that “the biblical worldview has no room for
a secular place where the divine reference would be absent. Work is a part of religious
life.”193 God’s creation of the ‫א ֶרץ‬,

ֶ ָ֫ God’s planting of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, and God’s solemn
covenant of the Promised Land include the implicit command that humankind serve
(‫ )עָ ַבד‬him, and this at its core indicates a cultic function/role.
Second, similarly, the verb ‫ שָ מַ ר‬appears only in Gen 2:15 with the morphology
of an infinitive construct (‫)לשָ ְּמ ָ ָֽרּה‬

ְּ having a third-person singular feminine suffix, which
functions to point out the direct object and nearest antecedent ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. The semantic
scope of this verb, according to the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, carries the
sense of watchfulness and an office that is bestowed, implicitly and explicitly indicating
192
193
70
religious connotations. “It involves primarily the duty of the Levites in Lev (e.g. 8:35)
and in Num (e.g. 1:35).”194 If one accepts the notion that there is no dichotomy between
sacred and profane/secular in Scripture, it seems clear that sacred duties are involved in
almost all portions of the Old Testament when ‫ שָ ַמר‬is present. For example, to mention a
few passages related to sacred duties: protection of the sanctuary/ark (Num 18:5-6, cf. 1
Sam 7:1), fulfilling the work of the tabernacle (Num 3:7-8), performing the
responsibilities of the tent of meeting (Num 8:26), an attitude toward the covenant (Gen
17:9), responsibility toward the law (Isa 56:1; cf. Deut 5:12), duties of love and justice
(Hos 12:7), and keeping the commandments, statutes, and instructions of God (Gen 26:5).
The semantic framework of ‫שָ ַמר‬, due to a considerable number of occurrences
exhibiting religious language, probably may be attributed to the sacred realm.195 Walton
puts it like this: ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫“ שָ ַמר‬are terms most frequently encountered in discussions of
human service to God rather than descriptions of agricultural tasks.”196
Third, one key difficulty in observing priestly roles assigned to Adam and Eve is
to define this concept only in light of atonement sacrifices. Evidently, Adam and Eve’s
appointment was basically to ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬so that it would remain holy.
Does this mean that a holy assignment is connected with sanctuary/temple roles? If one
concedes that “in ancient thinking, caring for sacred space was a way of upholding
creation,”197 in all likelihood, a divine appointment to preserve a place in terms of
194
G. Sauer, “‫שָ ַמר‬,” TLOT 3:1382.
195
Sauer, “‫שָ מַ ר‬,” TLOT 3:1383-84.
196
Walton, “Garden of Eden,” DOTP 205. Cf. Alexander, From Eden, 124.
197
Walton, “Garden of Eden,” DOTP 206.
71
holiness “was a normal task associated with any sanctuary.”198 Naturally, although some
priestly and cultic functions were associated with atonement sacrifices, all priestly and
cultic notions of serving/worshiping God cannot be relegated exclusively to a post-Fall
place/realm/time.199 If this is correct, Walton seems to appropriately assert that Adam’s
role should be understood in light of the common priestly work that was performed in the
ancient world. He writes that “when we read the Bible, we often think of priests as ritual
experts and as those instructing the people in the ways of the Lord and the law. That is
true, but those tasks fit into the larger picture. The main task of the priest was the
preservation of sacred space.”200
While it should be clear that the main purpose of the writer of the pre-Fall Eden
narrative is not to introduce sin or its consequences, nevertheless, as Doukhan has noted,
Gen 2 “has been written from the perspective of a writer who already knows the effects
of death and suffering.”201 This implies that the depiction of the scenes of Gen 2 as “not
198
199
Bruce K. Waltke writes: “Assuming the given particularity of all Scripture, the two creation
narratives (Gen 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25) should be regarded as normative because they describe God’s ideal for
his creation. The rest of Scripture reflects conditions after the fall of humanity, a state of accursedness and
corruption, in which God acts and reacts to human heart-heartedness.” Waltke, An Old Testament
Theology, 233.
200
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 108. Interestingly, this priestly view of Adam was common in the
book of Jubilees and in the writings of Origen. See respectively James C. VanderKam, “Adam's Incense
Offering (Jubilees 3:27),” in Meghillot. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI: A Festschrift for Devorah
Dimant, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 141-56; Gary A.
Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2001), 122.
201
Jacques B. Doukhan, “‘When Death Was Not Yet’: The Testimony of Biblical Creation,” in
The Genesis Creation Account and its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil
(Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2015), 336.
72
yet” means that the verbs ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬reveal the eventual risk of losing the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬and
anticipate the fall event of Gen 3.202
What kind of “work” was supposed to be done in the pre-Fall state of humankind?
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, one may suggest that the function/role
divinely assigned to Adam and Eve in their pre-Fall state (a function/role that
transcended that of post-Fall humankind) should be understood in light of the ancient
priestly role of preserving sacred space. One may ponder ample biblical evidence of this
reality in the Old Testament and in the religious framework of the ANE.203 Regardless of
the state of humankind, the most significant priestly role was teaching the Scriptures to
the people (cf. Deut 33:10; Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:7). Such a cultic role (ministering in a
sacred place or guarding it in order to keep it holy) could be performed in a pre-Fall
place/realm/time, and indeed, God has bestowed such roles.204 Walton offers a helpful
definition of Adam and Eve’s role: “Their role is to mediate knowledge of God, and their
end goal is ultimately not to restrict access to the presence of God but to mediate access
202
Doukhan has shown a number of elements in the Eden narrative that may be considered a
prolepsis (a rhetorical device to introduce and/or anticipate a concept/reality before it actually occurs; it has
not yet, but it will come). Jacques B. Doukhan, “Where Did Death Come From? A Study of the Genesis
Creation Story,” Adventist Perspectives 4.1 (1990): 17; Jacques B. Doukhan, “The Genesis Creation Story:
Text, Issues, and Truth,” Origins 55 (2004): 23. Cf. Randall W. Younker, “A Look at Biblical and Ancient
Extra-Biblical Perspectives on Death,” JATS 16.1-2 (2005): 31-32.
203
Jared L. Miller and Mauro Giorgieri, Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative
Texts, SBL 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 244-65.
204
See, for example, the cultic role and grandeur of the guardian cherub (Ezek 28:11-19; cf. Isa
14:4:21); worshiping/singing at the creation moment (Job 38:4-7); princes of planets (Job 1:6; cf. Gen
1:28); and the heavenly temple as the cosmic center of service/worship for innumerable intelligent beings
(Ps 89:5-6; 103:19; Dan 7:9-10; cf. Rev 4:2-7). Although one may not agree with all interpretations of
Michael Heiser’s book, the subject deserves careful study; see especially references to the Psalms in
Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham:
Lexham, 2015), 14-126.
73
through instruction.”205 In any case, in a pre-Fall place/realm/time, according to Isa
14:13, the heavenly sanctuary/temple is called the mount of the congregation, permitting
access to God and thus revealing its primary worship function.206 Davidson points out
that “before the entrance of sin in the universe the heavenly sanctuary did not function to
solve the sin problem, but served primarily as a place of worship.”207
Fourth, perhaps a complementary observation to be reconsidered: there are
elements describing ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in relation to Gen 2 (and Gen 3) that also envisage a palatial
royal setting. Rev 20:6 (cf. Rev 1:6; 5:10; 7:15; 22:3; Col 1:16) describes (among post-
sin humankind) the redeemed not only with cultic functions as “priests,”208 but also as
“kings.”209 This royal depiction may be compared with God’s original plan in Gen 2. As
a case in point, one could refer to the function of the verb ‫[ ָר ָדה‬rāḏâʹ; “rule”] in Gen
1:26 in describing the role of humanity. “While its etymology is uncertain, it appears that
elsewhere it is mostly used in connection with royalty (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 8:5, 6; 72:8;
110:2; Isa 14:2).”210 If this is correct, as the biblical evidence seems to confirm, then it
would make sense that by obeying the serpent, Adam and Eve failed in their royal role to
preserve the holiness of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, and thus “they are deprived of their priestly status
205
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 112.
206
207
Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 68-69.
208
Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament, 1154.
209
In this sense, it seems theologically unfeasible to discuss in this context the mythological and
traditional motif of chaoskampf. The biblical text of the Eden narrative shows that Adam and Eve’s kingly
role was to preserve the holiness of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬via communion and interaction with the Holy God. This, of
course, would not imply any sort of chaos or combat. Contra Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 80.
Gregor, “Creation Revisited,” 135. Cf. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 169; Hans Wildberger, “Das
210
Abbild Gottes: Gen 1:26-30,” TZ 21.4 (1965): 245-59.
74
and expelled from the sanctuary complex.”211 Adam and Eve’s status was subject to their
obedience to the Creator. Furthermore, another key verb that seems to set forward the
semantic framework of Adam and Eve’s role and/or work in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is the verb ‫ִשים‬
[śîm; “set,” “place”]. The second part of Gen 2:8 states that “there He put [śîm] the man
whom He had formed.” Paul Gregor’s analysis regarding this verb is important:
Among the wide range of its usage, śîm is used in the context of appointing someone
to an office of authority whether they are taskmasters (Exod 1:11; 5:14), elders in the
community of Israel (Exod 18:21), judges (Judg 11:11), or military commanders (1
Sam 8:11, 12; 2 Sam 17:25). It is also used in the context of setting a king upon a
throne as a symbol of rulership and an indicator of power (Deut 17:14, 15; 1 Sam 8:5;
10:19). Deuteronomy uses the word śîm four times in this sense, which unmistakably
reflects this significance. Furthermore, the language of appointing kings is ultimately
connected to the coronation ceremony.212
A more important issue is whether the verb ‫ ִשים‬carries such a meaning in Gen 2.
According to Gregor’s explanation, the purpose of Gen 2:8 is found in Gen 1:26 “where
rulership and dominion over all creation was given to humanity.”213 This is an indication
that Adam and Eve were given a kind of kingly role and/or an official/cultic appointment.
Lastly, the only other occasion where ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬appear as a pair is in the
context of ministering at the tabernacle and service to God (Num 8:26; cf. Exod 19:6).214
On this basis, I would venture to point out that the verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in the pre-Fall
Eden narrative likely echo and pertain to a cultic/royal semantic framework rather than
211
212
Gregor, “Creation Revisited,” 137-38.
213
Gregor, “Creation Revisited,” 138.
214
Gregor, “Creation Revisited,” 143.
75
merely to landscaping and agrarian responsibilities. In order to enable Adam and Eve’s
work of ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫שָ ַמר‬, “they are given royal authority alongside their priestly status.”215
The Hebrew Word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Genesis 2:21, 22
The function/role divinely assigned to ‫האָ ָדּ֑ם‬

ָֽ ָ in Gen 2:15 is so fundamental to the
created order that ‫האָ ָדּ֑ם‬

ָֽ ָ could not accomplish it alone.216 Adam and Eve’s pre-Fall
function/role of preserving sacred space was to be performed through partnership.217 The
next questions to consider are these: Does this indicate that according to the divine
command, women were to serve as some kind of priestesses?218 If we conclude that the
answer to this query is yes, how does Eve’s function/role fit within the framework of the
sanctuary/temple motif? To understand the background of this inquiry, it is necessary to
reconsider the Hebrew vocabulary employed in Gen 2:21-22 in its semantic framework.
The semantic combination of the Hebrew word ‫[ צֵ לָ ע‬ṣēlā́ ʽ; “rib,” “side”] and the
Hebrew verb ‫[ ָבנָה‬bānâ’; “to build”] used in the creation of the woman (Gen 2:21-22) is
a point of discussion. The Hebrew text and its translation read:
215
216
Note in Exod 18:14 Jethro’s advice to Moses about maintaining the holiness of a nation alone.
217
Davidson observes that in Gen 2:15 the woman was not yet created, but the command was
given in fact to the couple, just as in Gen 3:2, 3 Eve refers to the prohibition of eating from the tree (Gen
2:17) in the masculine plural. See Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 71. Cf. Collins, Genesis 1-4, 140.
218
Although this question will be treated later from a historical/grammatical perspective, it is
important that the reader be aware that the so-called feminist scholars have endeavored to understand this
text within a socio/cultural context in ancient Israel. See for example, Ronald A. Simkins, “Gender
Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth,” in Genesis: The Feminist Companion to the Bible, ed.
Athalya Brenner, Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1998), 32-51.
76
‫ֱֹלהים׀ תַ ְּר ֵד ָמ֛ה עַ ל־‬ ֧ ִ ‫ ַויַפֵ ל ָ֩ יְּ ה ָו ֙ה א‬2:21
2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep
to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took ‫ישּ֑ן וַיִ ַּ֗קח אַ חַ ת ֙ ִמצַ ְּלעֹּ ִ֔ ָתיו וַיִ ְּס ֹּג֥ר‬
ָ ִ‫דם וַי‬ ָ֖ ָ ָ‫הָ א‬
one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in
its place. ‫בָ ָשָ֖ר תַ ְּח ֶ ָֽתנָה׃‬
‫ֱֹלהים׀ ֶ ָֽאת־הַ צֵ ָל֛ע אֲשֶ ר־‬ ֧ ִ ‫ וַיִ בֶ ן ָ֩ יְּ ה ָו ֙ה א‬2:22

2:22
Then the rib which the Lord God had
taken from man He made into a woman, ‫דם ְּל ִא ָשּ֑ה וַיְּ ִב ֶאָ֖הָ אֶ ל־‬
ָ֖ ָ ָ‫ן־הא‬
ָֽ ָ ‫לָ ַ ֥קח ִמ‬
and He brought her to the man
‫האָ ָ ָֽדם׃‬ָֽ ָ
Does the Hebrew text describe that God created/built Eve from Adam’s rib? Although the
answer appears to be straightforward, the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬in v. 21 can mean either
“rib”219 or “side.”220 It is interesting that ‫צֵ לָ ע‬, which is used in the Old Testament
approximately forty times, is translated only in Gen 2:21-22 with reference to a part of
the human anatomy (rib). In the rest of its occurrences ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬is often associated
architecturally with the sanctuary/temple.221 Keeping in mind that the meaning of a word
derives primarily from its context and also from its semantic usage, one may suggest that
the author selected a word capable of transmitting both a literal and a symbolic meaning.
Probably the Greek translators of the Old Testament also understood this fact. The LXX
prefers to render ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬as πλευρά, a Greek word that retains the idea of “side of the
temple” (cf. 1 Kgs 6:5, 8, 15; 7:40; Ezek 41:5-8), and in the New Testament the word
denotes the “side” of the human anatomy, where the ribs are located (cf. John 19:34;
20:20, 25, 27; Acts 12:7). The text leaves the reader with both options, and both are
219
As some English translations have translated it: ASV “and he took one of his ribs,” CEV “and
he took out one of the man’s ribs,” CEB “and took one of his ribs,” CJB “he took one of his ribs,” NASB
“then He took one of his ribs,” NIV “he took one of the man’s ribs,” NRSV “then he took one of his ribs.”
220
For example: “a side of a road” (1 Sam 16:13); “a longer side of the Ark” (Exod 25:12, 14;
37:3, 5); “a longer side of the tabernacle” (Exod 26:20, 26-27, 35); “a longer side of the altar” (Exod 27:7;
38:7). See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫צֵ לָ ע‬,” HALOT 2:1030.
221
See Exod 25-38; 1 Kgs 6-7; Ezek 4. An exception is 1 Sam 16:13, where it could refer to “the
side of the road” or “the side of the hill.”
77
grammatically possible.222 God indeed took “something” from one of Adam’s sides
(‫)מצַ ְּלעֹּ ִ֔ ָתיו‬

ִ in order to create/build the woman, as “a surgical act of God.”223
It is interesting that there are several Hebrew verbs available to use within the
semantic framework of creation. In those contexts the verbs ‫[ בָ ָרא‬bārā́ ’; “to create”],
‫[ עָ שָ ה‬ʽāśâ’; “to make,” “to do”], ‫[ יָצַ ר‬yāṣár; “to form,” “to shape,” “to fashion”] are
usually employed to describe the divine action of bringing into existence. Yet, here, the
Bible writer selected the verb ‫בָ נָה‬, though it is still framed within the notion of
creation.224 This verb is often found in connection to erecting, construction, and/or
manufacturing,225 in other words, in contexts of sacred space. The idea that God “built
222
This observation does not mean that the Hebrew expression ‫ֱֹלהים׀ תַ ְּר ֵד ָמ֛ה עַ ל־‬
֧ ִ ‫ַויַפֵ ל ָ֩ יְּ ה ָו ֙ה א‬
‫דם‬ָ֖ ָ ָ‫“( הָ א‬and the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam”) describes God cutting Adam in half, thus
requiring some sort of anesthesia (implying the existence of pain), as proposed in Batto, Slaying the
Dragon, 54. Similarly, this expression does not warrant the notion that Adam had a visionary experience,
as Walton has argued. Walton, Lost World of Adam, 79. I think that Walton presses the meaning of this
expression too far in order to accommodate his archetypal view of human creation. Walton bases his
argument on the assumption that the Hebrew word ‫ אָ ָדם‬is an archetype for humanity, depending on the
presence or absence of the definite article. This is dubious and unnecessary, and encounters several
difficulties. For example, in the generic sense (meaning “humankind”), ‫ אָ ָדם‬sometimes takes the definite
article and sometimes does not (cf. Gen 1:26, 27). See Walton, Lost World of Adam, 58-62; Walton,
Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 208-9. Although in the New Testament the word ‫ אָ ָדם‬takes some
salvation-historical distinctiveness, in general terms, “this sense does not conform to the common usage of
the word in the OT.” See Claus Westermann, “‫אָ ָדם‬,” TLOT 1:42.
223
Mathews explains this eventful moment: “The ‘sleep’ preserves for the man the mystery of her
creation and the subsequent surprise at her appearance. ‘Deep sleep’ is commonly used of a night’s sleep
(Job 4:13; 33:15; Prov 19:15), but here it is the special work of God as with Abraham’s slumber (15:12; cf.
1 Sam 26:12 and fig. use Isa 29:10 with Rom 11:8).” Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 216. This divine surgical
act portrays an image of intimacy. See Doukhan, Genesis, 82. Clearly Adam’s first words, “this is now
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” identify the kind of ideal relationship God wanted between the
new created couple (cf. Eph 5:28-31; 1 Kgs 8:19).
See Amos 9:6. The verb ‫ בָ נָה‬is a common word to describe divine creation in the ANE,
224
according to Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 230-31.

225
Robert P. Gordon, “The Week That Made the World: Reflections on the First Pages of the
Bible,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. G. McConville and Karl
Moeller (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 233. Note that in the Pentateuch the object of ‫ בָ נָה‬is usually an
altar, followed by a city, a family, a house, and a tower. Cf. Gen 2:22; 4:17; 8:20; 10:11; 11:4, 5, 8; 12:7,
8; 13:18; 16:2; 22:9; 26:25; 30:3; 33:17; 35:7; Exod 1:11; 17:15; 20:25; 24:4; 32:5; Num 13:22; 21:27;
23:1, 14, 29; 32:16, 24, 34, 37, 38; Deut 6:10; 8:12; 13:17; 20:5, 20, 22:8, 25:9; 27:5, 6; 28:30. Clearly, in
the Pentateuch ‫ בָ נָה‬is not used to refer to the construction of the wilderness tabernacle. Yet, ‫ בָ נָה‬is
78
architecturally” the woman from a “piece of a building” (‫ )צֵ לָ ע‬highlights the writer’s
purpose, namely, to put the text into a suitable literary form and to draw up or frame the
narrative with a particular motif. What framework did the author of Gen 2 want to
suggest by employing this vocabulary? Advocates of the sanctuary/temple motif would
find textual/conceptual evidence here for a cultic framework. However, is there another
explanation capable of doing justice to this biblical data? Obviously, many things can be
built besides the sanctuary/temple. By way of addressing this question, let us reevaluate
three key central issues.
The first common objection to the interpretation just described is that only men
serve as priests among the Israelites in the Old Testament (Exod 29:9, 29-30; 40:13-15).
Doukhan notes that “this feature was all the more striking as it was probably a unique
case in the ancient Near East.”226 Walton recognizes correctly that “it may seem odd,
therefore, that Genesis 2 presents a woman as a colaborer within the sacred space along
with the man—especially if the narrative scenario is an Israelite authority figure (such as
Moses) talking to an Israelite audience.”227 How does the Old Testament depict women in
relation to sacred space? Is this function/role exemplified as priesthood?228 In discussing
this question, a precautionary approach should be invoked. Unquestionably, as shown
above, Adam and Eve’s appointment to ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬should be understood
employed in 1 Kgs 5-9 to refer to the construction of Solomon’s temple, “the house of the Lord” (cf. Pss
78:69; 102:17 [Eng. 102:16]; Hag 1:2, 8; Zech 1:16; 6:12-15). See A. R. Hulst, “‫בָ נָה‬,” TLOT 1:245.
226
Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel,” 31. Cf. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 183-84.
227
228
For a survey of theological approaches to particular roles of women in Genesis from the
perspective of early extra-biblical literature (Pseudepigrapha and Rabbinic), see David J. Zucker,
Matriarchs of Genesis: Seven Women, Five Views (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2015), especially 1-28.
79
as occurring in a pre-Fall state, where the divine command was bestowed upon both of
them equally. Not only did Adam and Eve have equal ontological value (Gen 1:26-28),
but their charge to ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ ַמר‬the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was analogous (Gen 2:15). Interpreters
should give priority to the pre-Fall narrative in order to establish the primal covenantal
function/role of men and women in sacred space.229 Waltke prompts us to cautiously
consider this:
It is more problematic to use these later texts [all Scripture except Gen 1-2] to
establish what is ideal for the church, a people living in the ‘already’ aspect of the
kingdom of God, thus seeking an ethics and praxis redeemed from the Fall.
Therefore, I turn to that portion of Scripture that transcends fallen historical and
cultural particularities and that is intended to describe God perfect intentions in the
pristine realm.230
Thus, it is likely that any attempt to interpret the role of women in sacred space
from a post-Fall point of reference would not reach a conclusive answer.231 In any case,
the two most common references (post-Fall) to women possibly serving at the tabernacle
(cf. Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22) do not describe them as priestesses.232 There is no evidence
229
God’s call to preserve and to live in holiness (sacred space) is not limited by gender. Yet, it is
interesting to note that the holiest people in the Old Testament were married: the high priest (Lev 21:13-
15); the Nazirites (Num 6:1-21). On the other hand, singleness, which is not celibacy, according to the
apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7, is related to a higher standard of morality (holiness).
230
Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 233.
231
Some scholars, such as Hennie J. Marsman and Phyllis Bird, in discussing the religious
position of women, find two basic distinctions: women as religious specialists (in cultic service) and
women as worshipers. Both roles imply the administration of sacred space. See Phyllis A. Bird, “The Place
of Women in the Israelite Cultus,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,
ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 397-419;
Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the
Ancient Near East, Old Testament Studies 49 (Boston: Brill, 2003), 373-76, 490-91.
232
The key verb of these two passages is ‫צָ בָ א‬. [ṣāḇā́ ʹ; “service in war,” “host,” “army”]. In
relation to the Levites, this verb generally means “be on duty.” Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner,
“‫צָ ָבא‬,” HALOT 2:294. The meaning of Exod 38:8 is highly disputed, especially in light of 1 Sam 2:22,
where ‫ צָ ָבא‬seems to refer to cultic prostitution. Yet, this role is unthinkable in the context of Exod 38. See
Durham, Exodus, 486. Douglas K. Stuart suggests that women at the entrance of the tabernacle helped
80
that women performed any officiatory ritual or cultic function at the tent of meeting,233
which at that time was not yet built.234 Therefore, scholars agree that only men served as
priests in ancient Israel.235 This may have been a deliberate choice236 to create a
difference from Israel’s neighbors and keep sexual activities, which were ritually impure
(Lev 15:18), out of the sacred tabernacle.237
“with utensil cleanup, general courtyard cleanup, water resupply, ancillary food preparation, guiding and
assisting other women worshipers, washing priests’ clothes, and the like.” Stuart, Exodus, 767-68.
233
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 296, 383. Cf. Sarna, Genesis, 230; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A
Commentary Critical, 72.
234
Some commentators have proposed that the tent in view is the temporary tent Moses built
(Exod 37:3). However, it appears unlikely that such a tent would need the services of women. See Noel D.
Osborn and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Exodus (New York: United Bible Societies, 1999), 867.
235
Roy E. Gane explores seven reasons why the Israelite priesthood had to be male. For example,
the culture was patriarchal, the nature of priestly duties demanded male upper body strength, and maybe
more importantly, women could become ritually impure (through menstruation) without knowing it. See
Roy E. Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 375-77. All of these factors,
however, would be irrelevant in the pre-Fall edenic setting.
236
John H. Otwell, And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Woman in the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1977), 155.
237
See Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 544-47. These immoral rituals involved goddess
worship, fertility cults, and sacred prostitution. Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel,” 31. Cf. Georges
Barrois, “Women and the Priestly Office According to the Scriptures,” in Women and the Priesthood, ed.
Kallistos and Thomas Hopko (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1983), 53. It should be recognized that
some interpreters distrust this approach and its implications, arguing that “conclusions on this subject
depend on the methods scholars use. Commentators who base their conclusions only on the Bible fail to see
temple prostitutions as a reason for the absence of female priests.” See P. Gerard Damsteegt, “Eve a Priest
in Eden?,” in Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry, ed. Mercedes H. Dyer (Berrien Springs:
Adventists Affirm, 2000), 124. Cf. Eugene J. Fisher, “Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East: A
Reassessment,” BTB 6.2-3 (1976): 225-36. I would argue that the opposite is true. Commentators who base
their conclusions only in the Bible indeed find temple prostitution (sacred prostitution or fertility rites) to
be one of the reasons for the absence of female priests. Comparative studies with extra-biblical historical
records are helpful and valid within the historical grammatical approach to the Bible, and this seems to be
the case here. The Hebrew word ‫דש‬ ָ֖ ֵ ָ‫ק‬, translated as “ritual harlot” (Deut 23:17-18 NKJV [Eng. 23:18-19];
cf. Hos 4:14), and labeled as ‫“( תֹועֵ בָ ה‬abomination”), has linguistic connections with Canaanite and
Ugaritic vocabulary for cultic immoral practices. This legislation constructs prohibitions against those
practices antithetical to covenant law. Cf. Joe M. Sprinkle, Biblical Law and its Relevance: A Christian
Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations (Lanham: University Press of
America, 2006), 166-67; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1976), 301-2; Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC 4 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 312-14.
Thus, the biblical text itself corroborates the conceptual/linguistic association with pagan rites; it is not the
extra-biblical sources that become the hermeneutical norm. See also William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and
81
Admittedly, women in the Old Testament are not described as having a post-Fall
priestly function/role equal to a small minority of the men—Aaron and his descendants,
who were given special occupational responsibility for officiating sacrifices to intercede
on behalf of others and maintaining the sanctuary/temple as God’s “house-servants.”238
However, the rest of the Old Testament depicts women as having other responsibilities
that are well fitted within the pre-Fall (and post-sin) human state, that is, in harmony with
the principal function/role of the sanctuary/temple: a place/realm/time of worship.
Doukhan considers that the priestly roles/functions included some duties open to both
men and women, but others were restricted only to men. He has identified three essential
categories of priestly duties: didactic (Deut 17:9; cf. 17:9; 21:5; 33:10); prophetic (Num
Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 67-
70; 76-81; 95-102; 107-8; 111-20.
238
I think that Waltke has correctly written a helpful, condensed statement about equality,
leadership, and government. He affirms:
The sexual, social and economic equality of all believers will be obliterated in the eschaton, but until
the redemption of our bodies, believers still participate in the first creation with its sexual, social, and
economic distinctions. The biblical instructions regarding the distinctive roles of men and women, of
husbands and wives, address that obvious reality and serve the best interests of both sexes. As a result
of the Fall and God’s judgment on the man and on the woman, the woman desires to rule her husband
and he seeks to dominate her (Gen 3:16). The solution to this tragic power struggle that divides the
home is the new creation in Christ, in which the husband humbles himself and in love serves his wife,
and the wife voluntarily submits herself to him in faithful obedience (Eph 5:22). The rest of Scripture
sustains a loving hierarchy, not democracy or matriarchy.
See Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 243.

Scholars are divided on the precise meaning of the Hebrew expression ‫“( ְּתשֶ֣ ּוקָ ִ֔ ֵתְך‬your desire”
NKJV) in Gen 3:16. Some interpreters observe in this word a positive sense, as in Cant 7:11 [Eng. 7:10], or
a negative sense, as in Gen 4:7. Cf. David Talley, “‫ ְּתשּוקָ ה‬,” NIDOTTE 4:341-42; Susan T. Foh, “What is
the Woman's Desire,” WTJ 37.3 (1975); Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God: A Response to
Biblical Feminism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 68-69. See especially Davidson’s
comprehensive and careful study in Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 73-75.
82
27:21; 1 Sam 28:6); and cultic (Lev 1-16). Two of the three were permitted to women:
didactic and prophetic.239
It is outside the immediate interest of this chapter to deal with the theological
implications of the above discussion. Suffice it to say for the moment that evidently cultic
duties included the sacrificial functions, but were not limited to performing sacrifices.
The biblical evidence for this cultic framework allowed to women may be seen in
prophetic and spiritual leadership roles (cf. Exod 15:20; Mic 6:4; Judg 4:3-6; 4:4; 5:28-
30; 2 Sam 14:2; 20:16; 2 Kgs 11:3; 22:14-20; Joel 2:28).
The second noticeable fact is the common vocabulary. The pairing of ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and
‫ ָבנָה‬in Gen 2 seems to indicate a purposeful literary intent—not coincidence or a lack of
compositional capabilities on the part of the inspired writer. Souza explains the similar
language linking creation and the sanctuary/temple in the following way:
239
Doukhan explains the absence of cultic duties for women in the Old Testament as follows:
The Bible does not record any woman priest in Israel, not because the office of priesthood implied
prophetic functions (there was women prophets in Israel), or because it implied leadership or teaching
functions (there were women judges and “wise” women in Israel), but rather because of the sacrificial
function, the only priestly act denied to women (there is no biblical evidence of women performing
sacrifices in Israel). This absence may be explained by the incompatibility of the sacrifice, normally
associated with death and sin, and the physiological nature of the woman traditionally associated in the
Bible with life and messianic pregnancy.
See Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel,” 32, 38. See also Kunin, God's Place, chap. 6 entitled “Women's
Access to Jewish Sacred Space,” 116-56, especially 116-19.
However, the conclusion that there is no biblical evidence of women performing sacrifices in
Israel is debatable. According to Roy Gane, the Old Testament presents women offering their own
sacrifices as offerers (but not officiants), like non-Aaronic men. The fact that women could offer sacrifices
is indicated, for example, by generic language in ritual prescriptions (see, e.g., ‫נֶפֶ ש‬, “a person,” “anyone,”
in Lev 2:1; 4:2, 27; 5:1-2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2 [Heb. 5:21], etc.); expiatory sacrifices in Lev 4:1-6:7 [Heb. 5:26]
were mandatory if a person had committed a sin. Moreover, some passages explicitly refer to requirements
for women to offer sacrifices (Lev 12:6-8; 15:29-30; cf. Num 6:10-12, 14-20—if a Nazirite is a woman; cf.
v. 2). See Roy E. Gane, “The Nature of the Human Being in Leviticus,” in “What Are Human Beings that
You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the Third International Bible Conference, Nof Ginosar and
Jerusalem, June 11-21, 2012, ed. Clinton Wahlen (Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015), 53-57.
83
We should note at first that some of the links between the Creation account and the
construction of the Tabernacle might be explained on the basis that both works share
some obvious commonalities. Both are material constructions, both are based on the
authority of God, and both are artistic works in their own right. So it should not be
surprising that words and expressions used to narrate the creation of the world are
also employed to describe the construction of the tabernacle.240
It is true that both works share some obvious commonalities. Nevertheless, this line of
reasoning suggests that the shared features are obvious coincidences. I would further
pursue this observation and ask: Is there any other case in Scripture where the presence of
the same semantic framework in different passages is not an indication of a theological
relationship? Clearly, a couple of words or phrases do not substantiate a relationship.
However, when a semantic framework establishes a common motif in different passages,
the shared features are not merely happenstances. Besides, it is a viable and common
exegetical practice to construe theological implications upon double intertextual
directionalities.241
Third, the only probable reference to women’s role in the pre-Fall state of creation
is found in Gen 2:18. The Hebrew text and its translation read:
240
Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 35.
241
Intertextuality in the larger canonical context seems to warrant the presence of a
sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2. Israel was designated as “kingdom of priests” in Exod 19:6 (cf. Isa 61:6;
66:20-21; Rom:15:16; 1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). These passages are usually framed within what
scholars call “the priesthood of all believers.” See further in Raoul Dederen, “The Priesthood of All
Believers,” in Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, ed. Nancy J. Vyhmeister (Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 1998), 9-27. In Exod 19:6, clearly the official sacred space (tabernacle) was
not yet instituted, probably signifying that the function/role of the priesthood was not to be simply
dedicated or framed within the lawful cultic duties of the tabernacle.
84
And the Lord God said, “It is not good ‫היֹ֥ות‬
ֱ ‫ֱֹלהים ל ֹּא־ט֛ ֹוב‬ ִִ֔ ‫ ַו ֙י ֹּאמֶ ר ֙ יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה א‬2:18
2:18
that man should be alone; I will make him ‫עזֶר ְּכנֶגְּ ָֽדֹו׃‬
ָ֖ ֵ ‫דם ְּלבַ ּ֑דֹו ֶ ָֽאעֱשֶ ּה־ל֥ ֹו‬ ָ֖ ָ ָ‫הא‬
ָֽ ָ
a helper242 comparable to him.”243
At the outset, a caveat is in order: “The text comments only on her ontological identity as
man’s other half rather than delineating her role in sacred space.”244 This passage is often
cited in order to highlight the subordinated or un-subordinated role of women.245 The
242
The NKJV translation of ‫עזֶר‬
ָ֖ ֵ as “helper” does not necessarily imply subordination. Otherwise,
this notion would be difficult to reconcile with Gen 49:25; Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29 (cf. 1 Sam 7:12
(‫) ֶאֶ֣בֶ ן הָ ָעּ֑זֶר‬, where God himself is depicted as the “helper.” It seems more likely that ‫עזֶר‬
ָ֖ ֵ has the
connotation of divine assistance. See Virginia R. Mollenkott, The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery
of God as Female (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 75. Cf. Iris M. Yob, “Coming to Know God through
Women’s Experience,” in Women and the Church: The Feminine Perspective, ed. Lourdes Morales-
Gudmundsson (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1995), 6-7. Wenham notes here that “to help
someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is
inadequate by itself.” Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 68. See also Sarna, Genesis, 21; McKeown, Genesis, 34 (cf.
Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chr 12:17, 19, 21, 22). Scholarly literature is abundant on this topic, especially as it
relates to theological and cultural positions on the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. For a helpful
summary, critique, and theological implications of different views, see Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 22-35,
58-80; Richard M. Davidson, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” in Women in Ministry:
Biblical and Historical Perspectives, ed. Nancy J. Vyhmeister (Berrien Springs: Andrews University,
1998), 259-94. Cf. respectively different views in David R. Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to Man,”
BAR 9.1 (1983): 56-58; Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 235-47; Bruce K. Waltke, “1 Timothy 2:8-15:
Unique or Normative?,” Crux 28.1 (1992): 22-27; Ronald Barclay Allen, Beverly Allen, and Rodney L.
Morris, Liberated Traditionalism: Men and Women in Balance (Portland: Multnomah, 1985), 117-28;
Michael F. Stitzinger, “Genesis 1-3 and the Male Female Role Relationship,” GTJ 2.1 (1981): 38-43; James
B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 218-19; Samuele
Bacchiocchi, Rosalie Haffner Lee, and William A. Fagal, Women in the Church: A Biblical Study on the
Role of Women in the Church (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1987), 79-84; C. John Collins, “What
Happened to Adam and Eve?: A Literary-Theological Approach to Genesis 3,” Presbyterion 27.1 (2001):
36-39; Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than One
Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004), 108-10; Gilbert G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles:
A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 39-58; Mary J. Evans,
Woman in the Bible: An Overview of All the Crucial Passages on Women's Roles (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1983), 17-21; Richard S. Hess, “Equality with and without Innocence: Genesis 1-3,” in
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca
Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 74-95.
243
The Hebrew expression ‫( ְּכנֶגְּ ָֽדֹו‬literally “according to the opposite of him”), as Collins has
noted, means “one who by relative difference and essential equality should be his fitting complement.”
Collins, Genesis 1-4, 107.
244
245
In view of the ongoing scholarly debate on this topic, Robert Morgan’s caution seems
appropriate here. He writes that “some disagreements about what the Bible means stem not from
obscurities in the texts, but from the conflicting aims of the interpreters.” Robert Morgan and John Barton,
Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University, 1988), 8. Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in
Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 49.
85
discussion of both views centers on the key Hebrew noun ‫עזֶר‬,
ָ֖ ֵ coming from the verb ‫עָ זַר‬
[ʽāzár; “to help,” “to assist”]. For the purpose of our investigation, even if the advocates
or critics of these views were proved to be in the right, the problem before us would still
remain unsolved. That is, the woman’s role in the pre-Fall state of creation described in
Gen 2:18 does not explicitly establish cultic responsibilities for her in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. The
passage that describes these functions is Gen 2:15, with the verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫שָ מַ ר‬, as we
saw above. Walton rightly points out that “the role of Adam and Eve in the garden, I
would propose, has less to do with how the priests operated within Israel and more to do
with Israel’s role (and later, that of the believers, 1 Pet 2:9) as priests to the world.”246
Finally, one may agree with Souza on the basis that the shared elements required
for both constructions do not necessarily indicate “a cosmological view of the sanctuary
in the sense of the latter being a microcosm or type of the universe/world.”247 But the
pairing of ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and ‫ ָבנָה‬in Gen 2 seems to warrant two complementary and inseparable
theological readings of the narrative, both literal and symbolic, where the
sanctuary/temple semantic framework is the leitmotif.
246
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 113. On this matter Eugene H. Merrill aptly comments that
Israel’s role “thenceforth would be to mediate or intercede as priests between the holy God and the
wayward nations of the world, with the end in view not only of declaring his salvation but also of providing
the human channel in and through whom this salvation would be effected.” Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of
Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 98. Cf. Walther Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 1:36-45; 1:481-85. However, the first
couple would likely have a special spiritual leadership role within the community of humans formed by
their descendants.
247
Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 36. Cf. Gordon, “Reading the Law,”
228-41.
86
Summary and Conclusions
This chapter has reevaluated the most prominent syntactic and literary
characteristics of the pre-Fall narrative of Eden that appear to substantiate the
sanctuary/temple motif. These conceptual and textual indicators are: the Hebrew word
‫ ;עֵ ֶדן‬the garden as a mountain in Gen 2:10; the river of Eden; the Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and
‫ שָ ַמר‬in Gen 2:15; and the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22. The
reassessment of the scholarly arguments at this point leads us to the following two
preliminary conclusions.
First, the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple)
is not the only type of the heavenly counterpart: the narrative of Gen 2 also portrays a
similar typology. Just as it was noted that the earthly sanctuary/temple existed in
structural and functional relationship to its heavenly ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬antitype in vertical typology
(as shown by comparison with Ezek 28), the first earthly ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫( ג‬the protological model
of Gen 2) also existed in structural and functional relationship to its heavenly counterpart.
Second, the conclusions reached at this point lead us to understand that Gen 2
seems to be grounded in the sanctuary/temple motif.248 This does not mean that allusions
to the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2 substantiate the notion that creation is
subordinated to soteriological considerations, as Von Rad has argued.249 Rather, due to
the encompassing nature of God’s sanctuary/temple throughout the Heilsgeschichte, that
is, in the pre-Fall and post-Fall stages of human history (and eventually at the
248
This may explain why some scholars consider the concept of creation to be grounded in
salvation. Similarly, Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 579.
249
Cf. Von Rad, Problem of the Hexateuch, 131-43; Westermann, Creation, 113-23;
Brueggemann, Reverberations of Faith, 40-43.
87
eschatological re-creation), a more precise statement would be that allusions to the
sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2 speak about an eternal covenantal and sovereign
relationship that God seeks with humankind. In other words, the sanctuary/temple
system/framework is the theological foundation for the created cosmos.250 This semantic
macrostructure, which may be seen as a literary intertwined arrangement in the biblical
narrative, enhances the notion of the blessings of eternal life and does not obliterate the
redemptive framework and its typological relationship between heaven and earth. In fact,
this conclusion reinforces it.
Thus, as Wenham has noted, “Genesis is much more interested in the cult than is
normally realized,”251 particularly in view of the growing acknowledgment of the
sanctuary/temple motifs in its narratives.252 The theological implication that purportedly
stands out is to reconsider the possibility of perceiving Gen 2 as a cultic text in view of
the necessity of worship and/or the significance of communion with God as the religious
purpose of the pre-Fall Eden narrative.253
250
Souza thinks otherwise. He writes: “The pervasive occurrences of creation concepts and
terminology associated to sanctuary function to stress the idea that creation operates as the foundational and
overarching concept from which the theology of redemption articulated in the sanctuary finds its ultimate
justification.” Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 40.
251
Gordon J. Wenham, “The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sacrifice,” in Pomegranates and Golden
Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob
Milgrom, ed. Jacob Milgrom et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 93.
252
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 74.
253
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 88-90.
88
CHAPTER III
THE POST-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN
Introduction
In this chapter, I will review the scholarly literature and reevaluate the biblical
data allegedly related to the sanctuary/temple in the post-Fall narrative of Eden (Gen 3:1-
3:24). Our review of literature has suggested that the most significant syntactic and
literary characteristics of this narrative associated with the sanctuary/temple motif are the
Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8; the Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the verb ‫ לבש‬in Gen
3:21; the Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24; and the eastern entrance to the Garden in
Gen 3:24.
Genesis 3:1-3:24 and the Sanctuary/Temple Motif
The effects that sin brought into the newly created world are significant in the
context of the post-Fall Eden narrative. There are structural/linguistic connections and
parallelisms between Gen 1, 2, and 3, but, because of the presence of sin, the post-Fall
Eden narrative provides contrasting and unique features.1 With this idea in mind and in
harmony with the concerns of this dissertation, I will reevaluate the biblical data possibly
pertaining to the sanctuary/temple motif in order to determine its semantic framework.
1
Some scholars observe that this division is artificial, as the Hebrew text seems to have no
indicators of a significant division (the first word of the post-Fall Eden narrative begins with the
conjunction ‫) ו‬. See further Jonathan Magonet, “The Themes of Genesis 2-3,” in A Walk in the Garden:
Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Deborah Sawyer and Paul Morris, JSOTSup 136
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 39.
89
The Hebrew Participle ‫ ִמ ְּתהַ לֵ ְך‬in Genesis 3:8
The presence of God in Gen 3 is significant, especially in view of the sin problem.
God’s presence in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬has been construed from the participle ‫מ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬,
ִ 2 derived
from the verb ‫[ ָהלַ ְך‬hāláḵ; “go,” “walk”]. Advocates of the sanctuary/temple motif argue
that ‫ ִמ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬denotes a manifestation of God’s presence similar to that in later sanctuaries
(cf. Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14]; 2 Sam 7:6-7).3 “The Lord walked in Eden as he
subsequently walked in the tabernacle.”4 On the other hand, critics of this interpretation
maintain that none of the occurrences of ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬depicts God’s residence in the
sanctuary.5 In order to reconcile these conflicting views, if possible, let us carefully
reconsider four critical aspects of the semantic framework of ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8.
The Hebrew text and its translation read:
֛ ִ ‫ וַ ָֽ ַֽיִ ְּש ְּמעּו אֶ ת־קֹ֙ול יְּ הוָ ֧ה א‬3:8

‫ֱֹלהים‬
3:8
And they heard6 the sound7 of
the Lord God walking8 in the garden in ‫האָ ָ ִ֜דם‬ ָֽ ָ ‫ִמ ְּתהַ ֵלְ֥ך בַ גָ ַָֽ֖ן ְּל ֶ֣רּוחַ הַ יֹּ֑ום וַיִ ְּתחַ בֵ ֙א‬
the cool of the day, and Adam and his
wife hid themselves from the presence of ‫ֹלהים ְּבתָ֖ ֹוְך ֵע֥ץ הַ גָ ָֽ ַֽן׃‬ ִִ֔ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫וְּ ִא ְּש ּ֗תֹו ִמ ְּפ ֵני ֙ יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה‬
2
The same hitpa’el participle form of the verb ‫ הָ לַ ְך‬appears in the following passages: Deut
23:15; 1 Sam 12:2; 2 Sam 7:6; Esth 2:11; Ps 68:22; Prov 20:7; 24:34. All these references have a common
nuance of “going to and fro.” Lev 26:11-12 is also included, although here ‫ הָ לַ ְך‬is only a hitpa’el and not a
hitpa’el participle.
Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 458; Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 74; Parry, “Garden of
3
Eden,” 144; Beale, “Eden, the Temple,” 7; Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building,” 10; Roberto Ouro,
“The Garden of Eden Account: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 2-3,” AUSS 40.2 (2002): 231.
4
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 20.
5
6
Cf. Isa 6:8 and Deut 5:23.
7
The Hebrew word ‫ קֹ֙ול‬probably refers to the sound of steps walking (cf. 2 Sam 5:24; 1 Kgs 14:6;
2 Kgs 6:32; 11:13). See Ouro, “Garden of Eden Account,” 231.
8
The hitpa’el participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬has the nuance of repetitive or habitual acts. See E. A. Speiser,
“The Durative Hithpael: A Tan Form,” in Oriental and Biblical Studies, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe
Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967), 507. Cf. Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew, 426-28.
90
the Lord God among the trees of the
garden.
First, it must be acknowledged that critics of the sanctuary/temple motif seem to
be right in the sense that none of the occurrences of ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬explicitly depicts God’s
residence in the sanctuary. However, this inference seems unnecessary, at least in part.
The hitpa’el of ‫ ָהלַ ְך‬has the common meaning of “going to and fro,” suggesting the
repeated or habitual presence of someone.9 In Gen 3:8, as in its other occurrences,
‫ ִמ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬is used with a specific purpose and context. This is helpful in determining
‫’מ ְת ַהלֵּ ְך‬s

ִ conceptual frame and contextual nuance10 because “the meaning of a text must
be viewed as a ‘meaning effect’ produced by the interrelation of the various elements of
the text.”11 So what is the meaning effect of ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8? The argument for the
sanctity of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is dependent upon the meaning of ‫מ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬,
ִ where the “primary
evidence for the garden's sanctity is the presence of the deity.”12 The semantic domain
that surrounds God’s pervasive presence (going to and fro) describes a repeated or
habitual action in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. God’s presence is known and manifested by his walking.
The walking motif is later employed in the Old Testament when Israel acknowledges that
God requires holiness and obedience if he is to continue to “walk” among his people (cf.
9
W. E. Vine, “‫הָ לַ ְך‬,” Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words,
ed. Merrill F. Unger and William White (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1996), 279.
10
Scholars generally agree that “the meaning of the word depends ultimately on the context in
which it is used; the word study provides just an orientation within which we have to seek the specific
meaning. The absolute meaning of the word does not exist as such.” See Jacques B. Doukhan, Hebrew for
Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking (Lanham:
University Press of America, 1993), 232.
11
Daniel Patte, “Universal Narrative Structures and Semantic Frameworks,” Semeia 10 (1978):
125.
12
Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death,” 307.
91
Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14]; 2 Sam 7:6-7).13 Consequently, the walking motif
seems to be associated with the sacred character of the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬,14 and thus with
humankind’s creative call to holiness, conceptualizing a contextual frame where God’s
pervasive presence is the central locus.
Second, the hitpa’el of ‫ ָהלַ ְך‬is related to God’s sacred dwelling, and therefore to
God’s presence. Lev 26:11-12 shows this reality. The Hebrew text and its translation
read:
‫א־תגְּ ַע֥ל‬ ְּ ‫ וְּ נָתַ ִ ֥תי ִמ ְּשכָ ִנָ֖י ְּב‬26:11

ִ ֹּ ‫תֹוכ ֶכ ּ֑ם וְּ ָֽל‬
26:11
I will set my tabernacle among you,
and my soul shall not abhor you. ‫שי אֶ ְּת ֶ ָֽכם׃‬ ָ֖ ִ ‫נ ְַּפ‬
‫֥יתי לָ ֶכָ֖ם‬ ְּ ֶ֣‫ וְּ ִה ְּתהַ לַ ְּכ ִתי ֙ ְּבת‬26:12

ִ ‫ֹוכ ִ֔ ֶכם וְּ הָ ִי‬
26:12
I will walk among you and be your
God, and you shall be my people. ‫יּו־לי ְּל ָ ָֽעם׃‬
֥ ִ ‫תם ִת ְּה‬ ָ֖ ֶ ַ‫אֹלהים וְּ א‬
ּ֑ ִ ‫ל‬
ָֽ ֵ
The Hebrew expression ‫מ ְּשכָ ִנָ֖י‬,

ִ a suffixed form of ‫[ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬miškān; “dwelling,”
“tabernacle”], refers elsewhere to God’s dwelling place.15 The parallel expressions “I will
13
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 239. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, “Walk Humbly with Your God:
Micah 6:8,” JP 33.4 (2010): 15. For New Testament connections on the walking motif, see Andrew E.
Steinmann and Michael A. Eschelbach, “Walk This Way: A Theme from Proverbs Reflected and Extended
in Paul's Letters,” CTQ 70.1 (2006): especially 53-61. Note also that the same motif is used of the
patriarchs’ walk with God (cf. Gen. 5:22, 24; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15). It is of greater significance that the
hitpa’el of ‫ הָ לַ ְך‬occurs in 1 Sam 2:35 (cf. Deut 18:15; note also that the language of “walking before”
YHWH is used often in connection with the Davidic covenant in 2 Kgs 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Chr 6:14, 16;
7:17). This passage speaks about the promise of the coming priest-king, characterized by the hitpa’el of
‫הָ לַ ְך‬, indicating that he would walk (or minister) and perform the most sacred duties of the
sanctuary/temple. In an outstanding article, Karl Deenick demonstrates that “neither David nor Solomon
ultimately meets all the criteria of the promised priest. Neither will live forever, and neither will be perfect.
Nevertheless, the strong connections between the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 and the Davidic covenant do
suggest that God intends to fulfill the promise of 1 Sam 2:35 through David and his line.” Deenick, “Priest
and King,” 335. According to the New Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, the priest-king that
through his “walking motif” would minister in the heavenly sanctuary/temple (cf. Rom 1:1-6; Heb 7:1-8:2).
David T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 171.
14
Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death,” 307.
15
The Hebrew ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬is the technical term to refer to the tent of meeting in Exod 25-27; 35-40. Cf.
also Lev 8:10; 15:31; 17:4; Num 1-3; Josh 22:19; 1 Chr 6:17 [Eng. 6:32]; Ps 26:8; 74:7; 132:7.
92
set my tabernacle” and “I will walk among you” (note the hitpa’el of ‫ )הָ לַ ְך‬seem to
imply that the walking motif is God’s means by which the ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬becomes in effect the
dwelling place. In other words, God’s presence becomes known and manifested by his
walking ‫ ְּב ָ֖תֹוְך‬his people.16 The connection between the repetitive divine presence
(God’s walking) and the establishment of worship places (sanctuaries/temples) was a
common feature in the ANE. Robertson Smith explains this matter:
That the gods haunted certain spots, which in consequence of this were holy places
and fit places of worship, was to the ancients not a theory but a matter of fact, handed
down by tradition from one generation to another, and accepted with unquestioning
faith. Accordingly, we find that new sanctuaries can be formed and new altars or
temples erected, only where the godhead has given unmistakable evidence of his
presence. All that is necessary to constitute a Semitic sanctuary is a precedent; it is
assumed that where the god has once manifested himself and shown favour to his
worshippers he will do so again, and when the precedent has been strengthened by
frequent repetition the holiness of the place is fully established. Thus in the earlier
parts of the Old Testament a theophany is always taken to be a good reason for
sacrificing on the spot.17
Therefore the hitpa’el of ‫הלַ ְך‬,

ָ describing God’s customary action in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬and
therefore even before the entrance of sin, speaks of God’s presence and/or God’s
dwelling, not as a motionless manifestation, but as a ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬known by his walking.
Third, consequently the walking motif that emerges from God’s ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬is in fact
not limited/circumscribed to a particular location. Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14] explicitly
states that ‫ח ּ֗ ֶנך‬

ֲ ‫ֱֹלהיך ִמ ְּת ַה ֵל ְֶ֣ך׀ ְּב ֶ ֶ֣ק ֶרב ַמ‬
ֶ ִ֜ ‫“( יְּ ה ָו ֙ה א‬God walks in the midst of your
camp”). Eugene H. Merrill observes as follows in this regard:
16
Lev 26:11-12 describes the essential blessings of the covenantal relationship between God and
his people. See Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, 452. Thus, the fulfillment of this covenant becomes the
restoration of the edenic communion. “God will walk with his people, as he did in the Garden of Eden
before the fall.” See Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
330. Cf. John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 463.
17
Smith, Religion of the Semites, 115.
93
The rationale for the legislation in both kinds of impure practices lies in the fact that
the Lord was there in the camp with his army, “moving about” (mithallēk) as its
commander to bring deliverance and victory. This stem of the verb speaks of the
Lord’s intimacy with his people, his face-to-face encounter with them (cf. Gen 3:8)
and desire to have fellowship with them (cf. Lev 26:12).18
According to this law, the army camp may be understood as a sacred space seemingly in
reference to the presence of the ark of the tabernacle. Thus, Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14] is in
actuality concerned with the purity of God’s ‫מ ְּשכָ ן‬,

ִ since in the military camp the
Israelites walk to and fro, and up and down.
Fourth, divine presence is known and manifested in the Israelite camp via the
interconnectedness between the walking motif and the dwelling place of God. According
to 2 Sam 7:6-7, “the ‘walking’ denotes the self-witness of the divine presence.”19 Block
correctly writes that “the real issue is not a building in which he walks about but the
means by which he relates to his people.”20 The hitpa’el of ‫ הָ לַ ְך‬does not explicitly
describe YHWH’s activity within the tabernacle, but it certainly alludes to the divine
presence manifested by God’s ‫מ ְּשכָ ן‬.

ִ The sacred space that ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬creates in Gen 3:8
simply signifies the holy status of the God-humankind relationship, a motif that after the
Fall “is the reward for covenantal fidelity (Lev 26:11-12), which is a prerequisite to a
return to edenic circumstances.”21
18
Merrill, Deuteronomy, 310-11. Cf. Duane L. Christensen also comments that “the assembly of
YHWH is to be understood in the imagery of a military camp and YHWH himself is the Divine Warrior.”
Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, WBC 6b (Dallas: Word Books, 2002), 542.
19
Johann P. Lange and Philip Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Bellingham: Logos
Bible Software, 2008), 429-30.
20
21
94
The question that remains to be answered explicitly is whether ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬can be
considered an unequivocal indication of a sanctuary/temple setting. The answer that I
would suggest admittedly carries the semantic logic presupposed above in relation to its
context and domain: there is nothing in the post-Fall Eden narrative (and in the rest of the
Old Testament) that would exclude ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬from the semantic framework of the holiness
of the sanctuary/temple motif. As an illustration of the common use of ‫ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬
pertaining to the semantic framework of the holiness of the sanctuary/temple motif, one
may consider Ezek 28:14.22 The intertextual analysis has shown that the writer of Ezekiel
places the king of Tyre far above any royal dignitary on earth, “in the holy mountain of
God,” and portrays this personage’s presence with the hitpa’el of ‫ל ְּכתָ ( הָ לַ ְך‬
ָֽ ָ ַ‫“( ִה ְּתה‬You
walked around,” Ezek 28:14). This is a depiction of the origin of evil in Eden,
specifically in the context of the heavenly sanctuary/temple. It is obvious that the imagery
employed here does not refer to God; it describes the cherub, an angelic being who
attempted to usurp the holy throne of the heavenly sanctuary/temple. This language is not
simply an embellishment arbitrarily inserted by the prophet, in reference to a “common
walking”: Ezekiel’s depiction of the cherub matches the semantic framework elsewhere
employed in the Old Testament connecting the “walking motif” with the holiness of the
sanctuary/temple setting. I would argue that ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬is associated with the
sanctuary/temple motif as long as the divine presence is in view.
22
See additional details in chapter II of this dissertation.
95
The Hebrew Word ‫תנֶת‬
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Verb ‫ לבש‬in Genesis 3:21
The post-Fall narrative of Eden (Gen 3:1-3:24) prominently describes divine
actions anticipating the consequences that sin would bring to the newly created earth,
specifically the consequences in Adam and Eve’s life and home. Usually scholars find the
garments of skins provided by God to be a contrasting image with Gen 3:7, where Adam
and Eve “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” in order to provide a
solution for bodily nakedness.23 Thus, there is a threefold transition of status or condition
for Adam and Eve: (1) Gen 2:25—naked and unashamed;24 (2) Gen 3:7—being clothed
with fig-leaf “aprons”; and (3) Gen 3:21—being clothed with “coats of skins.” This
progression prompts to consider a literary unity and a theological purpose in the Eden
narratives (Gen 2:4b-3:24).
This narrative portrays the awareness of nakedness as a response to the guilt of
sin, a nakedness of soul intrinsically connected with a physical state. Adam confesses that
“I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself” (v. 10), though he and Eve had
“sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (v. 7). For the Hebrew mind
nakedness is often associated with guilt (the discovery of Noah’s nakedness by his son
brought family disgrace, Gen 9:22–23; cf. Exod 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev 18:6, 10; 20:17;
20:18–19; Ezek 16:22, 37, 39; Hos 2:3; Amos 2:16; Mic 1:8). Following God’s
23
Traditionally commentators refer to Gen 9:22-23; Isa 20:4; Amos 2:16 for nudity as shame and
humiliation. Also, for clothes as a sign of dignity, Exod 28:2, 40-41. Cf. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary
on the Old Testament, 9:66; Sarna, Genesis, 29.
24
Moskala aptly observes that “the last verse of Gen 2 is a springboard text which anticipates the
changes in Gen 3.” Jiří Moskala. “Reflections on the Concept of Shame and Honor in the Biblical
Creation and Fall Narratives,” in Shame and Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes in Shame and Honor
Contexts, ed. Bruce Bauer (Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2014), 31.
96
pronouncement of judgment in Gen 3, there is one tangible sign of mercy and therefore
hope for restoration: in v. 21 God intervenes by giving Adam and Eve the physical
protection of durable garments.25
Although Gen 3:21 does not state it explicitly, the word ‫[ עָ֖ ֹור‬ʽôr; “skin,”
“leather”] implies the death of one or more animals.26 In the Bible, when the skin/hide of
an animal is mentioned, whether in a cultic or non-cultic context, it is usually implied that
the animal has been killed (cf. Gen 27:16; Lev 5:13; 7:8; 2 Kgs 1:8, but not in Job 40:31
[Eng 41:7]), and this would certainly be the case when animal skin provides a garment
for a human being.
Many scholars have seen the implied death of one or more animals in Gen 3:21 as
anticipating the sacrificial system.27 This aspect of cultic anticipation is reinforced by the
25
Moskala, “Reflections on the Concept,” 35; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to
the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 149; Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in
Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1972), 105-6.
26
Gen 3 does not explicitly report when the death of the animals took place or the precise moment
when God dressed Adam or Eve. The event of v. 21 could have taken place just before or after the
expulsion from the Garden (vv. 22-24). Some interpreters may think that due to being taken from animals
through death, the skins were associated with the realm of mortality away from the tree of life in Eden (Gen
3:22-24). Mortality is opposed to holiness in Eden, as we also see later in relation to the Israelite cult
centered at the sanctuary, from which physical ritual impurities, symptomatic of the birth-to-death cycle of
mortality, had to be kept separate (cf. Lev 12-15, 22; Num 19). See Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality:
The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999), 60. In any
case, since there is no internal textual evidence to suggest that v. 21 occurs before or after Adam and Eve’s
expulsion, these two options should not be emphasized. However, the use of animal skin may suggest that
the death of an animal was some sort of “ritual” with a special kind of cultic purpose attached, since the
presence of sin in Gen 3 leads one to expect significance in animal death. Considerable attention should be
given to God’s purpose in using the skins of animals.
27
See Terence E. Fretheim, Walter Brueggemann, and Walter C. Kaiser, The New Interpreters
Bible: General and Old Testament Articles, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994),
1:364; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary Critical, 20. Cf. Hess, Israelite Religions, 179. Cf.
Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, 105-6. Some interpreters have argued (in light of Gen 3:15 and Lev
4:28-30) that the implied shedding of blood in Gen 3:21 may have carried the substitutionary and
soteriological implications of atonement. See Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 75-76; Henry Law, The
Gospel in Genesis (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), 36-41; Parry, “Garden of Eden,” 141-43; Ouro,
Old Testament Theology, 53. It appears that the Targumic reading “garments of light” in Gen 3:31 resulted
from confusion between Hebrew ‫עָ֖ ֹור‬, “skin/hide,” and the similar sounding word ‫’[ אֹור‬ôr], “light” that
97
literary and thematic connections between the narratives of Eden (Gen 2:4b-2:25 and 3:1-
3:24),28 in view of the textual features of Gen 2:4b-2:25 and the intertextual connections
between this pericope and other sanctuary/temple cultic settings (e.g., Ezek 28, see
chapter II of this dissertation). In other words, since the pre-Fall Garden of Eden narrative
incorporates sanctuary/temple cultic imagery, it would not be surprising if the post-Fall
Garden of Eden narrative (Gen 3:1-3:24) points forward to animal sacrifice in the sense
that God initiates the death of one or more animals for the benefit of human beings.
Thus, it is reasonable to consider whether the divine action in Gen 3:21 is
portrayed with cultic imagery, attaching some spiritual meaning to the garments of skins.
This interpretation provoked much commentary in Jewish and early Christian circles.29
Does Gen 3:21 go beyond anticipating animal sacrifice to actually recording the dressing
in garments of skins as a priestly appointment? The logic of those who answer in the
could have arisen during oral dictation to copyists. See further in William N. Wilder, “Illumination and
Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 3,” WTJ 68.1 (2006): 68.
28
These connections are also established by certain contrasting reversals in these pericopes: (1)
Fruit of tree not given to Adam in 2:17, woman gives fruit of tree to her husband in 3:6; (2) Man/woman
not ashamed in 2:25, later recognized nakedness and were ashamed in 3:7; (3) Serpent most crafty animal
in 3:1, becomes the most cursed animal in 3:14; (4) Fruit pleasing to woman in 3:6, causes labor pain of the
woman in 3:16; (5) Man eats fruit of forbidden tree in 3:6, bread from sweat and thorns in 3:18-19; (6)
Humans made leaf aprons in 3:7, God made skin garments for them in 3:21; (7) Woman’s fascination for
the serpent in 3:13, woman’s enmity for the serpent in 3:15; (8) Man “ruling” woman in 3:16, man listening
to woman in 3:17. See Patte and Parker, “A Structural Exegesis,” 55-75; Zdravko Stefanovic, “The Great
Reversal: Thematic Links Between Genesis 2 and 3,” AUSS 32 (1994): 47-56; Laurence A. Turner,
Announcements of Plot in Genesis (Sheffield: England, 1990), 45-46; Ouro, “Garden of Eden Account,”
219-43.
29
For a history of interpretation in early Christianity and Jewish writings see Jonathan Z. Smith,
“The Garments of Shame,” HR 5.2 (1966): 217-38; Hanneke Reuling, After Eden: Church Fathers and
Rabbis on Genesis 3:16-21, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 74-76;
Alexander Toepel, “When Did Adam Wear the Garments of Light?,” JJS 61.1 (2010): 62-71; Peter W.
Martens, “A Fitting Portrait of God: Origen's Interpretations of the ‘Garments of Skins’ (Gen 3:21),” in
Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1-3, ed. Susanne Scholz and Caroline V. Stichele
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 55-84.
98
affirmative rests on their assessment of an implicit connection with later references to
God dressing his people for cultic duties (cf. Exod 28:41; 29:8; 40; Lev 8:13; 2 Chr 6:41;
Ps 132:16).30 Accordingly, Robert A. Oden Jr. asserts that the contextual use of the
common word ‫[ לָ ַבׁש‬lāḇáš; “to put on,” “clothe”] hints at an investiture scene happening
in Gen 3:21, in contrast to the theological tradition that has interpreted God’s action
either merely as a sign of his grace31 or as a permanent reminder of the cause for human
shame.32
However, in Ps 132:18; Isa 22:21; 61:10; Ezek 16:10, God clothes (hiph’il of
‫ )לָ ַבׁש‬non-priestly humans, so it is not accurate to argue that when God dresses people in
the Old Testament they are always priests, and there is nothing inherent in this divine
action that would limit its function to clothing priests. Even if they were always priests
outside Gen 3:21, it would be methodologically unjustified (as “illegitimate totality
transfer”) to assume merely on this basis that God invested Adam and Eve as priests in
this verse, although that possibility remains open to be evaluated on additional contextual
grounds in the rest of the Eden narratives (Gen 2:4b-3:24), which may nuance the
vocabulary employed in v. 21.
The reading of Gen 3:21 as containing cultic imagery pertaining to the
sanctuary/temple motif is problematic for some scholars because it involves biblical
30
Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel,” 36. Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 84-85.
31
32
There seems to be a relationship between human nakedness and God’s initiative of providing
worthy clothing. Note, for example, the priestly prohibition of the exposure of genitalia in the areas of
YHWH’s presence (Exod 20:26).
99
arguments derived apparently from extra-biblical literature.33 Hamilton objects to this
approach and thinks that “it is probably reading too much into this verse to see in the
coats of skin a hint of the use of animals and blood in the sacrificial system of the OT
cultus.34 Block argues that the garments of skins “offer no evidence for ascribing a
priestly role to Adam.”35 Certainly, the Bible gives no indication that priests wore
garments made of skins of the animals they sacrificed. Priests wore fine linen garments
(Exod 28:39, 42; 39:27; 39:28; cf. Lev 6:10).
Nevertheless, is there evidence that the divine act of dressing in Gen 3:21
signifies at least something regarding the status of Adam and Eve? Let us look more
closely at three textual characteristics of this verse.36 The Hebrew text and its translation
read:
‫ּול ִא ְּשת֛ ֹו‬

ְּ ‫דם‬
֧ ָ ָ‫ֱֹלהים ְּלא‬
ִִ֜ ‫ ַויַעַ ש ָ֩ יְּ ה ָו ֙ה א‬3:21
3:21
Also for Adam and his wife37
the Lord God made tunics of skin, and ‫שם׃‬ ָֽ ֵ ‫כָ ְּתנֹ֥ות עָ֖ ֹור ַוי ְַּל ִב‬
clothed38 them.
33
For example, Walton, Lost World of Adam, 108-15. Cf. Palmer, “Exodus and the Biblical
Theology of the Tabernacle,” 14-15; Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook
(London: Routledge, 1996), 52, 112.
34
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 207.
35
36
For the garments of Adam and Eve in Jewish tradition, see Stephen N. Lambden, “From Fig
Leaves to Fingernails: Some Notes on the Garments of Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible and Select
Early Postbiblical Jewish Writings,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary
Images of Eden, ed. Deborah Sawyer and Paul Morris, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 74-90; Jung
H. Kim, The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus, JSNTSup 268 (London: T&T Clark
International, 2004), 12-17, 30-57; Toepel, “When Did Adam Wear,” 62-71.
37
Note here the lamed of interest marking Adam and Eve, toward whom the action is directed.
The term benefactive dative is sometimes used of this lamed. See Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew, 207-8. This means that the theological significance of ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬is not only for Adam, but
indeed also for Eve.
38
The verb ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬is the hiph’il stem. This expression has the semantic value of being a causative
action. In other words, God himself caused the event: it was not Adam and Eve’s own initiative or capacity
100
As pointed out above, at least the primary meaning of YHWH’s provision of garments to
Adam and Eve is divine benevolence toward human frailty. Three reasons advance the
concept that YHWH’s act of grace seems motivated by a profound theological purpose.
First, the Hebrew word ‫[ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬kuttṓneṯ; “tunic”] generally designates an outer
garment that is often associated with social functions/roles.39 This word occurs in the Old
Testament about twenty-nine times. Fourteen times it has a cultic connotation in
reference to the garments of priests (cf. Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; Lev 8:7,
13; 10:5; 16:4; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:69, 71); thirteen times it is employed for garments of
non-priestly persons (cf. Gen 37:3, 23, 31-33; 2 Sam 13:18-19; 15:32; Cant 5:3; Isa
22:21); and only once is this word used in a metaphorical sense (Job 30:18). Thus, the
word is not employed exclusively in cultic contexts where special garments indicate
priestly status. Additional contextual factors accompanying ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬are needed to indicate
its cultic significance.
In addition to the priestly functions that ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬could signify, particular
occurrences of this word can also represent a kind of social status of the wearer, whether
as a favorite son (Gen 37:3, 23, 31-33), a virgin princess (2 Sam 13:18-19), or an
important official (Isa 22:21). In 2 Sam 15:32 and Cant 5:3, the social status of the wearer
is not the point of mentioning the ‫כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬. But, given that a ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬can function as “an
emblem of status,”40 especially when it is a gift from a superior to an inferior person (as
to clothe themselves, it was God’s own authority to clothe them. See Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew, 433; Jouon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 148.
39
“… clothing, besides its obvious protective function, is one of the most pervasive of human
symbols through which a person’s position and role in society is signaled.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 84.
40
Oden, The Bible Without Theology, 98, 104.
101
in Gen 37:3; Isa 22:21), it is possible that the garments that God gave to Adam and Eve
could carry a similar function in the context of Gen 3:21.
Second, the verb ‫ לָ ַבׁש‬in the hiph’il stem meaning “cause to wear,” i.e.,
“dress/clothe (someone),” occurs approximately thirty times in the Old Testament, often
when the purpose of dressing (including re-clothing) a person is to signify assignment of
status/identity so that the one dressed can fulfill a certain honored role in society (Gen
27:15, 16—deceptive; cf. implicit in 2 Sam 1:24; Ezek 16:10 from the quality of clothing;
contrast Prov 23:21), government (Gen 41:42;41 Esth 6:9, 11; Isa 22:21), the cultic system
(Exod 28:41;42 29:5, 8; 40:13, 14; Lev 8:7, 13;43 Num 20:26, 28; cf. Zech 3:4 of
purification for continued high priestly function), or an army (1 Sam 17:38). Thus far, the
instances of the verb involve markers of status, not merely clothing to meet physical
needs.44 However, elsewhere the hiph’il of ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬refers to clothing people to solve the
problem that they are naked or have inadequate clothing (2 Chr 28:15; Esth 4:4; Ezek
41
This is a scene of Egyptian investiture, symbolic of position. Cf. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-
50:26, 762; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 505; Sarna, Genesis, 286.
42
“The vesting of the priests is specified as the first part of a three-part procedure establishing
priestly authority: the other two steps are anointing and ordination, and such texts as Ps 133:2 and Lev 8:12
imply that the ritual of authorization may have been carried out in just such a sequence.” See Durham,
Exodus, 389.
43
Here the sons of Aaron are appointed to the priesthood. In all previous references, the presence
of oil is prominent. Mark F. Rooker observes with reason that the anointing of the high priest echoes the
investiture event of a king to serve as ruler of the people (cf. 1 Sam 10:1; 2 Kgs 9:6). This connection goes
further because the royal and priestly garments had common features. The Hebrew word for the priest’s
diadem ‫[ ֹּ֫ ֵּנזֶר‬nḗzer; “consecration,” “crown,” “head-ban”] also refers to a king’s crown (cf. 2 Sam 1:10; 2
Kgs 11:12; Zech 9:16; Pss 89:39 [Eng. 89:40]; 132:18; Prov 27:24; 2 Chr 23:11). See Menahem Stern,
"Priestly Vestments," EncJud 16:513. Cf. T. McComisky, “‫ ֹּ֫ ֵּנזֶר‬,” TWOT 567-68.
44
See further in Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 84. Cf. Alexander, From Eden, 230; Shannon Parrott,
“Garments of Glory: An Investigation of Yahweh's Act of Investiture of Clothing in Ezekiel 16:1–14”
(paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, 2018), 1; Ross E. Winkle, “Clothes Make the
(One like a Son of) Man: Dress Imagery in Revelation 1 as an Indicator of High Priestly Status” (PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 2012), 77-96.
102
16:10), as in Gen 3:21. In Job, the verb refers to God as Creator clothing a man with skin
and flesh (10:11), and clothing a horse’s neck with a mane (39:19). In other occurrences
of the verb, the clothing is metaphorical (Ps 132:16, 18; Isa. 50:3; 61:10).
From the foregoing semantic analysis of ‫לָ בַ ׁש‬, it is clear that the usage in Gen
3:21 is closest to instances where the verb refers to clothing people because they are
naked or have inadequate clothing, which, as pointed out above, is clearly at least the
primary function in Gen 3:21. But what about the fact that apart from Gen 3:21, the case
in question, when the hiph’il of ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬takes ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬as the direct object, the action is almost
always the investiture of a priest (cf. Exod 29:5, 8; 40:14; Lev 8:13)? There is an
exception in Isa 22:21, where YHWH promises to invest Eliakim as overseer of the
palace. This shows that the combination of ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬with the noun ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬does not always
have the technical meaning that is restricted to priestly investiture, but it does tend to be
used in contexts that involve conferral of status.45
Consequently, the vocabulary employed in Gen 3:21 (‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬and ‫ )כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬has a
semantic affinity that involves markers of status or restoration of status (re-clothing). It
remains possible that Gen 3:21 could refer to a kind of investiture of Adam and Eve as
priests, but this would need to be established on a contextual basis going beyond the verb
‫לָ ַבׁש‬, the noun ‫כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬, or their combination. In light of the connection between Gen 3:21
and other passages in which ‫ לָ ַבׁש‬refers to clothing naked or re-clothing inadequately
45
Cf. Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 77. Wilder argues: “The particular Hebrew words used
in this passage—for ‘garments’ and to ‘clothe’—are most often found in contexts in which a subordinate is
being honored in some way by his superior. The main emphasis of the passage, then, is not on God’s
response to Adam and Eve’s physical needs; rather, it is on the new status which God confers on Adam and
Eve by his act of investiture, despite their sin.” See Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture,” 60, 67; cf.
Oden, The Bible Without Theology, 101.
103
dressed individuals (see above), one possible interpretation would be that the benevolent
divine action in Gen 3:21 reflects conferral of some kind of status associated with
substantial and durable clothing. This action would elevate Adam and Eve above the
status indicated by their ad hoc, skimpy, and fragile fig leaves.46
In view that a conferral of status is established in Gen 3:21 by the combination of
the verb ‫ לָ ַבש‬and the noun ‫( כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬see above), important questions remain unanswered:
Did YHWH elevate Adam and Eve in status just for the sake of their bodily needs? Is
there anything more in the context that would indicate an elevation (restoration) of status
for their spiritual needs and/or for their creation role on earth? The fact that in Gen 3:21
YHWH dresses Adam and Eve specifically with animal skins, rather than with fine
fabric, still suggests that his intent is to raise them from the degraded spiritual status
resulting from their fall into sin to a restored spiritual status that enables them to have a
relationship to him (spiritual needs)47 and fulfill the original plan of creation (‫ עָ בַ ד‬and
‫ שָ ַמר‬see Gen 2:15, cf. Gen 1:26-27, function/role on earth). The presence of two
substantial canonical/biblical concepts—sin and the implied death of one or more
animals—demands further consideration in Gen 3.
46
In 2 Chr 28:15, clothing naked captives restores them to the status of ordinary citizens, rather
than captives of lower degraded status. In Esth 4:4, Esther attempts to give clothes to Mordecai in order to
raise him to normality, rather than his sub-normal state of mourning. In the allegory of Ezek 16:10, YHWH
clothes naked Jerusalem in order to civilize her as he takes her to be his wife. Thus he normalizes her, but
because of his high status, he gives her fine-quality clothing that raises her to a high status.
47
Cf. the restoration of sonship, as indicated by clothing, in Jesus’ parable of the lost son: “But the
father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and
shoes on his feet … For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they
began to celebrate” (Luke 15:22-24 ESV).
104
Clearly, the original plan of creation was altered, since Adam and Eve lost their
dominion over the “sanctuary” of Eden, from which they were expelled (Gen 3:22-24).
But, two acts of YHWH in Gen 3 (vv. 15 and 21, see below) were for the benefit of
Adam and Eve (and humanity) and sought to restore them in an altered earthly realm,
including both spiritual/functional as well as physical/material domains. Of course, if
they were loyal to God in their fallen state, they would enjoy holiness of life and
represent God to others (i.e., their descendants), as the nation of Israel was called to be “a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Their special status in Eden does not
continue, but the Creator’s plan for them does continue. The fact that God re-clothes
them with animal skins does signify, at least symbolically, the promise of future complete
restoration of this status, which enables them to live with hope outside of their
“sanctuary” of Eden and fulfill the Creator’s design for humanity.
What kind of conferral of status could the garments of skins represent in this
context? What meaning is attached to this event that enables the couple to fulfill God’s
purpose? The answers to these questions take us to the third reason that YHWH’s act of
grace seems motivated by a profound theological purpose. God’s concern in Gen 3:1-
3:24, at least in the second half (vv. 14-24), is redemption. Not all interpreters, however,
endorse the messianic/atonement perspective of the promised “seed” in Gen 3:15. On the
contrary, some scholars reject any Christological message. For example, for Westermann
this view fails to respect the original meaning by reading into the text a notion alien from
the context.48
48
Westermann, Creation, 100; cf. Von Rad, Genesis, 90; Jack P. Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed
(Gen 3:15),” JETS 34.3 (September 1991): 299-319. McConville comments that “modern Old Testament
105
For the purpose of this dissertation, there is no need to repeat all the biblical
evidence for and against this messianic interpretation, since the reader may find it
elsewhere.49 However, it is appropriate to briefly delineate how the immediate context of
Gen 3:21 (i.e., the post-Fall narrative of Eden) introduces salvific categories to the
biblical canon.
Let us consider the immediate context of Gen 3:21, which can be observed from
the literary structure of the post-Fall narrative of Eden. The immediate context of Gen 3
shows that vv. 14-15 are the center of a chiastic structure. Accordingly, Gen 3:15
describes the central divine act of the post-Fall narrative of Eden.50 It is noticeable that
scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of
Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.” J. Gordon McConville, “Messianic
Interpretation of the Old Testament in Modern Context,” The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old
Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 2.
49
For example, see Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret
Scripture from the Prophets and the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 83-89. For a detailed
intertextual study on this passage, see Afolarin O. Ojewole, “The Seed in Genesis 3:15: An Exegetical and
Intertextual Study” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002), especially 221-351. See also Victor P.
Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Barker, 2005), 44-47; John C. Collins, “A
Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” TynBul 48.1 (May 1997): 139-
48; Walter R. Wifall. “Gen 3:15: A Protevangelium?” CBQ 36.3 (July 1974): 361-65.
50
The following structure has been adapted from Ojewole, “Seed in Genesis 3:15,” 98; see also
Wilfred G. E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse, JSOTSup 170 (Sheffield:
Sheffield, 1994), 17.
A Serpent and Woman alone. God absent. Prohibition of eating from the tree. Eve
enticed to “knowing good and evil” (vss. 1-5).
B Adam and Eve naked, clothed themselves (vv. 6-7).
C God walks in the garden and “called unto Adam” (vv. 8-9a).
D God speaks to Adam (vv. 9a-12).
E God speaks to the woman (v. 13).
F God speaks to the Serpent (vv. 14-15).
E’ God speaks to the woman (v. 16).
D’ God speaks to Adam (vv. 17-19).
C’ Still in the garden, “Adam calls his wife’s name Eve” (v. 20).
106
for each line of the chiastic structure there is a divine action that redemptively
reverses/addresses the spiritual/physical consequences of sin; the presence of sin affects
both the spiritual/functional and physical/material domains. The intended structure and
the central message of Gen 3:15 as the core of this narrative suggest literary and
theological significance in the other pronouncements and actions. Each of these lines of
the chiastic structure (including v. 21) is interwoven with the prophecy anticipating the
salvific mission of the Messiah.51
Christian tradition has explained Gen 3:15 as the protevangelium, “since it has
been taken as the prototype for the Christian gospel.”52 The enmity between the serpent’s
seed and the woman’s seed shows that the curse upon the serpent53 signals its ultimate
B’ God clothed Adam and Eve (v. 21).

A’ God alone. Prohibition of eating from the tree. Humans “knowing good and
evil.”
51
A number of elements indicate that Gen 3:15 refers to a prophecy anticipating the salvific
mission of the Messiah: (1) The identity of the prophetic figure. The Hebrew word ‫ ֶז ַֹּ֫רע‬translated as “seed”
alludes to an individual and not to a group entity. (2) The pronoun ‫ הּוא‬for “he” indicates that the prophecy
points to a specific person. (3) Divine involvement is implied in Ps 110:1, which identifies the Lord himself
as the One who crushes in Gen 3:15. (4) The messianic application is attested to in the Hebrew Scriptures
(2 Sam 7:11-13; Ps 110). (5) The New Testament application of Gen 3:15 to Jesus Christ (Rom 16:20; Heb
2:14; Rev 22:1-6, 11). (6) The substitutionary mechanism of redemption. The death of the serpent coincides
with the death of the “he.” The substitutionary salvific mission of the Messiah was typified by the Levitical
priesthood. The officiating priests had a mediatorial role that involved bearing the iniquity resulting from
people’s sins (cf. Exod 28:38; Lev 10:17; Num 18:1, 23). The Suffering Servant of Isa 53 in the New
Testament is Christ (1 Pet 2:24; cf. Matt 8:16-17; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32-35). The Messiah as “priest” bore
human sins and as “victim” died for those sins. See Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, 196-97; Gane, Cult and
Character, 103-5; cf. Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of
Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 8-15. In reference to Gen 3:15 see Doukhan, Genesis,
102-3; Jared M. August, “The Messianic Hope of Genesis: The Protoevangelium and Patriarchal
Promises.” Them 42.1 (April 2017): 46-62.
52
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 247.
53
The identity of the serpent [‫ ;נָחָ ׁש‬nāḥā́ š] is crucial to the interpretation of this verse. The
Hebrew word ‫ נָחָ ׁש‬is used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe an oppressor (Isa 14:29), the
treacherous Dan (Gen 49:17), a symbol of worldly powers (Isa 27:1). It is also employed to portray the life
of the wicked (Pss 58:5; 140:4) and the effect of wine (Prov 22:32). This usage indicates the negative
connotation of the ‫ נָחָ ׁש‬as representing an evil power. Since God recognized the ‫ נָחָ ׁש‬as an individual
107
annihilation. The Hebrew word ‫[ ֶז ַֹּ֫רע‬zéraʽ; “seed”] sometimes refers to an immediate
offspring rather than a distant descendant.54 On the other hand, ‫ ֶז ַֹּ֫רע‬on various occasions
also denotes a distant offspring or a large group of descendants, although the Hebrew
itself never uses the plural (Gen. 9:9; cf. 12:7; 13:16; 15:5, 13, 18; 16:10; 17:7-10, 12;
21:12; 22:17-18). Interestingly, ‫ ֹּ֫ ֶז ַרע‬occurs fifty-nine times in the book of Genesis, and
specifically forty-seven of these are in patriarchal narratives where it refers to the
genealogical lineage of the chosen family.55 Whether the “seed” of Gen 3:15 alludes to an
individual or to a group is indicated by the personal pronoun ‫[ הּוא‬hû’; “he”]56 that points
being, addressing him separately from the couple (Gen 3:14-15), the ‫ נָחָ ׁש‬is not a mythical figure. The New
Testament identified the being represented by the ‫ נָחָ ׁש‬in Gen 3:15 as Satan in Rom 16:20 (cf. 2 Cor 11:3,
14; Rev 12:9). Evidently, the ‫’נָחָ ׁש‬s intelligence, speech, and knowledge are more advanced than those of
the man or the woman. Kaiser explains that there are hints in the text that this being is more than a reptile:
The tempter speaks as if he has access to the mind of God—or at least to the supernatural world. “The
Serpent” is clearly individualized, for the pronoun used of him in Hebrew is the second person
masculine singular pronoun. Furthermore, the serpent of the temptation is the serpent of the final
conflict; he is someone whom a future male descendant of the woman will strike with a crushing blow
to his skull. Thus, the designation “the serpent” is probably a title, not the particular shape he assumed
or the instrument he borrowed to manifest himself to the original pair. Even the alleged demotion of
the means of locomotion for reptiles from a upright walking position to that of crawling on one’s belly
and eating dust (Gen 3:14) is insufficient to demonstrate that this being had a reptilian form when he
appeared to the first couple. Had not God made creeping things that crawled on their bellies in the first
chapter of Genesis and called them “good” (1:24-25)? The words of the curse on the serpent, therefore,
must be figures of speech, vividly picturing those who had been vanquished and who must now lie face
down in the dirt while the conquering king literally makes these enemies his footstool. When all these
details are taken into account, the identity of the tempter can be none other than Satan, that old dragon,
the serpent.
See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 38-39.
54
See, for example, Seth as Eve’s “other seed” (Gen 4:25). Abram regrets that he is still without
“seed” (Gen 15:3). Lot’s daughters design a plan to bear their father’s “seed” (Gen 19:32, 34). Ishmael
becomes Abraham’s “seed” (Gen 21:13). Samuel becomes Hannah’s “seed” (1 Sam 1:11; 2:20). Solomon
is David’s “seed” in 2 Sam 7:12; however, 2 Sam 7:12 in the New Testament is applied to Jesus, and not
only to Solomon (Heb 1:5; cf. Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8).
55
T. Desmond Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of
Genesis,” TynBul 44.2 (November 1993): 259-60.
The LXX renders the identity of this “seed” as αὐτός “he,” even though the antecedent is
56
σπέρματος, which is neuter in Greek. If the LXX offers a messianic understanding of Gen 3:15, one must
decide how much authority should be given to this ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew text.
108
to a specific person.57 Christian tradition has identified in this ‫ הּוא‬the salvific mission of
the Messiah,58 who suffers the serpent’s attack. But the enmity is put to an end when this
messianic ‫“ הּוא‬bruises” the serpent’s head.59
There is a soteriological connection between Gen 3:15 and Gen 3:21 in v. 20.
Adam’s name for his wife, Eve (‫)חַ ּוָ ָּ֑ה‬, is etymologically derived from the word “life”
(‫)חי‬.
ַ 60 After God’s announcement of the enmity between the woman’s posterity and that
of the serpent in v. 15, severe pain in childbirth in v. 16, and man’s mortality in v. 19, the
naming in v. 20 and God’s clothing of Adam and Eve in v. 21 signal hope and restoration
in spite of the Fall and its consequences (i.e., lowering the quality of life in both
spiritual/functional and physical/material domains). Eve will be “the mother of all the
living” (v. 20) and thus will have “seed”/posterity (v. 15) because humanity will survive
through the merciful intervention of God. Thus, the original plan of creation—“Be
fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth” (Gen 1:28)—is not undone. The two
actions are associated because God himself prepares them for their life to come as they
57
It is remarkable that the nearest biblical use of ‫ ֶז ַֹּ֫רע‬is found in Gen 4:25. In this verse Eve states
about Seth that “God has appointed another seed [‫ ] ֶז ַֹּ֫רע‬for me instead of Abel.” Clearly, ‫ ֹּ֫ ֶז ַרע‬refers to an
individual in Gen 4:25.
The salvific mission of Christ is alluded to by Paul in Gal 4:4, which says God’s Son was “born
58
of a woman.” Paul’s understanding of this fulfillment is confirmed in Gal 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your
Seed,’ who is Christ.”
59
The verbal actions employed seem to come from two different verbs, but with the same root
form. Thus, [I] ‫ ׁשוף‬would mean “to bruise someone’s head” and [II] ‫ ׁשוף‬would mean “to snap at,”
“snatch,” implying the idea of “biting.” See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫ׁשוף‬,” HALOT
2:1446. Although the imagery of the mutual attack is described differently (head versus heel), it seems that
each opponent suffers in the totality of his person, meaning that both attacks are mortal. This possibility
emerges from the idea that the serpent is hit on his head, while the messianic ‫ הּוא‬is hit on his heel. The
extremities involved (head/heel) may refer to totality. In other words, the serpent dies because it was hit on
the head, while the messianic ‫ הּוא‬dies because he was hit on the heel.
The LXX associates ‫ חַ ּוָ ָּ֑ה‬in translation with ζωή (life). See Ludwig Koehler and Walter
60
Baumgartner, “‫חַ ּוָ ָּ֑ה‬,” HALOT 1:296.
109
anticipate the future “seed” through whom salvation will arise. Just as Adam renames his
wife in hope of the future, God re-clothes the couple not only for their bodily needs, but
also to restore their spiritual status, enabling their relationship to him, maintaining the
original plan of creation. Therefore, the literary purpose of the post-Fall narrative of Eden
emerges from the abovementioned redemptive imagery.
God’s redemptive action in v. 21 addresses more than the bodily nakedness of the
couple.61 The divine action of clothing in v. 21 parallels the human action of clothing in
v. 7. The verb ‫[ עָ שָ ה‬ʽāśâ’; “to make,” “to do”] is employed in the same wayyqtl form of
conjugation (‫ ַו ַיעֲשׂ֥ ּו‬/ ‫ ַויַעַ ש‬, “and they made”/ “and he made”). This parallelism not only
points to God as the only “maker” of redemption, it also underlines the substitutionary
sacrifice as the mechanism of his redemptive action just described in v. 15. The presence
of the canonical/biblical concept of sin and the redemptive centrality of v. 15 give
substitutionary significance to the death of one or more animals in v. 21.
More contextual factors may nuance the cultic understanding of this conferral of
status via the garments of skins. The narratives of Eden (Gen 2:4b-2:25 and 3:1-3:24)
begin and end with sanctuary/temple imagery: specifically, Gen 2:8 states that God
planted the Garden of Eden and Gen 3:24 states that God placed cherubim at the east of
Eden. These two divine actions are connected through vertical typology with the
sanctuary/temple imagery of Ezek 28:13-14 (see the section “The Hebrew Word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in
61
Moskala explains this post-lapsarian bodily nakedness as a sense of guilt. He writes: “For the
first time Adam and Eve felt that burning bitter insight of themselves. It was more than a sentiment of
shame, because their cover made out of fig leaves could not help them. The nakedness after sin signifies
inner nakedness, being unmasked, a consciousness of guilt, total shame, loss of integrity, feelings of
degradation, defeat, ruined innocence, and disappearance of light.” Moskala, “Reflections on the Concept,”
33. Cf. Magonet, “Themes of Genesis 2-3,” 43-44.
110
Gen 3:24” in chapter II of this dissertation).62 The linkage between “Eden” and the
“cherubim” constitutes a frame that encloses the Eden narratives with a sanctuary/temple
setting, including v. 21.
As a result of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from their “sanctuary” of Eden, God
secured and anticipated in Gen 3:21 the post-lapsarian confidence that they and their
descendants ought to maintain when approaching the sacred space of God’s presence. In
due time God showed Moses a heavenly model (Exod 25:8-9, 40) and ordered him to
build a tabernacle that evoked the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8), which contained the
foundational elements of sacred space, that is, the first “sanctuary” on earth.
The post-Fall narrative of Eden from its beginning to its end introduces salvific
categories through the sanctuary/temple motif that later biblical narratives develop in
more detail, including the priestly roles. This contextual feature locates the divine action
of dressing Adam and Eve with garments of skins in a cultic/salvific context. The
vocabulary employed in v. 21, conceptualizing the same literary and theological purpose,
should be interpreted within the same cultic framework. Therefore, the sanctuary/temple
context of Gen 2-3 implicitly lays out foundational cultic concepts such as the initiation
of the sacrificial system in Gen 3:21. Some scholars go beyond the basic salvific
categories and find in v. 21 a hint at priestly post-lapsarian status for Adam and Eve.63
62
The cherubim are the beings associated with God’s throne in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 4-5;
Ezek 1:10; cf. 28:14) and with the earthly sanctuary (Exod 25:18-22; 26:31; 37:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 6:23-28). See
also the following section entitled “The Hebrew Word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24.”
63
Cf. Rita F. Cefalu, “Royal Priestly Heirs to the Restoration Promise of Genesis 3:15: A Biblical
Theological Perspective on the Sons of God in Genesis 6.” WTJ 76.2 (Fall 2014): 364; William J.
Dumbrell, “Genesis 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and
Prospect, ed. Hafemann (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 53-65; Alexander, From Eden, 126;
Doukhan, Genesis, 110-11; Anderson, “Celibacy or Consummation,” 144; Beale, “Eden, the Temple,” 8;
Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary,” 72; Isaac, “From Land to Lands,” 8; Wilder, “Illumination and
111
This particular issue calls for a comprehensive study outside the scope of this
dissertation; thus, it will not be pursued further in this section.
To sum up, the vocabulary of Gen 3:15 in its context prefigures the
redemptive/sacrificial act of the Messiah, implying a cultic/salvific perspective of the
entire narrative. The semantic framework of the Eden narratives (Gen 2:4b-2:25 and 3:1-
3:24) conceptualizes in Gen 3:21 the profound redemptive purpose of God. As Moskala
correctly observes:
If nakedness is more than a physical nakedness, having the meaning of guilt because
Adam and Eve transgressed God’s command (Gen 2:16, 17), so also the garment
must be more than just a physical garment! A garment out of fig leaves represents
salvation by works, and a garment out of skins given by God points to righteousness
by faith because only the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice for humans can take away
guilt and save sinners.64
Several important questions remain nonetheless unaddressed, and additional
studies are clearly required to better understand Gen 3:21.65 Until now, the debae is still
Investiture,” 60; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 84-85; Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 254-55. The word “priest”
would refer in this post-lapsarian context to people serving in the cultic function/role of mediator in order
to reestablish and maintain a relationship with God. (Note that God gave to Adam and Eve in a pre-
lapsarian context the “priestly” function/role of preserving the sacred space. See Chapter II of this
dissertation the section entitled “The verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Gen 2:15”). However, as the Israelites
developed a more structured religion and society, God called a special class to preside over the increasingly
complex needs that their religion entailed. In addition to presiding over the sacrifices, the priests are given
the responsibility of distinguishing between what is clean and unclean and teaching the people of Israel
about the Torah (Lev 10:10-11; cf. Deut 17:8-13; 31:9-13; 33:8-10). Thus the pre-Israelite priestly role did
not deal with the complexity of the sacrificial system later developed in the wilderness tabernacle.
64
Moskala, “Reflections on the Concept,” 35.
65
Scholars find literary and thematic connections between Gen 3:21 and Gen 4:1-16. For example:
(1) The principal characters in both stories are introduced in terms of their functions. Adam’s function was
to till the ground and keep the garden (2:5, 15, 19, 23), while Eve was his companion (2:18-25) and child-
bearer (3:16, 20; 4:1-2, 25). Abel is presented as a keeper of sheep (4:2) while Cain is a tiller of the ground
(4:2). (2) Each story contains two primary intimate contemporary human beings created or born close
together in time. Their harmony is soon tragically broken in each case, and they are severely alienated from
one another (3:7-14; 4:8-9). (3) In both stories, God issues a word of warning before the disobedient acts
are perpetrated (2:17; 4:7). (4) The guilty principal characters are confronted by God with their sinful deeds
by means of leading questions. God interrogates Cain (4:6, 10) and also interrogates the first sinners (3:9,
11, 13). Their responses in each instance give the climax of their alienation from God and from each other
(3:9-13; 4:9). (5) God pronounces the sentences and curses brought by their offenses (3:16-19; 4:11-12).
112
going on without compelling evidence. Therefore, I will not pursue further this discussion
here. However, the above parragraphs provided a preliminary study indicating that there
has been a gradual unfolding of the purposes of God in the plan of redemption.
The Hebrew Word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Genesis 3:24
The theological significance of the presence of the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬is still a
matter of discussion, although certain aspects have become clearer recently. 66
Adam and Cain were alienated from the ground, which would no longer be friendly but rather hostile and
hazardous to them (3:17-19; 4; 12). (6) They are driven from their original abode and livelihood: Adam and
Eve from the garden (3:24), Cain from the ground, the source of his livelihood (4:14). (7) The guilty
persons hide from the face of God as a direct result of their sinful acts (3:8; 4:14, 16). (8) In the aftermath
of each episode, the guilty parties dwell east of Eden (3:24; 4:16). See a detailed discussion in Ojewole,
“Seed in Genesis 3:15,” 106-7; Alan J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1-16
and Genesis 2-3,” JETS 23.4 (1980): 297-305.
It is noteworthy that near the end of the post-Fall narrative of Eden (v. 21), the reader is left with
the implicit idea that one or more animals were killed for the benefit of Adam and Eve. This anticipated
component of the narrative seems to be introduced again near the beginning of Gen 4: “Cain brought an
offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their
fat” (vv. 3-4a). Moskala comments that “Cain’s sacrifice was a vegetation sacrifice (from the produce of
the land), but Abel’s sacrifice was an animal (bloody) sacrifice. A similar concept is found in the garments
of the first couple, out of fig leaves (vegetation), correlating with the vegetation sacrifice of Cain; however,
the garments out of skins (an animal product) points to the animal sacrifice of Abel.” Moskala, “Reflections
on the Concept,” 35. Although Gen 4:1-16 does not explicitly state the exact location to which the two
brothers brought their offerings, scholars argue that a location may be implied in v.7. The Hebrew word
‫[ פֶ תַ ח‬péṯaḥ; “gate,” “opening,” “entrance”] likely refers to the “gate” of Eden guarded by cherubim. If this
is so, this reference is in accordance with the uses of ‫ פֶ תַ ח‬describing the door of the tabernacle (Exod 29:4,
11, 32, 42; 33:9-10), where individuals brought their sacrifices/offerings in order to obtain expiation. Thus,
after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they could still come to its east entrance to
worship where cherubim were guarding the “sanctuary” realm. Cf. Joaquim Azevedo, “At the Door of
Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4.7,” BN 100 (1999): 54-55; L. Michael Morales, “Crouching
Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4.7,” BT 63.4 (2012): 185-91.
However, this particular interpretation in v. 7 is not totally free from objections, because it requires
rendering the Hebrew word ‫[ ַחּטָ את‬ḥaṭṭā́ ’t] as “sin-offering” or “expiation.” The word ‫ ַחּטָ את‬is a broad
term that also denotes “a deed that violates an existing relationship/partnership. When one of the partners is
YHWH, it is a general word for sin, whether intentional or not.” See Gane, Cult and Character, 292. This
discussion implies a reference to the concept of sacred space (“sanctuary”) at the gate of the garden where
the brothers brought their offerings. Therefore, the literary and thematic connections between Gen 3:21 and
Gen 4:1-16 clearly require further and thorough study, including a definition for “priest” (priesthood) and
“sacrifice” outside the Garden and before the installment of the wilderness tabernacle.
66
For a survey of the word ‫ ְכרּוב‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Raanan Eichler, “Cherub: A History of
Interpretation,” Bib 96.1 (2015): 26-38.
113
Sanctuary/temple advocates elaborate their case from the notion that ‫כ ֻּר ִבים‬,
ְּ the plural
form of the word ‫[ ְכרּוב‬kərûʹḇ; “cherub”],67 in Gen 3:24 is associated with Israel’s
sanctuary.68 For example, some scholars observe a possible connection with the sculpted
images above the Ark of the Covenant. Hurowitz, among others, pioneered this idea,
writing that “these cherubs were the private honor guard of the temple’s divine
residence.”69 Yet, this argument is not free from criticism: some scholars have advanced
the notion that the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬were not restricted to sacred space, since they appear with
frequency “supporting human thrones and guarding royal palaces and gardens.”70
Let us explore three key issues that appears to be subject to criticism in Gen 3:24.
67
For the origin and implications of this name from the perspective of ANE culture and literature,
refer to E. Dhorme, “Le Nom des Cherubins,” in Recueil Édouard Dhorme: Etudes Bibliques et Orientales
(Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1951), 671-83; Arvid S. Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of
Paradise,” JAOS 70.3 (1950): 151-56; Roland De Vaux, “Les chérubins et l'arche d'alliance: Les sphynx
gardiens et les trônes divins dans l'Ancien Orient,” MUSJ 37 (1961): 93-124.
68
Cf. Sculptured images above the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:18-22; 26:31; 37:7-9; Num 7:8-9;
1 Chr 28:18); inside the holy of holies (1 Kgs 6:23-28; 8:6-7; 1 Chr 3:10-13); beneath the massive sea (1
Kgs 7:29, 36); decoration on the curtains of the tabernacle (Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 2 Chr 3:14); the walls
of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35; 2 Chr 3:7; Ezek 41:18, 20, 25); the guardian cherub in the edenic
sanctuary/temple (Ezek 28:14).
69
Hurowitz, “YHWH's Exalted House,” 87. Cf. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 21.
70
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 8-9. Cf. Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 35;
Parry, “Garden of Eden,” 139; Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden,” 38-47; Wyatt, “A Royal Garden,” 18; Nicolas
Wyatt, There's Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in
Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, SOTS (London: Ashgate, 2005), 182-84.
114
‫ַשכֵ ן ָ֩ ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם ְּלגַן־‬ ְּ ‫ת־האָ ָדּ֑ם ַוי‬
ָֽ ָ ֶ‫ וַיְּ גָ ָ֖ ֶַֽרש א‬3:24
3:24
So He drove71 out the man; and He
placed72 cherubim at the east of the garden ֙ ‫עִֵ֜ ֶדן אֶ ת־הַ ְּכ ֻּר ִּ֗בים וְּ אֵ ֙ת ַלֹּ֤הַ ט הַ ֶח ֶ֙רב‬
of Eden, and a flaming sword which
turned every way,73 to guard the way to ‫ת־ד ֶרְך ֵע֥ץ ַ ָֽהחַ ִ ָֽיים׃‬ ָ֖ ֶ ֶ‫הַ ִמ ְּתהַ ִ֔ ֶפכֶ ת ִל ְּש ָֹּ֕מר א‬
the tree of life.
First, the status and nature of the presence of the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24 have provided a
fertile field for study.74 The common conceptual perception of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in the ancient
world as related to temples and palaces is worth considering.75 For this reason, among
others, one can discard the critics’ idea that the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬were not restricted to sacred
space. Although it is correct that they often appear supporting human thrones and
guarding royal palaces and gardens, in the ANE those royal realms were commonly
intertwined with cultic functions. This royal terminology used in the text indicates that it
may bespeak sanctuary/temple overtones.
Second, let us reconsider the use of the word ‫ ְכרּוב‬in the Old Testament. Martin
Dibelius was one of the first scholars to provide a comprehensive conceptual/textual
71
The piel verb ‫[ ג ַָרׁש‬gāráš; “banish,” “divorce,” “drive out,” “toss up”] in the expression ‫וַיְ גָ ֶָ֖רׁש‬
is stronger than the qal verb ‫[ ׁשָ לַ ח‬šāláḥ; “stretch out,” “let go,” “send”] in Gen 3:22. The former is found
in contexts of expulsion of the inhabitants (Exod 23:28-31).
The expression ‫ַׁשכֵּ ן‬
72 ְ ‫ ַוי‬with the hiph’il verb ‫[ שָ כַ ן‬šāḵán] literally would mean “cause to settle
down, abide, dwell.” This verb is often associated with God’s dwelling in the Israelite tabernacle, thus
having cultic overtones (cf. Exdo 25:8; Deut 12:11; Jer 7:3).
The expression ‫ ַל ַֹּ֤הט הַ ֶח ֶ֙רב ֙ הַ ִמ ְּתהַ ִ֔ ֶפכֶ ת‬is difficult to ascertain. But it should be taken into
73
consideration that as fire and light are common elements included in YHWH’s heavenly host (cf. Exod
19:18; Num 21:27-30; Ps 104:4; Amos 1-2), it could be the case that ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬form an important peculiarity
of YHWH’s heavenly host. Thus the expression ‫( יְ הוָ ָ֛ה ְצ ָבאֹות י ֵּׁשֵׁ֣ב הַ ְכ ֻּר ִבָּ֑ים‬cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2
Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16; Ps 80:1; 99:1) would indicate that the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬are YHWH’s supernatural escort ready
to accomplish his orders.
74
See, for example, the following approaches: Alice Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic
Study of the Biblical Cherubim (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 51-60; Robert H. Pfeiffer, “Cherubim,”
JBL 41.3-4 (1922): 249-50; William F. Albright, “What Were the Cherubim?,” BA 1.1 (1938): 1-3.
75
Ancient Mesopotamian religions had a similar cultic presence of ‫ ; ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬see Menahem Haran,
“The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual,” IEJ 9.1 (1959): 30-38. In
addition, they protected sacred regions; see Von Rad, Genesis, 97.
115
analysis concerning the meaning of ‫ ְכרּוב‬in the Old Testament.76 Dibelius’s study
focused on the theological implications of the throne-conception of the ark, in which the
nature and significance of the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬form an important piece of evidence.77 It was
suggested by Dibelius, with a good measure of likelihood, that YHWH’s throne was
literally the ark itself. For Clements this is highly improbable because the presence of
YHWH is primarily related to the ‫[ כַ ֹּ֫פ ֶרת‬kap̄ p̄ ṓreṯ; “(performance of) reconciliation,”
“cover,” “lid”] and the ‫כ ֻּר ִבים‬.

ְּ 78 However, the biblical description of God as enthroned
between the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬occurs several times (cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; Isa
37:16; Ps 80:1; 99:1). This common portrayal of God sitting on his throne, in addition to
the explicit evidence that God encounters Moses from between the two ‫( ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬cf. Exod
25:22;30:6; Lev 26:2; Num 7:89) conclusively confirms the conceptual framework that
the presence of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬symbolizes.79 The ‫“ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬were conceived as the supporters of
God's seat, and hence that the ark was his throne.”80 In Clements’ words: “Where the ark
is, YHWH is.”81 Additionally, the biblical evidence, according to 1 Chr 28:18; Deut
76
Martin Dibelius, Lade Jahves: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Norderstedt: Vero
Verlag, 1906; repr. 2014), see especially 72-85. Dibelius’s analysis of the text was carefully reexamined by
Clements, God and Temple, 28-30, to whom I am indebted for the references to Dibelius’s book.
77
Dibelius’s arguments may be outlined as follows:
a. The location of the ark indicates the presence of YHWH (cf. 1 Sam 4:1-7; 2 Sam 6).
b. The ark is related to YHWH’s enthronement upon the ‫( ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2
Kgs 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6).
c. YHWH is present with the ark, through which He dwells with Israel (Num 10:35-36).
d. YHWH’s ark, which is considered YHWH’s throne, will be replaced by the city of Jerusalem
(Jer 3:16-17).
78
See Clements, God and Temple, 30-31.
79
Baker, “Eschatological Role,” 217.
80
Haran, “Ark and the Cherubim,” 31-35.
81
Clements, God and Temple, 29.
116
33:26; Ps 18:11 [Eng. 18:10]; Ps 68:5, 34 [Eng. 68:4, 33]; 99:1; Hab 3:8, seems to show
that the presence of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬represents the cloud-chariot of YHWH on which he rides in
the heavens.82
The connection between God’s presence and ‫’כ ֻּר ִבים‬s

ְּ presence seems clear in
the Old Testament. For example, Solomon’s temple had two ‫כ ֻּר ִבים‬,
ְּ carved of olive
wood and plated with gold, covering the whole width of the most holy place with their
outspread wings (1 Kgs 8:7).83 The analogy with Gen 3:24 proves sufficiently that the
position and function/role of the two angelic beings (‫החַ ִ ַֽיים‬

ַֽ ַ ‫ת־ד ֶרְך ֵּעׂ֥ץ‬
ֶ ֶ‫)ל ְׁש ֹ֕מר א‬
ִ
construct and evoke the cultic semantic framework already found in the rest of the Old
Testament.84 Namely, that the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬dwell in the presence of the sanctuary/temple’s
throne as they guard the access to God.85
Third, the ‫ ְכרּוב‬in Ezek 28:14 and 16 is also found in a sanctuary/temple setting,
a corresponding and original model of the earthly dwelling of God.86 As we saw before,
the characterization of the ‫כרּוב‬,

ְ the supernatural ruler of Tyre, evidently involves two
82
The notion of a moving throne seems to be in accordance with the biblical view of sacred space.
Particularly, the Old Testament develops two models of sacred space: a dynamic model and a static model.
According to Kunin, the dynamic model is primarily presented in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It
centers on the tent of meeting, and as the camp moves the sacred place moves. The static model is a fixed
unique location such as the temple mount in Jerusalem. “In spite of this difference both variations share the
same underlying structure.” Kunin, God's Place, 10.
83
Parry, “Garden of Eden,” 139. Cf. Barnes, “Ezekiel's Denunciation of Tyre,” 51. Ezek 41:18-25
also includes ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in the description of the restored Jerusalem’s Temple.
84
Souza’s landmark dissertation has shown evidence that the presence of cherubim indeed evokes
sanctuary/temple connotations. Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 193-94, 197, 212-13, 222, 227,
230, 232, 270-72, 274-93.
Haran, “Ark and the Cherubim,” 37. Cf. Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 264-65; H. C.
85
Leupold, Exposition of Genesis: Chapter 1-19 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), 1:183-84.
86
See the section entitled “The Garden as a Mountain in Gen 2:10” in chapter II of this
dissertation.
117
forms of status: cultic and royal. This imagery seems to depict the sanctuary/temple
motif, especially in view of biblical descriptions of God as enthroned between the
‫כ ֻּר ִבים‬.
ְּ 87 “One could argue that the notion of enthronement is closely connected to the
idea of sanctuary/temple and not exclusively to the concept of palace.”88 This
royal/priestly portrayal may lead to the conclusion that the demise of the ‫ ְכרּוב‬was
caused not only by his failure as YHWH’s vice-regent, but also by his failure to perform
priestly duties as guardian of the garden.89 Block writes:
[The interpretation of the cherub as a guardian] accords with the sense of Gen. 3:24,
which has Yahweh strategically stationing sword-wielding cherubim to guard (šāmar)
the way to the tree of life. Even so, the equation is not total; Ezekiel’s cherub is
singular, not a plurality, and he walks about in the garden, rather than being stationed
at the entrance east of the garden.90
Thus, one is informed by Ezek 28:14 and 16 that the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬are angelic beings and
servants of YHWH who inhabit the Eden of the heavenly sanctuary/temple.91 In general
87
Cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16; Ps 80:1; 99:1.
88
Souza concludes in his study of 1 Kgs 22:19-23 that the sanctuary and throne of God are
inseparable concepts. Cf. Daegeuk Nam, “The Throne of God Motif in the Hebrew Bible” (ThD diss.,
Andrews University, 1989), 157. If this observation is correct, then it follows to assume that the presence of
cherubim evokes a cultic context. Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 227.
89
Contra Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 10. It seems to me that Block overstates in Ezek 28 an
apparent dichotomy between the roles of a ‫ ְכרּוב‬and a ‫ ֹּ֫ ֶמלֶ ְך‬, as well as the roles of kings and priests, since
ancient heads of state often combined priestly and kingship functions.
90
Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 113. On the guardian (or boundary keeper) role/function of the
‫ ְכרּוב‬see Dale Launderville, “Ezekiel's Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?,” CBQ 65.2
(2003): 167-75; James E. Miller, “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11-19),” ZAW 105.3 (1993): 499; Wood,
Of Wings and Wheels, 53; Wyatt, “A Royal Garden,” 18. Hamilton mistakenly rejects the role/function of
boundary keepers of the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬as he fails to recognize that their ultimate purpose was to guard the way to
the tree of life. Certainly, Hamilton is right to think that “they guard the Garden of Eden, but they do not
guard God.” Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 210. Nevertheless, the canonical biblical concept
encompassing the location of the tree of life conveys that true sustenance is found in the presence of God.
This is corroborated by the linkages between the flowing river from the center of the garden, Eden, and
sanctuary/temple motifs. See the section of this dissertation entitled “The River of Eden in Gen 2:10.”
Note the occurrences of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬as fitting representations of the divine presence in Solomon’s
91
temple decoration (1 Kgs 6:29) and in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple (Ezek 41:18).
118
terms, the biblical data offers a common conception: the companionship of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬is a
direct reference to YHWH’s presence (cf. the visions of Ezek 1:5-10 and 10:1-20).92 One
of Souza’s fundamental conclusions confirms this observation from the perspective of
vertical typology:
The reference to the “covering” cherub in the heavenly sanctuary seems to indicate
that the heavenly sanctuary/temple would be served by a “covering” cherub
corresponding to the golden cherubim in the holy of holies of the sanctuary/temple,
and the cherubim stationed at the entrance of the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). That
being the case, one can reasonably infer a structural correspondence between the
heavenly temple and its earthly counterparts. One should note, however, that while
the earthly sanctuary temple would contain a golden cherubim, the heavenly
counterparts were living beings. Thus it becomes apparent that an intensification or
escalation from the type to its antitype obtains in regards to this vertical typology.93
These three considerations, taken together, provide serious evidence that the
companionship of ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬represents the imminence of YHWH’s presence,94 whose
natural place is the sanctuary/temple.95 Specifically, the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in the Holy of Holies
connects the most holy place to Eden.96 The semantic functional coherence of Gen 3:22-
2497 enhanced by the imagery indicated by the piel verb ‫[ ג ַָרׁש‬gāráš; “banish,” “divorce,”
“drive out,” “toss up”] and the hiph’il verb ‫[ ׁשָ כַ ן‬šāḵán; “cause to settle down,” “abide,”
92
Regardless of the identification of these spirit beings, the common feature shared with Ezek 28
is the imminent presence and service at the throne of God. Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 314-16; Cooper,
Ezekiel, 132-34.
93
Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 494-95. Cf. Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of
Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 42.
94
Carol L. Meyers, “Temple, Jerusalem,” ABD 6:358. See also Scullion, Genesis, 48-49.
95
Bertoluci, “Son of the Morning,” 136.
96
Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 57. Cf. Karl Christian W. F. Bähr, Symbolik des Mosaischen
Cultus (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1837), 1:374.
97
This observation might be considered a valid reason to decline Westermann’s idea that Gen
3:22, 24 and Gen 3:23 form two different endings. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 270-75.
119
“dwell”] “effectively depicts the excommunication of the man and woman from the
presence of God.”98
To conclude, then, one may propose the following line of interpretation. While
the primary function of the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬is to guard, they also make known YHWH’s
presence. Therefore, one may suggest that Eden is an enclosed space with only one
entrance. Otherwise, the ‫“ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬could not have successfully guarded access to the tree
in the center of the Garden.”99 “The cherubim functioned as divine sentinels, guarding the
path leading to the presence of God, preventing the trespass of unauthorized persons.”100
The Eastern Entrance to the Garden of Eden
One current scholarly argument suggests that the Garden of Eden was entered
from the east and that this substantiates the sanctuary/temple motif. In the process of this
reevaluation, I will delimit discussion of this argument primarily to Gen 3:24 and the
expression ‫מ ֶק ֶ֙דם‬.
ִ Wenham, in harmony with David Chilton’s conclusion, contends that

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was entered from the east just like later sanctuaries,101 an argument rarely
mentioned by some commentators.102 However, scholars have objected by noting that the
98
99
Schachter, “Garden of Eden,” 74.
100
Parry, “Garden of Eden,” 139. As Collins has noted: “It would be a sad mistake to think of the
cute cherubs of popular art. These were apparently a terrifying race of warrior angels; compare Ezek 9:3.”
Collins, Genesis 1-4, 154.
101
Cf. Num 3:38; Ezek 10:9; 47:1; Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 20; Jamieson, Fausset, and
Brown, A Commentary Critical, 20; Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, IVP Bible Background Commentary,
31-34. Cf. Chilton, Paradise Restored, 29. See also references to the east in Exod 27:13-16; 38:13-18 and
Ezek 40:6.
102
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 209-12; Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 96; Lange and Schaff,
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 241-43; Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and
Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 132; Samuel D.
Luzzatto, The Book of Genesis: A Commentary, trans. Daniel A. Klein (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1998),
53-55; Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1975), 66-
120
text does not refer explicitly to the Garden’s entrance, nor to the exact location of the
guardian cherubs.103
Let us consider the following four aspects. The Hebrew text and its translation
read:
‫ַשכֵ ן ָ֩ ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם ְּלגַן־‬ ְּ ‫ת־האָ ָדּ֑ם ַוי‬

ָֽ ָ ֶ‫ וַיְּ גָ ָ֖ ֶַֽרש א‬3:24
3:24
So He drove out the man; and He
placed cherubim at the east104 of the ֙ ‫עִֵ֜ ֶדן אֶ ת־הַ ְּכ ֻּר ִּ֗בים וְּ אֵ ֙ת ַלֹּ֤הַ ט הַ ֶח ֶ֙רב‬
garden of Eden, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to guard the way ‫ת־ד ֶרְך ֵע֥ץ ַ ָֽהחַ ִ ָֽיים׃‬ ָ֖ ֶ ֶ‫הַ ִמ ְּתהַ ִ֔ ֶפכֶ ת ִל ְּש ָֹּ֕מר א‬
to the tree of life.
First, does Gen 3:24 indicate that the entryway to the garden was on the east side?
Alternatively, does Gen 3:24 mention an entrance at all? Admittedly, the text states
explicitly that the cherubim were “to guard the way to the tree of life,” and not that they
were stationed at the entrance of the garden. The text of Gen 3:24 does not contain the
common Hebrew words for entrance, gate, or door.105 Sanctuary/temple narratives in the
Old Testament use the word ‫( פֶ ַתח‬Exod 29:4, 11, 32, 42; 33:9-10) and the word ‫שעַ ר‬
ַ ָ֫
(Exod 27:16; 35:17; 38:15, 18, 31; 39:40; 40:8, 33; Num 40:26) to refer to the courtyard
entrance of the tabernacle, and in 1 Chr 9:23; Ezek 40:6; 41:24-25, among other
references, associated with the sanctuary/temple building or with Zion’s gates. Then, Gen
73; Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Creation, trans. Michael Linetsky
(Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1998), 94-97.
103
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 16. Cf. Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 35.
Wyatt is particularly critical of this idea. He observes that the expression ‫ ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם‬is not an indicator of
location. Instead, Wyatt argues that ‫ ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם‬is a temporal expression, not a special formula. Wyatt, “A Royal
Garden,” 14; Nicolas Wyatt, “Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3,” ZAW 93.1 (1981):
13.
104
The Hebrew word ‫ קֶ ֶדם‬refers “to what was before or in front of one. Thus east was the
direction a person faced in order to get his/her orientation.” Joel F. Drinkard Jr., “East,” ABD 248.
105
The common Hebrew words are ‫[ פֶ תַ ח‬péṯaḥ; “gate,” “opening,” “entrance”]; ‫[ ֶ ָ֫דלֶ ת‬déleṯ;
“door”]; ‫שעַ ר‬
ַ ָ֫ [šáʽar; “gate”].
121
3:24 does not explicitly speak of an entrance. As in earlier engagements with this topic, I
argue that perhaps the presence of an entrance can be inferred from the role/function of
the cherubim stationed at the east of the Garden of Eden. There, as Umberto Cassuto has
anticipated, “apparently, was the entrance” to the garden.106
Second, the semantic domain of the expression ‫( ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם‬at the east) in Gen 3:24 is
also found in Gen 2:8. This expression provides evidence to conclude that “the Garden is
not a symbol. It is presented as [a] real place, situated in geographic terms.”107 While the
later passage states that God planted a ‫ גַן‬on the east side of ‫ע ֶדן‬,
ֵ ָ֫ the former passage
indicates that when God drove out Adam and Eve the ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬were placed ‫( ִמקֶ ֶ֙דם‬at the
east) of the newly planted ‫גַן‬. Furthermore, Gen 4:16 states plainly that Cain “went out
from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden (‫ִק ְדמַ ת־‬
‫)ע ֶַֽדן‬,
ֵּ supporting the notion that God’s presence was manifested in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬.108 In fact,
it is often the case that scholars observe in the Old Testament a directional motif
“east.”109 Sailhamer explains:
Throughout the book of Genesis, the author carefully apprises the reader of the
direction of man’s movement. In doing so he drops a narrative clue to the meaning of
the events he is recounting. At this point in the narrative, “east” has only the
significance of “outside the garden.” Later in the book the author will carry this
significance further by showing “east” to be the direction of the “city of Babylon”
106
Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 174. See also the section of this dissertation
entitled “The Word ‫ ְכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24.”
107
108
James E. Miller, “Aetiology of the Tabernacle/Temple in Genesis,” Proceedings 6 (1986): 152-
53.
109
Mathews cites, for example, the expulsion of Cain (Gen 4:14); the locale of the Tower of Babel
(Gen 11:2); the dismissal of Keturah’s sons by Abraham (Gen 25:6); and Lot’s departure from Abraham. It
is important to note here Lot’s election to settle in the fruitful plains of the Jordan, which were like the
“garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:8–13). These references seem to have in common a relationship between the
east and the presence of YHWH. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 257-58. Cf. Miller, “Aetiology of the
Tabernacle/Temple,” 151-60.
122
(11:2) and the “cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” (13:11). At the same time he will
show that the return from the east is to return to the Promised Land and to return to
the city of “Salem” (14:17-20).110
Thus, the expression ‫ ִמ ֶק ֶ֙דם‬indicates that if someone wanted to enter the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, the
only way to God’s presence was guarded by ‫כ ֻּר ִבים‬.

ְּ 111 The absence of the common
Hebrew words for entrance, gate, or door in this narrative does not preclude this inferred
notion, since a literal entrance, gate, or door was unnecessary in an arboreal landscape.
Third, there seems to be no strong objection to the fact that the tabernacle and the
Jerusalem temple were evidently constructed with eastern entrances. “The east-west
alignment is one of the basic architectural elements of sacred buildings in Israel,”112 as
purportedly confirmed by archeological discoveries.113 As expected from the study of this
directional motif “east,” this architectural orientation has prompted scholars to recognize

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬as a sort of sanctuary.114
Four, returning to the notion of the sanctuary/temple (and tabernacle) as a
representation of the heavenly court where YHWH dwells,115 we will gain more insight if
we look at the larger paradigm of the canonical biblical narrative. The connection derived
from the cherubim and the eastern entrance is commonly identified as a structural
110
John Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: With the New International
Version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, J. D. Douglas, and Dick Polcyn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 2:59.
111
It should be remembered that the Old Testament often presents moving eastward as meaning
moving away from God (cf. Gen 11:2; 13:8-13).
112
Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain,” 76-77.
113
Amihai Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site’: An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42;
Zeʼev Herzog, Miriam Aharoni, and Anson F. Rainey, “Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple
to Yahweh,” BAR 13.2 (1987): 16-35; Avraham Biran, “Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places
and Cult Objects at Tel Dan,” BAR 24.5 (1998): 38-45, 70. Cf. Dale C. Liid, “East Gate (Place),” ABD 248.
114
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 20. Cf. Chilton, Paradise Restored, 29.
115
See, for example, Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 423-25; Umberto Cassuto, A
Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 322.
123
correspondence between the heavenly temple and its earthly counterpart, as it is
corroborated by subsequent passages of the Hebrew Bible.116 At this point of our study,
one may concur with Doukhan that “the strong allusions to the sanctuary in the garden of
Eden presents a cosmic dimension indicating the other sanctuary, the heavenly abode of
God, which precedes and transcends the Garden of Eden.”117 Thus, the sanctuary/temple
(and tabernacle), the earthly one and even more the heavenly one, may be seen as a way
to return to the lost garden through worship. One is led on to the conclusion: it was the
wilderness tabernacle and later sanctuaries that were shaped to represent the garden, and
not that the garden material was shaped to explain the wilderness tabernacle and later
sanctuaries.118
Finally, one may adduce from the geographical orientation that the recognition of

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬as a sort of sanctuary/temple becomes even clearer at the end of Gen 3, when
Adam and Eve are expelled from the sacred space, that is to say, from the
sanctuary/temple framework.
This chapter has reevaluated the most prominent syntactic and literary
characteristics of the post-Fall narrative of Eden that appear to validate the
sanctuary/temple motif, including the Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8; the Hebrew
word ‫תנֶת‬
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the verb ‫ לבש‬in Gen 3:21; the Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24; and
116
117
118
Miller, “Aetiology of the Tabernacle/Temple,” 158.
124
the eastern entrance to the Garden. The reassessment of the scholarly arguments at this
point has led us to the following two preliminary conclusions.
First, the sanctuary/temple motif is an overarching worldview/shaping
narrative/story that enhances the hermeneutical approach to the Bible. This further
suggests that the pre-Fall Eden narrative (Gen 2:4b-25) shares the same composition
intent119 with the post-Fall Eden narrative; both narratives embrace the same literary
purpose.120 The theological significance of the Gen 2-3 narratives can be fully
appreciated by examining the conceptual/textual relationships from a historical canonical
perspective. “The creation of the planet earth is given as a part, a blueprint, of the greater
cosmos.”121 Beale’s great contribution is that from a canonical theological perspective the
sanctuary/temple is the interpretative key to unlock the meaning of the Bible. As Collins
rightly writes: “This means that the image of the sanctuary from Genesis 2-3, from which
humans are exiled and to which they need to return—a return that God provides purely
by his grace—is a controlling image for the entire Bible story.”122 Therefore, the biblical
evidence studied so far provides a “hermeneutical dashboard” to visualize, characterize,
These accounts contain complementary perspectives of God’s creation in contrast to each other.
119
See Doukhan, Genesis, 72.

120
The literary purpose of the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2-3 is particularly interested in holy
time and holy space. See Laurence A. Turner, Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 34-35.
121
122
Collins, Did Adam and Eve, 69.
125
and thereby construe the sanctuary/temple semantic framework in the rest of the biblical
narrative.123 It is an “open door” to explore temple theology.124
Second, the Garden of Eden did not have an architectural structure, unlike later
sanctuary/temple buildings, but it had correspondences with a preexisting heavenly
sacred space. Thus, it was the wilderness tabernacle and later sanctuaries that were
shaped to represent the garden, and not that the garden material was shaped to explain the
wilderness tabernacle and later sanctuaries. Lea Mazor has summarized our findings in
this way:
Biblical thought reveals a correlation between the Garden of Eden and the Temple:
descriptions of the Temple show affinities to traditions of the Garden of Eden, and
descriptions of the Garden of Eden show affinities to Temple traditions. These
affinities, expressed in language, style, theme, and concept, are rooted in the cultural
tradition of the Ancient Near East, and carry over into post-biblical literature as well.
The persistence of the belief in a connection between the Garden of Eden and the
Temple over many generations, and its dispersal over many different types of
literature deriving from different schools of thought, testify to this belief as one of the
fundamentals of biblical thought.125
The narratives of Eden are a canonical introduction to or harbinger of the
sanctuary/temple motif in Scripture, which, “while testifying to the memory of God’s
heavenly temple, at the same time points forward to the promise[d] land, the future place
of the earthly temple.”126
123
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 75. None of the arguments brought forward against the
sanctuary/temple motif takes into account the conceptual semantic framework of its vocabulary, and thus
they are not decisive and conclusive.
124
Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture,
ed. Hemchand Gossai, StBibLit 138 (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), see especially chap. 2 entitled “The
Garden of Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for Humankind,” 5-16, and chap. 4 entitled “The
Tabernacle and Temple as a Continuation of the Temple-Garden in Eden,” 33-38.
125
Lea Mazor, “The Correlation between the Garden of Eden and the Temple,” Shnaton 13
(2002): vii.
126
126
127
CHAPTER IV
THE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS 1:1-2:4a
Introduction
In this chapter I will review the scholarly literature and reevaluate the textual
evidence regarding two prominent syntactic and literary characteristics of the creation
narrative (Gen 1:1-2:4a)1 purportedly related to the sanctuary/temple. But before
embarking on this discussion, we should take into account the structural/linguistic
connection and parallelism present between the creation narrative and the pre-Fall
narrative of Eden. “Taken together these two perspectives present God as transcendent
and separate while, at the same time, caring and involved.”2 The theological significance
of this can be fully appreciated by considering their interconnectedness.3 The textual and
conceptual evidence so far explored points to the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 2-3
1
Gen 1-3 has been considered as an original stylistic and syntactic unity. This research follows the
compositional units that have been distinguished by some scholars: Gen 1:1-2:4a (the creation narrative)
and Gen 2:4b-3:24 (the Eden narrative). This common demarcation can be observed in some English
translations with Gen 2:4a located at the end of the creation narrative and Gen 2:4b at the beginning of the
Eden narrative, for example, TJB 1966; BLE 1979; NRS 1989; NLT 1996; CEB 2011; See, more
specifically, the arguments for the division between v. 4a and 4b: Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 45-47; E. J.
Van Wolde, “The Text as an Eloquent Guide: Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary Features in Genesis 1,” in
Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J. P.
Fokkelman (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), 134-39; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 3-13; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. John
Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), 78, 178, 197. A detailed study of the unity of Gen 2:4a and Gen 2:4b can
be found in T. Stordalen, “Genesis 2:4: Restudying a Locus Classicus,” ZAW 104.2 (1992): 163-77.
Reference should also be made to the convincing arguments in Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 51-76.
2
McKeown, Genesis, 30.
3
Cf. Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 52; C. A. Simpson, “Inquiry into the Biblical Theology of
History,” JTS 12.1 (1961): 6.
128
functioning as the operational system from which the entire framework of biblical
canonical theology is derived.4 Therefore, the connection between Gen 1 and 2 does not
mean the two narratives are exact parallel accounts of creation, but two complementary
perspectives in contrast to each other. “The first pericope gives the overview, while the
second provides more details.”5 Doukhan demonstrated that “both creation pericopes
were in fact revealing a parallelism which manifested itself not only in the literary
structure but also in the agreement of the thematic content.”6 This connection suggests
the author’s intention to communicate his report on the creation of the universe as an
4
The semantic framework of the sanctuary/temple motif “helps us focus on the positive image of
Eden as God's first dwelling, a place anchored in close contact and communion between God and human
beings, which prompts us to think of what is needed to restore that relationship. See Schachter, “Garden of
Eden,” 76.
5
See Collins, Genesis 1-4, 109-10. Cf. Richard S. Hess, “Genesis 1-2 in Its Literary
Context,” TynBul 41.1 (May 1990): 143-53.
6
The main features are summarized here:
C C’
1. Introduction (1:1-2) 1. Introduction (2:4b-6)
2. Light/darkness (1:3-5) 2. Man/dust (s:7)
3. Firmament in heaven (1:6-8) 3. Garden on earth (2:8)
4. Water and land, plants (1:9-13) 4. Plants, water, and land (2:9-15)
5. Luminaries separate days and 5. Tree of knowledge of good and evil
seasons (1:14-19) separated from other trees (2:16-17)
6. First creation of animal 6. First concern for a companion
life (1:20-23) for man (2:18)
7. Creation of animals and man 7. Concern for a companion for man
continued (1:24-31) continued (2:19-
22)
8. Pattern (2:1-3): 8. Pattern (2:23-24):
a. end of process a. end of process
b. divine involvement b. divine involvement
c. separation of Sabbath c. separation of couple from parents
d. blessing of Sabbath d. unity of couple
9. Conclusion (2:4a) 9. Conclusion (2:25)
For the full presentation of this argument see Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 33-78, 239. Cf.
Duane A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 193-97. See also Jiří Moskala, “A Fresh Look at Two Genesis Creation
Accounts: Contradictions?,” AUSS 49.1 (2011): 45-52; Collins, Genesis 1-4, 109-12.
129
event of the same historical nature and with the same theological purpose as the pre-Fall
narrative of Eden.7 If the narratives of Gen 1-3 in fact have these associations, then “it
should be possible to find coherence, concordance, and linguistic, literary, and thematic
consistencies between them.”8 This particularity of the narratives directs the interpreter to
consider the theological flow of the writers’ discourse and thought “as complementary
perspectives of God’s creation in contrast to each other.”9 Consequently, the discussion in
this chapter regarding the creation narrative must also reconsider whether the controlling
motif of Gen 2-3 (sanctuary/temple) is present.
Admittedly, there are no verses in the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:4a that
explicitly support the sanctuary/temple thesis.10 Indeed, the Hebrew text of the creation
narrative does not include the word “temple” or “sanctuary.”11 However, two prominent
syntactic/semantic and literary aspects of the text have been widely regarded as indicating
the presence of sanctuary/temple imagery: the temple-building motif (including divine
rest), and the fourth day of creation (in reference to two Hebrew key words). An
overview and summary of the scholarly literature was already provided in chapter I, but it
will now be helpful to reconsider the insights gained from that survey in more detail.
Thus, the primary task of the following section is to examine how the temple-building
7
Two additional examples: (1) Gen 2 fleshes out the sixth day of creation, see Collins, Genesis 1-
4, 101-40. (2) The creation narrative (Gen 1:1-2:1-4a) ends where the pre-fall narrative of Eden begins
(Gen 2:4b-2:25): with the earth, see Fishbane, Text and Texture, 16.
Ouro, “Garden of Eden Account,” 221. Cf. Randall W. Younker, “Genesis 2: A Second Creation
8
Account?,” in Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine of
Atonement (ed. Baldwin; Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 69-78; Alexander, From Eden, 119-22.
9
10
See Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 49.
11
Walton, “Reading Genesis 1,” 158; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 179.
130
motif relates to the sanctuary/temple (more specifically to the sabbatical rest in Gen 2:1-
3).
Genesis 1:1-2:4a and the Temple-Building Motif
It is indisputable that Gen 1:1,12 as the most important biblical text about creation,
continues to be controversial.13 This verse is so well studied elsewhere that further
reassessment here is not necessary for the purpose of our study. Yet, it seems pertinent to
briefly mention an interesting perception of the text’s scope. Some scholars find that Gen
1:1 has two foci: the creation of the cosmos and the creation of this world.14 The
following points provide a compelling argument for a double reading of “the beginning
of the heavens and the earth.” (1) The expression ‫אשית‬

ָ֖ ִ ‫ב ֵר‬,
ְּ although grammatically in
construct state (genitive relationship), should be read with the disjunctive accent (cf. Jer
26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34). (2) The direct object ‫ ֵא֥ת הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם וְּ ֵא֥ת הָ ָ ָֽא ֶרץ‬not only refers to
the human world (Lev 26:19; Isa 65:17; Jer 7:33; Deut 11:11), but also hints at the idea
that this world is part of a universe (‫ )הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם‬that existed before the human world (Deut
4:39; Neh 9:6; 1 Kgs 8:27; Job 16:19; Ps 11:4; Matt 5:16). (3) The word ‫ וְּ ָה ּ֗ ָא ֶרץ‬in Gen
1:2 is prefixed with a conjunction waw depicting a contrast with the preceding ‫ הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם‬in
Gen 1:1. This contrast would indicate that ‫ הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם‬in Gen 1:1 refers to a place where life
12 ‫ֱֹלהּ֑ים ֵא֥ת הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם וְּ ֵא֥ת הָ ָ ָֽא ֶרץ‬

ִ ‫אשית בָ ָרֶ֣א א‬
ָ֖ ִ ‫“( ְּב ֵר‬In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth”).
13
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 137-44. For a thorough and recent discussion of the various possible
issues, see Vern S. Poythress, “Genesis 1:1 Is the First Event, Not a Summary,” WTJ 79.1 (2017): 97-121.
14
Some scholars go even further and suggest that the word ‫ הָ ָ ָֽא ֶרץ‬frequently translated as “the
earth” can also be translated as “the land”—presumably an allusion to the land of Israel. See George L.
Klein, “Reading Genesis 1,” SwJT 44.1 (2001): 36.
131
and light were already present and created (the first heavens, the abode of God).15 It
seems that this double reading makes good sense for perceiving that “God created planet
earth, having in mind the beauty and goodness of the great heavens in which He dwelt
(see Exod 25:9, 40; Ps 78:69), a methodology that will reach its climax with God’s rest
on the Sabbath (2:2-3).”16 This notion would further suggest that Gen 1:1 introduces the
canonical/biblical notion that ‫האָ ָדם‬

ָֽ ָ is not the only reality/creation having the divine-
given image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:1; Ps 78:69), since there was a greater archetypal
pattern in God’s plan when creating the heavens and the earth. This is not conclusive
evidence that Gen 1:1 alludes to a temple-building motif, but it has the merit of
harmonizing two dimensions: the absolute transcendence and cosmic perspective (Gen
1:1-2:4a) and the relative, immanent, and personal perspective (Gen 2:4b-25), a cosmic
(heavenly) reality and an earthly reality.
More specifically, the most recognized connection between the sanctuary/temple
and the creation narrative comes from the motif of temple building. As will be shown
later, the motif of temple building connects the creation narrative and the divine
instructions for the building of later sanctuaries/temples through parallel language/style.17
This notion has led to the conclusion that “the temple and the world were considered
15
Doukhan, Genesis, 48-51. Cf. Richard M. Davidson, “The Genesis Account of Creation,” in
The Genesis Creation Account and its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil
(Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2015), 111-16; McKeown, Genesis, 19; Gage, The Gospel of
Genesis, 8; J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 72; Danny R. Faulkner and Lee Anderson, Created Cosmos: What the Bible
Reveals about Astronomy (Green Forest: Master, 2016), 39-49.
16
17
See, for example, linguistic parallelism between Dan 8 and Gen 1 in Jacques B. Doukhan,
Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1987), 61-62. See also the discussion
below.
132
congeneric in the days of the Hebrew Bible itself.”18 Scholars who advocate and explore
the motif of temple building propose numerous links to support an intertextual
relationship. In the following paragraphs, I will review these arguments with the purpose
of determining crucial objections against a sanctuary/temple allusion in the creation
account and/or the required biblical evidence to confirm such an allusion.
It must be recognized at the outset that allusions/references to particular
narratives resonate through the Pentateuch.19 Literary/thematic parallels between the
creation narrative and the book of Exodus have led to several inferences.20 Joseph
Blenkinsopp provided one of the first seminal studies in 1976. He observed two parallel
expressions in what he called “the priestly-scribal” material (namely, the creation of the
world, the construction of the sanctuary, the establishment of the sanctuary in the land,
and the division of the land between the tribes). Blenkinsopp called these parallels
(linguistic similarities) execution formulae and conclusion formulae.21 Yet, the first
18
Levenson, “Temple and the World,” 286.
19
See, for example, Clines’s proposal of the prefatory theme of Gen 1-11 that permeates the entire
Pentateuch. David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, JSOT (Sheffield: University of Sheffield,
1978), 66-86.
20
To illustrate this point, divine speech seems to substantiate the relationship between the ten
words (speeches) of Gen 1 and Exod 20. Dempster explains that “the next time God speaks ten words, it is
at the creation, not of the world, but of a nation (Ex. 20:1-17). The echo of these world-creating words each
resounds in the giving of the Torah. The cloud of glory covers the mountain for 6 days after which Moses is
enabled to enter on the Sabbath to hear the instructions for the building of a tabernacle (Ex. 24:16-18),
which itself is built in six stages culminating in the Sabbath rest, a clear echo of the seven-day pattern used
in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (Ex. 25-31). And it is the building of the tabernacle, certainly an early form of the
temple, which is the goal of the liberation of Israel, the presence of God with the people.” Stephen
Dempster, “An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew Canon,” TynBul
48.1 (1997): 50. Cf. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 213ff.
See Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 275-80. The execution formulae would be as follows:
21
“X did according to all that YHWH commanded him.” The linguistic similarities of the conclusion
formulae would be as follows:
133
objection is that actual parallelism between the creation narrative and the construction of
the wilderness sanctuary can be attested only for the conclusion formulae. He explains
that “the creation of the world was not carried out according to specifications received
from a higher source and therefore could not end with the usual formulaic expression.”22
Blenkinsopp lists more than thirty instances in the Pentateuch (two in the book of Joshua)
to illustrate how the priestly writer was concerned about the exact fulfillment of a divine
pre-established plan. In addition, it should be noted that the wording, despite its similar
style, does not follow a linguistic parallel/pattern in the strict sense of a literary
arrangement. It could well be argued that equivalent wording/expressions were part of the
editorial tradition, with no intention to associate both narratives. From the point of view
of the historical order of the biblical narrative, it may be presumed that linguistic
parallels/patterns had their origins, it terms of spatial and temporal aspects, in the words
first spoken at creation. For our present purpose, it is important to bear in mind that the
physical construction of the sanctuary and Noah’s Ark seem not to be the only
construction projects that followed a divine specification (cf. Gen 6:14-16; Exod 25:2-9).
Certainly, the linguistic similarities proposed by Blenkinsopp prompt the reader to
consider the existence of an archetype: creation prefiguring a sanctuary or a sanctuary
Creation of the World Construction of the Wilderness Sanctuary

Then God saw everything that He had made, and Then Moses looked over all the work, and indeed
indeed it was very good. (Gen 1:31) they had done it. (Exod 39:43)
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished. Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of
(Gen 2:1) meeting was finished. (Exod 39:32)
And on the seventh day God ended his work
So Moses finished the work. (Exod 40:33)
which He had done. (Gen 2:2)
Then God blessed the seventh day. (Gen 2:3) And Moses blessed them. (Exod 39:43)
22
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 277.
134
prefiguring the cosmos. According to Blenkinsopp’s study, there appears to be a level of
authorial intentionality to employ a common language in both narratives.
Peter Kearney offers a more detailed examination of the possible linguistic
parallels between the creation narrative and Exod 25-40. His proposal emphasizes a
framework of seven speeches (Exod 25-31): the first six (Exod 25:1-31:11) contain the
instructions to build the wilderness sanctuary, and the seventh a command to observe the
Sabbath (Exod 31:12-17). Kearney argues, using Exod 31:12-1723 to support the
sevenfold temple-building pattern, that “each of the seven speeches alludes to the
corresponding day of creation in Gen 1-2:3.”24 These literary/thematic echoes raise the
issue of literary dependence. It is still debated25 whether Exodus is using creation motifs26
or Genesis is borrowing temple-building motifs.27 However, if the creation account (Gen
1:1-2:4a) and the pre-Fall Eden narrative (Gen 2) were composed by the same author,28
and Gen 2 uses sanctuary/temple imagery, then one would expect to find linguistic
coherence, literary concordance, and thematic consistencies. Consequently, the
intertextual linkages are not reading back from Exodus to Genesis. The allusions to Gen
23
The centrality of this passage, according to the chiastic structure found by Negretti and Paran, is
Exod 31:15a: ‫ק ֶדש לַ יהוָ ּ֑ה‬
ֹּ ָ֖ ‫“( שַ ַב֧ת שַ בָ ת֛ ֹון‬Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD”). See Nicola Negretti, Il
Settimo Giorno: Indagine Critico-Teologica delle Tradizioni Presacerdotali e Sacerdotali circa il Sabato
Biblico (Roma: Biblical Institute, 1973), 224-27. Cf. Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the
Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic, Usages, Syntactic Structures [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989).
24
Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy,” 375.
25
See, for example, Daniel C. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame
of Exodus 31:12-17; 35:1-3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009), 31-32.
26
See Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in
Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 242.
27
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 19-24.
28
See Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 33-78, 239.
135
1-2 in Exod 25-40 are not only allusions to creation (sanctuary as a new creation), but
also allusions to the original sanctuary/temple. The wilderness tabernacle is a
paradigmatic return to the original sanctuary/temple of Eden, which at the same time is
built according to the heavenly model.
For the present purpose, it is not necessary to be unduly concerned with all the
diachronic issues involved. It suffices to observe that the literary usage of seven speeches
(or sevenfold pattern) by itself does not necessarily indicate a structural role or a thematic
association with the creation narrative; in the Old Testament there are several examples
of sevenfold patterns that are not related to the sanctuary or to creation. Yet, a closer look
reveals that the seventh day is the keystone of this sevenfold pattern.
Interestingly, Kearney limits his study to a rather short comment about the
seventh speech (the command to observe the seventh-day Sabbath) and does not explore
its significance. However, the contribution of this intertextual analysis seems to indicate
that the notion of Sabbath rest in both narratives shows some sort of linkage. For
example, in Davidson’s opinion, it is a striking parallel to note an arrangement of “raw
materials” (Gen 1:1 and Exod 25:2-7) plus seven sections,29 in which the seventh section
refers to the Sabbath.30
Moshe Weinfeld’s study of Gen 2:1-3 clarifies the intertextual relationship with
Exod 20:11; 31:12-17 and Ps 132. He concludes that the entrance into God’s
29
The seven sections are paralleled with the seven days of creation: Exod 25:1–30; 30:11–16;
30:17–21; 30:22–33; 30:34–37; 31:1–11; and 31:12–17.
30
Davidson, “Earth's First Sanctuary,” 81-82.
136
sanctuary/temple was interpreted in Israel as “rest.”31 In other words, the
sanctuary/temple is God’s resting place/space. Weinfeld is critical of some aspects of
Kearney’s proposal, specifically, that the six commands in Exod 25-31 correspond to the
six days of creation. Jon D. Levenson is also skeptical of Kearney’s proposal and
considers it implausible. Yet, Levenson states with reference to the seventh-day rest:
Peter Kearney observes that P’s instructions about the Tabernacle in Exod 25-31
occur in seven distinct speeches of YHWH to Moses. Alone, this observation is
inadequate to demonstrate a connection between P’s temple building project in the
wilderness and P’s world building project in Gen 1:1-2:3. Not every heptad suggests
creation; most do not. But Kearney goes on to point out that the sole subject of the
seventh address is the high importance of sabbatical observance. Indeed, the
conclusion of this last speech is an explicit reference to the sort of etiology of the
Sabbath that we find in Gen 1:1-2:3.32.
It seems evident, according to Weinfeld and Levenson, that the real contribution of the
temple-building motif, allegedly supported by parallels between the creation narrative
and the building of the tabernacle, focuses upon the seventh-day rest. Weinfeld, citing U.
Cassuto, further indicates that the relationship between the construction of the wilderness
sanctuary and the seventh day is found in the linguistic parallel between Exod 24:15-16
and Exod 40:34-Lev 1:1.33 Moses’ six days of waiting (on Mount Sinai) parallel the six
31
Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement,” 501.
32
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 83.
33
Parallels between the Mount Sinai story and the construction of the tabernacle:
Mount Sinai Construction of the Wilderness Sanctuary
Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting,
Then Moses went up into the mountain, and a
and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.
cloud covered the mountain. (Exod 24:15)
(Exod 40:34)
And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of
Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the
Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (Exod
the seventh day He called to Moses out of the 40:35)
midst of the cloud. (Exod 24:16) Now the LORD called to Moses, and spoke to him
from the tabernacle of meeting (Lev 1:1)
137
days required to complete the creation of the world; thus, he concludes that “the
tabernacle is a reflection of Mount Sinai.”34 For Weinfeld, in the same way that the
tabernacle is a reflection of Mount Sinai, the tabernacle is a symbol of the universe. This
biblical evidence of the sevenfold pattern leads him to believe that there is a connection
between the Sabbath rest of the creation of the world and the so-called enthronement of
God (cf. Pss 93, 29, 89).35 This connection is further supported by the conclusion of the
narrative (Exod 40:34-38) when the building project is completed and God has descended
from the mountain and taken up his residence in the tabernacle,36 signifying God’s
presence in Gen 2:1-3. Although this correlation does not corroborate a direct allusion to
the sanctuary/temple motif, it appears to hint at a kind of functional equivalence between
the Sabbath (as a sanctuary/temple in time)37 and the later physical tabernacle. This
parallelism shows that God’s presence in the midst of his people/Israel is a reality; sacred
place/space has been instituted.
In his article “The Temple and the World,” Levenson takes a step forward.
Following Blenkinsopp and Weinfeld, he demonstrates additional connections with
34
35
In his scholarly work, no expression is found to signify the opposite, that is, that the universe is
a symbol of the tabernacle, or that Mount Sinai is a reflection of the tabernacle. Weinfeld, “Sabbath,
Temple and the Enthronement,” 506-8.
36
It must be remembered that in Exod 35-40 the phrase “just as Yahweh had commanded” occurs
seven times. Thus, the construction is divided into seven speeches/acts. Equally important, this sevenfold
pattern is repeated in Exod 25-31 and Lev 1-7, 8. These patterns are all related to sacred space. See
Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 48, 50.
37
This concept was advanced by Abraham J. Heschel: “The mythical mind would expect that,
after heaven and earth have been established, God would create a holy place—a holy mountain or a holy
spring—whereupon a sanctuary is to be established. Yet it seems as if to the Bible it is holiness in time, the
Sabbath, which comes first.” Abraham J. Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York:
Farrar Straus and Young, 1951), 9. Cf. A. J. Swoboda, Subversive Sabbath: The Surprising Power of Rest
in a Nonstop World (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2018), see especially the section “Sabbath and Time,” 3-24.
138
regard to sevenfold patterns in the construction of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 6-8).38 One
of Levenson’s main objectives seems to be the substantiation of the relationship between
the Sabbath and the sanctuary/temple by giving major attention to passages in Exodus,
Psalms, and Isaiah. Inexplicably, however, the biblical passage dealing with the Sabbath
(Gen 2:1-3), which finalizes the heptadic structure of Gen 1,39 is left unexplored in
Levenson’s study. To be sure, Levenson’s critical assessment of Kearney’s proposal
demonstrates that “not every heptad suggests creation; most do not.”40 Even if both
accounts follow a sevenfold pattern, the interpreter has to look for a valid reason to
choose from several structural patterns containing the number seven in the Old
Testament.41 Thus, it should be stressed that the presence of a heptadic pattern in Gen 1
would need more textual evidence to corroborate a sanctuary/temple reference.
Critics often argue that there is no explicit mention of the seventh day or the
Sabbath when the narration of tabernacle building is completed (Exod 40:33). In response
to this objection, Ross Winkle aptly considers that God’s glory filling the tabernacle
38
This sevenfold pattern in 1 Kgs 6-8 (seven years building the Temple, dedication during the
seventh month, Solomon’s sevenfold petition during the Temple dedication) is compared with the heptadic
structure of the creation narrative. See further details in Levenson, “Temple and the World,” 288-90. Cf.
Victor Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,” JAOS 105.1 (1985): 23-25; Ross,
Recalling the Hope, 82-89.
39
Credit should be given to Cassuto, who considers that this sevenfold pattern in Gen 1 indicates
the homogeneity of the text. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 13-14; Umberto Cassuto,
“Biblical and Canaanite Literature” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz 13 (1942): 206-7.
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 83; Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the
40
Enthronement,” 502. Cf. Balentine, The Torah's Vision of Worship, 138; Eric E. Elnes, “Creation and
Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer's ‘Environmentalism,’” HBT 16.2 (1994): 149.
41
See a standard treatment of the number seven in Robert Gordis, “The Heptad as an Element of
Biblical and Rabbinic Style,” JBL 62.1 (1943): 17-23; Gotthard G. G. Reinhold, “Die Zahl Sieben und der
biblische Text,” in Zahl Sieben im Alten Orient, ed. Viktor Golinets (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 145-51.
139
(Exod 40:34) interconnects the creation and tabernacle with the Sabbath.42 Nonetheless,
the relationship between the creation and the sanctuary/temple is still problematic in view
of the fact that the instruction to observe the Sabbath (Exod 31:17) is given before the
actual construction of the tabernacle, although it is significant that it comes immediately
after the instructions to build the tabernacle. The question, rather, should be: Does the
Sabbath rest indicate a divine sanctuary/temple activity or action?
The point of departure for exploring this question is to reassess the role and
meaning of the seventh-day rest in the Old Testament’s references to creation. John H.
Walton and Gregory K. Beale, summarizing previous research, concur that divine rest
links the creation narrative and sanctuary/temple-building accounts. Whereas Beale’s
explanation of divine rest seems to follow the conceptual contention that there were
forces of chaos in the Genesis cosmology,43 Walton’s analysis focuses on the actual
meaning of divine rest. He argues that “the main connection, however, is the rest motif,
for rest is the principal function of a temple, and a temple is always where deity finds
rest.”44 The question remains: What does it mean to “rest”?
42
Winkle concludes: “The heptadic pattern in the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 40 does
not end with the reference to Moses finishing the work (v. 33), anymore than the account of creation
beginning in Gen 1 does not end in 2:2 with the note that God had finished the work of creation. Rather,
just as the account in Genesis continues on to show blessing and sanctification in relation to the cessation
of God’s work of creation on the seventh day, so the tabernacle account continues—beyond the note of its
completion—to show the expansion of YHWH’s glory throughout the tabernacle, while implicitly
revealing the sanctification of the tabernacle through the consequent presence of YHWH’s glory (cf.
29:43).” Ross E. Winkle, “Creation and Tabernacle, Sabbath and Glory” (paper presented at Society of
Biblical Literature. Boston, MA, November 2008), 15-16.
43
Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 60-63.
44
John H. Walton, Genesis: From Biblical Text to Contemporary Life, NIVAC (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), 149.
140
Essentially, I have tried to indicate in the above analysis that one aspect of the
temple-building motif—the seventh day—is key to dispute or substantiate an allusion to
the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1:1-2:4a. Many of the conclusions, which derive from the
parallels between the creation narrative and sanctuary/temple-building accounts, illustrate
the systematic character of the seventh day. The function of the seventh day allegedly
connects both narratives because it represents the same activity: “rest.” Scholars theorize
this notion as the motif of divine rest. These reasons highlight the prominent role of the
seventh day in view of sanctuary/temple allusions. I will now turn to a more detailed
analysis of the creation Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3.
The Motif of Divine Rest
The connection between the narrative of creation and Israel’s construction of the
tabernacle appears to be properly recognized, and the seventh-day Sabbath may shed
further light on this relationship. The origin, purpose, and meaning of the seventh-day
Sabbath have been extensively studied.45 Recently, scholars have focused their attention
on a sanctuary/temple framework to reinterpret the meaning of the creation Sabbath.46 It
must be conceded to sanctuary/temple advocates that the seventh day of the creation
45
For example, see the following informative surveys: Theophile J. Meek, “The Sabbath in the
Old Testament: Its Origin and Development,” JBL 33.3 (1914): 201-12; E. G. Kraeling, “The Present
Status of the Sabbath Question,” AJSL 49.3 (1933): 218-28; Robert North, “The Derivation of Sabbath,” 36
(1955): 182-201; Negretti, Il Settimo Giorno, 31-108; Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the
Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 6-24;
Jeffrey Stackert, “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12-17 and 35:1-3,” Journal of
Hebrew Scriptures 11.15 (2011): 1-20.
46
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 72-77; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 178-84.
141
week can be considered the climactic apex of the whole creation narrative and the key to
its interpretation.47 On this point, Vervenne writes:
The narrative culminates in the creation of the human person with whom the
completion of creation is accounted. This completion in fact culminates in the motif
of the “seventh day” which, as we shall see, constitutes the climactic apex of the
narrative and carries the key to reading the narrative and unlocking the meaning and
function of the composition.48
Particularly, the association between the seventh day (Gen 2:1-3) and the
sanctuary/temple arises, at least as framed by current advocates, from the idea that “deity
rests in a temple, and only in a temple. This is what the temples were built for.”49
Therefore, scholars believe that if there is divine rest in the creation narrative, Gen 1:1-
2:3 must be a sanctuary/temple scenario. The biblical evidence for this notion is
elaborated in the context of passages that allude to sabbatical rest in the Old Testament.50
This is how the meaning of “rest” in Gen 2:1-351 is interpreted by sanctuary/temple
advocates.
47
Jiří Moskala, “The Sabbath in the First Creation Account,” JATS 13.1 (2002): 57; Ian Hart,
“Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis,” TynBul 46.2 (1995): 324-25; Laurence A. Turner,
Back to the Present: Encountering Genesis in the 21st Century (Grantham: Autumn House, 2004), 12-13,
15.
48
Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 48. Wenham observes that “the only connection the seventh day
has with the preceding days is sequence. Its character and formulae set it apart from the preceding six days.
It is pre-eminently the day God ceased his creative work: of all the days the seventh is the only one blessed
and sanctified. Its different literary form sets it apart in the narrative, just as the divine rest and
sanctification set it apart in fact.” Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 37.
49
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 72.
50
Cf. Exod 20:11; Ps 132:7-8, 13-14; Isa 66:1.
51
In ANE creation myths, divine rest (divine otiositas) involves the establishment of world order,
by either eliminating obstacles or creating humankind. See further in Samuele Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest for
Human Restlessness: A Theological Study of the Good News of the Sabbath for Today (Berrien Springs:
Samuele Bacchiocchi, 1980), 66. Cf. Raffaele Pettazzoni, Essays on the History of Religions, trans. H. T.
Rose (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954), 24-36. Although research in the area of ANE extra-biblical literature is
beyond the scope of this dissertation, it must be mentioned that additional lines of argumentation involve
comparative studies with ANE texts such as the Enuma Elish story, the Baal Epic, the Atrahasis epic, and
some Egyptian sources. See Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath, 74-79. For the moment, it is
142
Critics of the interpretation just described observe that “neither Gen 2:1-3 nor any
other texts that look back at this moment has God dwelling in the structure just
constructed.”52 Consequently, in order to reevaluate these objections, I will endeavor to
study specific aspects of the divine rest in Gen 2:1-3, and these findings will be explored
against the broader backdrop of the Old Testament’s references to this text and God’s
activity during the seventh day.
Divine Rest in the Creation Account
‫אם׃‬
ַֽ ָ ָ‫ל־צב‬
ְ ָ‫וְ כ‬ ‫ וַיְ כֻּ לָ֛ ּו הַ שָ ַמׂ֥יִ ם וְ הָ ָא ֶרץ‬2:1
2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all
the host of them, were finished.
‫אכתָ֖ ֹו‬
ְּ ַ‫יעי ְּמל‬ ִִ֔ ‫ֱֹלהים ֙ בַ יֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬ ִ ‫ וַיְּ ַכֹּ֤ל א‬2:2
2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his
work which He had done, and He rested ‫יעי ִמכָ ל־‬ ִִ֔ ‫בת ֙ בַ יֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬ ֹּ ‫א ֲֶשֶ֣ר עָ ָשּ֑ה וַיִ ְּש‬
on the seventh day from all his work
which He had done. ‫שה׃‬ ָֽ ָ ָ‫אכתָ֖ ֹו א ֲֶש֥ר ע‬ ְּ ַ‫ְּמל‬
‫יעי‬
ִִ֔ ‫ֱֹלהים ֙ אֶ ת־יֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬ ִ ‫ וַיְּ ָב ֶֹּ֤רְך א‬2:3
2:3
Then God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because in it He rested from ‫אכ ִ֔תֹו‬
ְּ ַ‫ל־מל‬ְּ ָ‫דש ֹּאתּ֑ ֹו ִכֶ֣י בֹּ֤ ֹו שָ בַ ת ֙ ִמכ‬ ָ֖ ֵ ַ‫וַיְּ ק‬
all his work which God had created and
made. ‫ֱֹלהים לַ ע ֲָֽשֹות׃ פ‬ ָ֖ ִ ‫רא א‬ ֥ ָ ָ‫אֲשֶ ר־ב‬
important to bear in mind what Fishbane observed in a comparative analysis concerning the temple-
building motif (divine rest). He writes that “the various non-Genesis creation traditions utilize poetic
imagery and diverse sequences for the order of created things. They contain no reference to a set order of
‘days’ and do not mention the Sabbath at all.” Michael A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of
Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), 15. In fact, a number of interpreters believe
that the origin and meaning of the seventh day cannot be found in extra-biblical sources, that is, there is no
evidence outside of the Bible. John L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1974), 79; Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, Rest and Redemption: A Study of the Biblical Sabbath
(Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1978), 23; Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A
Tradition-Historical Investigation (Missoula: SBL, 1972), 183.
52
143
What does divine “Sabbath/rest” entail according to Gen 2:1-3?53 In the process
of reevaluating the divine rest motif, it is important to reconsider specifically the meaning
of the Hebrew verb ‫[ שָ ַבת‬šāḇáṯ; “cease,” “rest”] in relation to various related terms in
this passage: ‫[ כָ לָ ה‬kālâʹ; “cease,” “come to an end,” “finish”]; ‫[ בָ ַרְך‬bāráḵ; “bless”];
‫[ ָק ַדש‬qādáš; “set apart,” “consecrate”] and ‫[ ְּמלָ אכָ ה‬məlā’ḵâʹ; “work”].
The Hebrew word from which the idea of “rest” derives is the verb ‫( שָ בַ ת‬in the
qal). Generally, lexicographers and commentators concur that the basic meaning of ‫שָ בַ ת‬
is “cease” or “come to an end” when it refers to the institution of the Sabbath.54
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states:
The reference is to that behavior which constitutes the observance of the Sabbath
itself or, in the manner of the Sabbath observance, to the conclusion of a specific
process. In no instance does the vb. šāḇáṯ as such mean ‘rest (from work),” and no
evidence suggests that the vb. šāḇáṯ itself derives from the noun šabbā́ t.55
However, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament suggests that the verb ‫שָ בַ ת‬
indeed means “to rest”56 “when it is used in a Sabbath context, including Gen 2:1-3. The
meaning “to celebrate”57 is also suggested. De Vaux argues that this verb as intransitive
means “to stop” or “to cease” (cf. Gen 8:22; Jos 5:12), and as transitive means “to make
to cease or stop” (cf. Exod 5:5; Isa 13:11; Jer 7:34). De Vaux further states that “this is
53
For a comprehensive study on the origin of the divine rest motif, from a diachronic approach to
exegesis, see Robinson, Origin and Development, 195-332. Although beyond the scope of this research,
interpretations of the origin of the sabbatical idea (rest) in light of a possible polemic against ANE practices
are valuable. See also Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 65-68; Cyrus H Gordon, “The
Seventh Day,” UF 11 (1979): 300; F. Stolz, “‫שָ בַ ת‬," TLOT 3:1297-1302; Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel:
Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), 475-83.
54
Cf. Josh 5:12 and Job 32:1. See Walton, Genesis, 146.
55
E. Haag, “‫שָ בַ ת‬,” TDOT 14:385.
56
Victor P. Hamilton, “‫שָ בַ ת‬,” TWOT 1:902-3. See also Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, “Recent Studies
of the Old Testament Sabbath,” ZAW 86.4 (1974): 465.
57
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫שָ בַ ת‬,” HALOT 2:1407.
144
the etymology which the Bible itself puts forward in Gen 2:2-3.”58 Did God “cease his
work” or “rest from his work” on the seventh day of the creation week? How do these
two meanings bear relevance to the motif of divine rest? Does ‫ שָ בַ ת‬imply both
meanings?59 At first glance, the last question can be answered in the affirmative. This
alternative opinion is of paramount significance because those who have promoted the
sanctuary/temple framework generally emphasize the meaning of “rest.” It may be argued
that “cease” or “come to an end” lends a different nuance of meaning, or perhaps, rules
out a possible sanctuary/temple allusion.60 However, it does not matter for our purposes
whether or not these two definitions are combined in Gen 2:2-3. The essential question,
rather, should be whether ‫ שָ ַבת‬is a sanctuary/temple activity.61
58
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 475.
Cassuto argues that both meanings are incorrect. Instead, he considers that ‫ שָ בַ ת‬has the
59
negative connotation “not to do work” or “to abstain from work” (cf. Exod 23:12; 34:21). See Cassuto,
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 63. The Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) translates ‫ שָ בַ ת‬as
καταπαύω, meaning “to cease some activity, stop, rest.” William Arndt, et al., “καταπαύω,” BDAG, 524.
For a study of the rest motif in the LXX see Erhard H. Gallos, “Katapausis and Sabbatismos in Hebrews 4”
(PhD diss., Andrews University, 2011), 119-40.
A literal translation of the Hebrew ‫שה‬
60 ָֽ ָ ָ‫ֲשר ע‬
֥ ֶ ‫אכתָ֖ ֹו א‬
ְּ ַ‫ל־מל‬
ְּ ָ‫יעי ִמכ‬
ִִ֔ ‫בת ֙ בַ יֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬
ֹּ ‫( וַיִ ְּש‬Gen 2:2b)
would be “And He [God] ceased by the seventh day from all his work which He had made” (my own
translation).
According to the TLOT the verb ‫ שָ בַ ת‬occurs twenty-seven times in the qal (in direct or indirect
61
relationship with the Sabbath, ‫)שַ בָ ת‬: Gen 2:2f [2x]; Exod 16:30; 23:12; 31:17; 34:21 [2x]; Lev 23:32; 25:2;
26:34, 35[2x]; 2 Chr 36:21; Also, Gen 8:22; Josh 5:12; Isa 14:4 [2x]; 24:8 [2x]; 33:8; Jer 31:36; Hos 7:4;
Job 32:1; Prov 22:10; Lam 5:14f.; Neh 6:3). Stolz, “‫שָ בַ ת‬,” TLOT 3:1298-99. The relationship between
these two words is evident from their frequent combination throughout the biblical narrative. It is still
highly disputed whether ‫ שָ בַ ת‬is derived from ‫ שַ בָ ת‬or vice versa; see North, “The Derivation of Sabbath,”
182ff. Nevertheless, it is linguistically possible that both words derived from the same root. See Gerhard F.
Hasel, “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand
and Daniel Augsburger (Washington: Review and Herald, 1982), 24.
A structural analysis might be helpful to further elucidate the meaning of ‫שָ בַ ת‬. The change of
literary style and rhythm in Gen 2:1-3 in comparison with the previous six days of creation is well known.
Wallace explains the various differences between the weekdays and the seventh-day Sabbath. For example,
he explains that Gen 2:1-3 breaks with the set formula established for the other six days. See Howard N.
Wallace, “Rest for the Earth,” in The Earth Story in Genesis, ed. Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 50-55. Levenson observes that “Gen 2:1-3 consist of thirty five
words, twenty one of which form three sentences of seven words, each of which includes the expression
145
The lexical analysis tells us that the seventh day of the creation week is better
understood by the notion of God “ceasing” his work than “resting.”62 However, the idea
that in Sabbath contexts the verb ‫ שָ בַ ת‬usually bears the consequent meaning of rest
cannot be rejected.63 It is in these cases that “the absence of lexical evidence does not
‘the seventh day.’” Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 67. The literary style and rhythm of this
passage takes the form of the following chiasm (A-B-C-B’-A’). This structure is adapted from Kenneth A.
Strand, “The Sabbath,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown:
Review and Herald, 2000), 495. Cf. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 190; Mathilde Frey, “The
Sabbath in the Pentateuch: An Exegetical and Theological Study” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2011),
37.
A. The heavens and the earth were finished (vv. 1, 2a).
B. . . . He ceased by the seventh day from all his work (v. 2b).
C. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it (v. 3a).
B’. . . . because in it He ceased from all his work (v. 3b).
A’. . . . which God had created and made (v. 3c).
This form of chiasm indicates that inasmuch as A-B and B’-A’ point out the completeness of the
creative work of God, C is the apex of the passage. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath, 67. In
other words, the center of the passage revolves around the verbal actions ‫[ בָ ַרְך‬bāráḵ; “bless”] and ‫קָ ַדש‬
[qādáš; “set apart,” “consecrate”]. These two verbal actions strongly suggest a sacred institution. H. Ross
Cole, “The Sabbath and Genesis 2:1-3,” AUSS 41.1 (2003): 5. This conclusion counters Andreasen’s
suggestion (with von Rad, M. Noth, W. H. Schmidt) that Gen 2:1-3 is not concerned with the Sabbath
institution at all, but only with God’s rest. Andreasen further writes that “this means that the creation
Sabbath is not conceived of as a socio-religious, or cultic phenomenon. . . . It [creation Sabbath] explains
the divine otiositas as the seventh day of creation on which the Creator has completed, and therefore, stops,
his activity.” Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 194. In a later article Andreasen seems to rephrase
this suggestion; see Andreasen, “Recent Studies,” 466-67. The notion behind the verb ‫ שָ בַ ת‬is that
“ultimately the Sabbath was assumed to be a day without work.” Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest,” 61-62.
The immediate context (Gen 1:1-2:4a) of ‫ שָ בַ ת‬may also yield crucial hints as to what divine rest
entails. From the perspective of the compositional structure of the creation narrative, the linguistic and
thematic correspondence between Gen 1:1-3 and Gen 2:1-4a (God is the Creator of all things) denotes a
chiastic linkage. “The mood of the prologue now resurfaces in this epilogue .” Hamilton, The Book of
Genesis, 141; Fishbane, Text and Texture, 9. Indeed, several structuring elements of the first creation
account indicate both similarities and differences between the six weekdays and the seventh day. These
characteristics describe the beginning and end conditions of creation. After the sixth day of creation “there
is no more work to be added, no more separation to be performed, and no more assessment to be carried
out.” See more details in Frey, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” 19-23.
English translations often render ‫ שָ בַ ת‬with the meaning of “rest”: see, for example, ASV; NIV;
62
NKJV; WYC; WEB; RSVCE; OJB; NRSV; NLT; NLV; NCV; NASB; ESV. The notion of “cease” or
“come to an end” is observed in YLT; NET; NOG; TLB; ISV.
63
P. A. Barker, “Rest, Peace,” DOTP 687-90.
146
constitute evidence of semantic absence.”64 Thus, what happens afterwards, when God
‫אכ ִ֔תֹו‬
ְּ ָ‫“ שָ ַבת ֙ ִמכ‬rested from all his work,” is an implicit subsequent idea/event that,
as we will see, the biblical narrative unfolds later. For the moment, it seems safe to
perceive that the Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3 is about ceasing completely from work.65
In short, Gen 2:1-3 gives the idea that God ceased from his work, but the content
of this passage does not explicitly include a reference to rest or refreshment.66 Although
for some scholars the idea that God is inviting humankind to rest or be refreshed is
theologically sound,67 it seems that the focus of the text is beyond this interpretation. The
subject is not humankind: it is God. The rendering of ‫ שָ בַ ת‬as the English word “rest” has
caused difficulties for biblical scholars. If interpreters want to use “rest” to describe
God’s activity, the semantic range of it must be rearticulated. Davidson proposes seven
dimensions to understand and describe Sabbath rest. He focuses on the spiritual potential
of the seventh day for humans and believes that “in the Sabbath one may see heavenly
64
Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath, 68.
65
Moskala, “The Sabbath,” 64. Cf. J. C. MacCann, “Sabbath,” ISBE 4:247.
66
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 178. Cassuto explains that Gen 2:1-3 “avoids all possible use of
anthropomorphic expressions in order to teach us, particularly in the account of creation, how great is the
gulf between Creator and the created.” Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 63. The interpretation
with the semantic import of the verb ‫ שָ בַ ת‬seems more plausible as “God ceased from his creative work”
(cf. Gen 8:22; Jer 31:36). It has been shown repeatedly that “ceasing” is a better fit than “resting.” See
Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 1904), 18; John Skinner, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (New York: Scribner, 1910), 37; Sigve Tonstad, The Lost Meaning of
the Seventh Day (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2009), 32; Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and
Sabbath, 68; Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest, 66. Cf. Richard M. Davidson, A Love Song for the Sabbath
(Washington: Review and Herald, 1988), 27-28; McKeown, Genesis, 28. God does not need to rest (Isa
40:28), in the sense of human fatigue.
67
Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “The Seventh-day Sabbath and Sabbath Theology in the Book of
Revelation: Creation, Covenant, Sign,” AUSS 49.2 (2011): 285-320; Roy Gane, “Sabbath and the New
Covenant,” JATS 10.1 (1999): 312-17; Kathryn M. Schifferdecker, “Sabbath and Creation,” WW 36.3
(2016): 209-18.
147
light refracted through all the facets of divine rest available to humankind.”68
Interestingly, Davidson builds this multidimensional experience of the Sabbath upon the
experience (or activity) of God himself. One thing, nonetheless, is certain: it can be said
that God’s interaction with creation on the seventh day enters a new facet. God is Creator
during all seven days, but God’s activity during days one to six differs from that of the
seventh day. The challenge resides in the understanding of “rest” as God’s activity. It is
precisely the analysis of this concept that may bring forward evidence to perceive ‫ שָ בַ ת‬in
Gen 2 as alluding to a sanctuary/temple framework or activity.
Divine Rest in the Old Testament
What do ‫ שָ ַבת‬and/or divine rest entail according to the Old Testament? The
origin of the motif of divine rest is highly disputed.69 This is a massive subject that covers
a very broad range of words, themes, and passages, as indeed Jon Laansma has
demonstrated.70 Among all possible explanations, the biblical evidence is of major
importance for our study. Since the meaning of ‫ שָ בַ ת‬is established by its use in a
particular context,71 for the purpose of our research it will suffice to conduct an
intertextual study of specific passages connected with the context of Gen 2:1-3. Particular
68
The seven dimensions proposed by Davidson are physical (work-free), mental (intellectual),
emotional (restorative), creative (celebrative/social), spiritual (Gospel), blessed (empowering), and holy
(intimate) rest. See Richard M. Davidson, “Sabbath, Spirituality and Mission: Torah's Seven Dimensions of
Sabbath Rest,” in Encountering God in Life and MIssion: A Festschrift Honoring Jon Dybdahl, ed. Maier
Rudi (Berrien Springs: Department of Workd Mission, Andrews University, 2010), 17.
69
Scholarly literature often associates the biblical motif of divine rest with the divine otiositas
found in ANE myths. See for example, Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 174-82; Westermann,
Genesis 1-11, 167; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1951),
127; W. G. Lambert, “New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,” JTS 16.2 (1965): 287-300.
70
Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest,” 17-76.
71
Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 270. Cf. Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their
Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 35-52.
148
interest must be given to passages linked to the verbal idea of ‫שָ בַ ת‬. Some of the closest
biblical parallels are not found in passages related to creation (Exod 20:11; 31:17), but in
passages that portray divine rest in Zion (cf. Ps 132:7-8, 13-14; Isa 66:1, 2a).72 This fact
uncovers two dimensions (perhaps inseparable) of the rest motif in the Old Testament:
humankind’s or Israel’s rest and God’s sabbatical rest.
Humankind’s (Israel’s) Sabbatical Rest
In Exod 20:11 the verb ַ‫[ נּוח‬nûʹaḥ; “rest,” “settle down”]73 is a determinant
element in divine rest passages connected with the notion of creation. In this regard, the
first observation concerning the rest motif is categorical. According to the fourth
commandment, found in Exod 20:8-11, the rest motif is as old as creation itself.74
Regardless of the intertextual directionality between Gen 2:1-3 and Exod 20:11, which is
a diachronic concern,75 there seems to be no serious objection to the idea that the writer
of Exod 20:11 associated its meaning with the Sabbath text of the creation narrative (Gen
2:1-3). The main point here is the literary (verbal and thematic) parallelism in the two
passages:
72
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 20; Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 182.
73
This verb indicates at least three dimensions of rest: ַ‫ נּוח‬alludes to a place granted by God
(Exod 33:14; Deut 3:20; Josh 1:13-15; 22:4; 1 Chr 14:5). ַ‫ נּוח‬alludes also to peace and security from
enemies (Deut 12:10; 25:19; Josh 21:44; 23:1; 2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kgs 5:18 [5:4]; 1 Chr 22:9, 18; 23:25; 2
Chr 14:6; 15:15; 20:30; 32:22). ַ‫ נּוח‬may also allude to cessation of sorrow and labor in the future (Isa 14:3;
28:12).
74
However, it should be admitted, with A. T. Lincoln, that Exod 20:8-11 represents a more
explicit mandate to rest on the seventh-day Sabbath. A. T. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A
Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical,
and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 351-58.
75
See, for example, Andreasen’s tradition-historical discussion: Andreasen, “Recent Studies,”
465.
149
The Fourth Commandment (Exod 20)
‫ל־כן בֵ ַרְ֧ך‬
ֵ ּ֗ ַ‫יעּ֑י ע‬ ִ ‫ וַיָ ַָֽ֖נַח ַביֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬b20:11
20:11b
And rested the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath ‫שהּו׃‬ ָֽ ֵ ‫יְּ הוָ ֛ה אֶ ת־יֹ֥ום הַ שַ ָבָ֖ת וַ ָֽ ַֽיְּ קַ ְּד‬
day and hallowed it.
The Sabbath Text in the Creation Narrative (Gen 2)
‫יעי‬
ִִ֔ ‫ֱֹלהים ֙ אֶ ת־יֶֹ֣ום הַ ְּש ִב‬ ִ ‫ ויְּ ָב ֶֹּ֤רְך א‬a2:3:
2:3a
Then God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because in it He ceased. ֙ ‫דש ֹּאתּ֑ ֹו ִכֶ֣י בֹּ֤ ֹו שָ בַ ת‬
ָ֖ ֵ ַ‫וַיְּ ק‬
These passages mirror each other.76 Yet, it is important to observe that while divine rest
is described by ‫ שָ ַבת‬in Gen 2, Exod 20 describes the same divine activity with the verb
‫נּוח‬
ַ along with the same expressions and motifs. These verbs can describe
unrelated/different actions, as shown above; they are not synonymous, and their
variations must be noted. Bacchiocchi observes that the verb ַ‫ נּוח‬occurs in Exod 20:11
where God’s pattern of work-rest is given in the function of the commandment, but in
Gen 2 the verb ‫ שָ ַבת‬is “used because the function of God’s rest is different. It fulfills a
cosmological rather than an anthropological function.”77 While the cosmological function
of divine rest of the creation Sabbath is true, complete differentiation/separation between
76
A number of scholars claim that the seventh day in Gen 2:1-3 does not correspond to the
Sabbath. See for example, H. P. Dressler, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord's
Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982), 23, 28; Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 2nd ed., trans. John A. Marks (London: SCM,
1972), 60; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 237. The tenor of our argument here goes instead to consider that
the Sabbath rest, and therefore the Sabbath as cultic institution, is not a later Mosaic idea given only to
Israel. Clearly, “the hallowing of the seventh day at Creation cannot be seen as anything other than the
consecration of the Sabbath.” Tonstad, Lost Meaning, 25; Hasel, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” 23.
77
Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest, 66-67.
150
the cosmological and the anthropological function of Sabbath rest should not be urged.
Divine rest and humankind’s (Israel’s) rest may represent the same motif.78
The lexical usage of the verb ַ‫ נּוח‬also suggests a possible relationship to the noun
from the same root, ‫נּוחה‬

ָ ‫[ ְּמ‬mənûḥâʹ; “rest,” “resting place”]. Where is this ‫?מנּוחָ ה‬
ְּ
God’s portentous intervention in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt was intended to confer
to the redeemed people a ‫נּוחה‬

ָ ‫( ְּמ‬Deut 12:9; cf. Ps 95:11). In memory of this redemptive
event, Israel was commanded in Deut 5:15 to rest on (to observe) the Sabbath day
(‫)לַ עֲשָ֖ ֹות אֶ ת־יֹ֥ום ַהשַ ָ ָֽבת‬.79 Yet, this ‫ ְּמנּוחָ ה‬is only reached in the Promised Land (Deut
6:23). Laansma claims that any identification of the ‫ ְּמנּוחָ ה‬of Ps 95:11 with the temple is
untenable. He asserts that “it is possible that the whole land with Zion at its center was
being construed as at once Israel’s and YHWH’s ‫מנּוחָ ה‬.

ְּ The covenantal blessings of the
land as a ‫נּוחה‬
ָ ‫מ‬, ְּ blessings bound up with God’s presence among them.”80 (Cf. Exod
15:17).
The passages Exod 23:12 and 31:17, according to Cassuto, clearly indicate that
notions of “rest” (‫)נּוח‬

ַ and “refreshment” (‫ )נָפַ ש‬are only the outcome of ‫שָ בַ ת‬.81 H. W.
78
Three elements can further support this suggestion. First, both passages describe a
literal/historical seven-day week. See Richard M. Davidson, “The Biblical Account of Origins,” JATS 14.1
(2003): 15. Cf. Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970),
59; Fretheim, “Were the Days,” 19-21; Robert V. McCabe, “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation
Week,” DBSJ 5 (2000): 110-11. Second, both texts state that God ‫ שָ בַ ת‬and/or ַ‫ נּוח‬on the seventh day.
Third, both texts link ‫ בָ ַרְך‬and ‫ קָ ַדש‬with the divine activity depicted by ‫ שָ בַ ת‬and/or ַ‫נּוח‬. Additionally,
Hebrew syntax points to the idea that the verbal actions indicated by ‫ בָ ַרְך‬and ‫ קָ ַדש‬in Exod 20:11a should
be interpreted in function of and/or in consequence of ַ‫נּוח‬, as the meaning of this clause is governed by
‫ל־כן‬
ֵ ּ֗ ַ‫ע‬. It is the action of ַ‫ נּוח‬that is the cause for ‫ בָ ַרְך‬and ‫קָ ַדש‬, and the cause for ַ‫ נּוח‬is ָ֩ ‫ששֶ ת־י ִָמים‬
ָֽ ֵ ‫ִכֶ֣י‬
‫שה יְּ ה ָוִ֜ה אֶ ת־הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם וְּ אֶ ת־הָ ָּ֗א ֶרץ‬
ָ ֹׁ֙ ָ‫ע‬. Accordingly, the reason for humankind’s keeping the Sabbath (by ַ‫)נּוח‬
is that God ‫ שָ בַ ת‬in it at creation.
79
80
Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest,” 59.
81
Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 63.
151
Wolff proposes that Exod 31:17 should be understood as meaning that the “creator must
rest because he had become exhausted from his work of creation.”82 However, Wolff’s
reading of the text distorts the verb ‫נָפַ ש‬. This verb speaks rather of God “breathing
freely”83 after he ‫שָ ַבת‬. Such language had a didactic purpose to impress upon the
Israelites the awareness of God’s dominion over creation.84
There are themes in the Old Testament that shine a great deal of additional light
on this subject. Israel (and humankind) learns to keep the Sabbath holy from the
perspective of a historical reference to God’s activity in the creation narrative (Exod
20:11),85 where holiness is linked to a divine abstention from work.86 What do the
Israelite activities on the Sabbath day reveal about divine rest? The actual practices of
Israel during the day of rest/cessation from work may shed light on the first day of
rest/cessation from work. The fourth commandment required God’s people to abstain
from work activities, which the pentateuchal books specify in more detail (cf. Exod
16:23; 34:21; Lev 24:8; Num 15:32; 28:9). Indeed, this commandment was to be
observed even during the construction of the sanctuary (Exod 31:14-17). Yet, Israelites
were not expected to abstain (cease/rest) from all activity.87 Thus, if the Israelites
82
Hans W. Wolff, “Day of Rest in the Old Testament,” LTQ 7.3 (1972): 60, 70.
83
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫נָפַ ש‬,” HALOT 2:712.
84
The divine dimension of ‫ שָ ַבת‬and ַ‫ נּוח‬in this context seems to move away from the notion of
relaxation without necessarily excluding God’s ability to do so. Yet, it is the verb ‫[ נָפַ ש‬nāpáš; “take
breath,” “refresh”] that comes close to the notion of “rest,” and it occurs only three times (Exod 23:12;
31:17 and 2 Sam 16:14). Interestingly, Exod 31:17 is the only occurrence in which God is the subject, and
it refers to the seventh day.
85
Cf. Deut 5:12; Jer 17:22, 24, 27; Ezek 20:20; 44:24; Neh 13:22.
86
Cf. Exod 16:23; Isa 58:13; Jer 17:22, 24; Neh 13:15-22.
87
Lev 23:1-3 indicates that the Sabbath is included among the cultic festivals, and therefore all
activities during this day are devoted to God in communal worship (cf. Exod 16:23, 25; 20:10; 31:15;
152
followed the creation pattern but did not cease totally from all activities, it raises the
possibility that when God ‫ שָ ַבת‬during the seventh day, his divine rest may have involved
some sort of engagement in sacred activities.
The notion of “rest” in the Old Testament emerging from the idea of rest in the
land (Deut 12:10; cf. Josh 21:44; 23:1) carries significance with Israel’s establishment in
the Promised Land (Ps 95:11; cf. Exod 15:17). Hasel, drawing from M. Tsevat’s work,88
comments that “just as the ancient Israelite renounced his sole possession of the land and
his right to exploit it, thereby acknowledging the lordship of Yahweh in the Sabbatical
year, so on the weekly Sabbath he was to acknowledge Yahweh’s dominion over time
and thus over himself.”89 It is indeed observed by exegetes of the Sabbath texts that
YHWH’s act of releasing Israel from Egypt’s bondage and bringing the nation to its
‫נּוחה‬
ָ ‫ ְּמ‬fulfilled the Sabbath rest.90 As will be noted below, Israel’s sacred place and time
34:21; 35:2). On this point, Lincoln stresses the idea that “resting itself could be considered an act of
worship, but cultic worship was not a major focus of the Sabbath institution for Israel.” Lincoln, “From
Sabbath to Lord's Day,” 352. However, Lincoln does not take into account the dynamic literary relationship
in Gen 2:3a between of ‫ בָ ַרְך‬and ‫קָ ַדש‬, in which the semantic predominance of ‫ שָ בַ ת‬leads to worship and
sacredness of time.
88
Tsevat understands Sabbath rest from a comparison between the fourth commandment and Lev
23:3; Lev 25:3. See Matitiahu Tsevat, “Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,” ZAW 84.4 (1972): 447-59.
89
Andreasen, “Recent Studies,” 459. Rordorf, among others, proposes that according to Deut
5:12-15 the humanitarian and sociological aspects of the Sabbath lead to the original/primary meaning of
the seventh day of cessation/rest. Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in
the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, trans. A. Graham (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 15-17.
Andreasen, on the other hand, considers that these humanitarian and sociological aspects were a later
broadening to the fourth commandment. He argues that the original Sabbath law in the Decalogue is
addressed to “free Israelites who did not need a Sabbath regulation to take time off from work.” Andreasen,
“Recent Studies,” 461. In another article, published in 1974, emphasizing the theological meaning of “rest,”
Andreasen concludes that Sabbath is not characterized by the worshiper’s freedom from work: it is better
characterized by his freedom for God and his redemption. Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, “Festival and Freedom:
A Study of an Old Testament Theme,” Int 28.3 (1974): 296.
90
153
of rest is referred to in Exod 15:17 as “mountain of your inheritance” and “sanctuary.”91
Thus, the sovereign kingship/rulership of God determines the sacred time/place of
humankind.
God’s Sabbatical Rest
Gen 2:1-3 is the first passage in the biblical narrative to mention God’s rest. This
text focuses on divine rather than human Sabbath-keeping.92 This rest has a cosmic
outlook.93 Yet, the creation Sabbath is not the only reference to God’s rest. All
subsequent references to Israel’s rest in the Old Testament involve and allude to God.94
In Gen 2:1-3, both God’s place and time of rest are described: the newly created heavens
and earth (which are blessed) and the seventh-day Sabbath (which is sanctified). The
connection between sacredness and rest pervades place and time, divine and human
dimensions. This seems to be the case in Exod 15:17,95 which is the first occurrence of
the word ‫[ ִמ ְּק ָדש‬miqdā́ š; sanctuary, sacred place]. This verse portrays a close
relationship between God’s and Israel’s sacred/time of rest. Whatever the origin of this
verse, it may be suggested that it is a reference to Zion,96 as ‫ ִמ ְּק ָדש‬is associated with
֛‫ל ְּת ִ֔ך ָמכ֧ ֹון ְּל ִש ְּב ְּתך‬

ָֽ ָ ‫ח‬
ֲ ‫ ְּב ַהֶ֣ר ַנ‬, (“in the mountain of your inheritance . . . for your own
Exod 15:17: “You will bring them in and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, in the
91
place, O Lord, which you have made for your own dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have
established.”
92
Andreasen, Rest and Redemption, 75-76.
93
94
Contra Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest,” 65.
Exod 15:17: ‫ ְתבִ ֵ֗אמֹו וְ ִתטָ ֵ֙עמֹוֵ֙ בְ ַהַ֣ר ַנח ָ ֲֶֽל ְת ָָ֔ך מָ כ֧ ֹון לְ ִׁשבְ ְתָךָ֛ פָעַ ָ֖לְ תָ יְ הוָ ָ֑ה ִמקְ דָ ׁש ֲאדֹנָ ָ֖י ּכֹונְ נ֥ ּו י ֶָֽדיָך‬. “You will
95
bring them in and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which you have
made for your own dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established.”
96
Cf. John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 209.
154
dwelling. . .”). On this point, Sailhamer stresses that “the allusions to God’s ‘making’ and
‘building’ the place of his habitation and sanctuary in Exod 15:17 point to Gen 2, if not
also the whole of the creation narrative in Gen 1:1-2:3.”97
Thus three great biblical motifs/realities transcending place and time conclude the
victory song in Exod 15:17: “God’s creation of a people, God’s eternal holy dwelling
place as the home for that people, and the eternal reign of God supreme over all things.”98
It was indicated above that some passages linked to divine rest portray Zion as
God’s resting place. In fact, this rest is so special that God calls it his rest.99 Central to
this discussion is Isa 66:1-2a (cf. 2 Chr 6:41; 28:2). The Hebrew text and its translation
read:
‫כה אָ ַמֶ֣ר יְּ ה ִ֔ ָוה הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם ִכ ְּס ִ ִ֔אי וְּ הָ ָא ֶָ֖רץ‬ ֹּ 66:1
66:1
Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my
throne, And earth is my footstool. Where ‫נּו־לי‬ ִִ֔ ‫הֲדֹּ ם ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י אֵ י־ ֶז ֥ה בַ ֙יִ ת ֙ א ֲֶשֶ֣ר ִת ְּב‬ֶ֣
is the house that you will build me? And
where is the place of my rest? ‫וְּ אֵ י־ ֶז ֥ה מָ קָ֖ ֹום ְּמנּוחָ ִ ָֽתי׃‬
‫שתָ ה וַיִ ְּהיּ֥ו כָ ל־‬

ָ ִ֔ ָ‫ ואֶ ת־כָ ל־אֵ ֙לֶ ה ֙ י ִ ֶָ֣די ע‬66:2
66:2a
For all those things my hand has
made, And all those things exist," Says the ‫ֵאָ֖לֶ ה נְּ אֻּ ם־יְּ הוָ ּ֑ה‬
LORD.
At first glance, this text seems to indicate that the house being built cannot be God’s
space/place of rest.100 Advocates of sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1 argue that this
passage “refers to a cosmos-sized temple, a connection between temple and rest, and a
97
Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 577.
98
Stuart, Exodus, 360.
99
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” BSac 130.518 (1973): 138.
100
Howard N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3: Creation and Sabbath,” Pacifica 1.3 (1988): 247.
155
connection between creation and temple.”101 Critics of this idea maintain that Isa 66:1-2a
does not allude to the creation of the cosmos, but to Zion theology.102 The juxtaposition
of these proposals is not necessarily conflicting. The following observations will show
that they intersect with each other in a number of ways.
Divine rest is a central element in the relationship between the creation of the
cosmos and Zion theology for several reasons. First, the biblical evidence (Isa 66:1; cf. Ps
132; Isa 11:12) indicates that God’s ‫ ְּמנּוחָ ה‬alludes to the sanctuary/temple’s throne. For
example, in Isa 11:12 God’s throne is in the temple located on Mount Zion, from where
the effect of God’s reign, God’s glorious ‫מנּוחָ ה‬,

ְּ radiates out to the whole earth.103
Second, the only divine rest subsequent to that of Gen 2:1-3 occurs in the creation of
Israel, which is instituted on Mount Zion. Third, that God rested after making the
world/humankind, but before establishing/creating the nation of Israel,104 is evidence that
divine rest is inherently connected with human affairs (the humankind/God relationship).
In addition to the emphasis on identifying rest with the Promised Land, there is a
broader dimension to ponder. This aspect is cosmic, as it is related to the presence of
God. Thus rest is associated with the ark of God or the temple via the verb ַ‫ נּוח‬and the
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 179. Cf. Rikk Watts, “Making Sense of Genesis 1,”
101
NZJCTP 12.4 (2004): 8-10. For the theological implications of Isa 66:1 see chapter V of this dissertation.
102
Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 20. For a collection of essays dealing with Zion theology, see
Daniel I. Block, ed., Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel
(Eugene: Cascade, 2013).
103
104
For Andreasen the idea “that the Creator should rest after making the world and humankind,
but before making his people Israel, is to the Old Testament and to P a preposterous idea.” Andreasen, The
Old Testament Sabbath, 185. However, this seems to be an assumption, because it is rather consistent with
traditional ideas foundational to the belief that “the order of creation is not fully finished until Israelite
society and the tabernacle cult are constructed.” Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 230.
156
noun ‫נּוחה‬
ָ ‫מ‬. ְּ Kaiser aptly observes that “rest is where the presence of God stops (as in
the wilderness wanderings, Num 10:33) or dwells (as in Palestine, Ps 132: 8, 14; Isa 66:1;
1 Chr 28:2). It was for this reason, no doubt, that David stressed the aspects of belief and
trust for this rest in Ps 95:11.”105
Biblical scholars who advocate for sanctuary/temple allusions in Gen 1 find
additional evidence in Ps 132:7-8, 13-14. The Hebrew text and its translation read:
‫דם‬
ֹּ ֥ ‫ה‬
ֲ ַ‫ח ֶוּ֗ה ל‬
ֲ ַ‫ִ֜שת‬
ְּ ‫נֹותּ֑יו ִנ‬
ָ ‫ נב֥ ֹואָ ה ְּל ִמ ְּש ְּכ‬132:7
132:7
Let us go into his tabernacle; Let us
worship at his footstool. ‫ליו׃‬ָֽ ָ ְּ‫ַרג‬
‫קּומֶ֣ה יְּ ִ֭הוָה ִל ְּמנּוחָ ֶתּ֑ך ִ֜ ַא ּ֗ ָתה ַוא ֲ֥רֹון‬

ָ
132:8
Arise, O LORD, to Your resting 132:8
place, You and the ark of Your strength. ‫עֻּ זֶ ַָֽֽך׃‬
‫מֹוש֥ב‬
ָ ‫ ִ ָֽכי־בָ ַחֶ֣ר יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה ְּב ִציֹּ֑ון ִ ִ֜א ּ֗ ָּוּה ְּל‬132:13
132:13
For the LORD has chosen Zion; He
has desired it for his dwelling place: ‫ָֽלֹו׃‬
‫שב ִכֶ֣י‬
ֵ ּ֗ ‫ה־א‬
ֵ ִ֜ ‫י־ע ּ֑ד ָֹּֽפ‬
ַ ‫ֹּאת־מנּוחָ ִ ֥תי ע ֲֵד‬
ְּ ‫ ז‬132:14
132:14
This is my resting place forever;
Here I will dwell, for I have desired it. ‫ִאּוִ ִ ָֽתיהָ ׃‬
This passage refers twice to the ‫ ְּמנּוחָ ה‬of God. Whereas Gen 2:1-3 tells the reader
that God ‫( שָ ַבת‬ceased/rested), that his time was the seventh day and his space/place was
the heavens and earth, Ps 132:7-8, 13-14 identifies the ark or throne as God’s resting
place (‫נּוחה‬
ָ ‫)מ‬.ְּ 106 More precisely, in Ps 132:7-8, 13-14 the sanctuary/temple “is designed
as the place of rest.”107 Ps 78:69 seems to indicate a similar idea: “And He built his
105
Kaiser, “Theology of Rest,” 140.
106
Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 183.
Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3,” 247. Cf. Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms III, AYBC (Garden City:
107
Doubleday, 1970), 245; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC 21 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 202.
157
sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has established forever.” God’s rest
occurs in the same sacred time/space.
It is important to note that when divine rest is accomplished in Zion, national and
political security is obtained in Israel. Evidently, this sanctuary/temple rest pertains to
Israel’s fulfillment of God’s plans in the Promised Land. It should be clear that the
creation rest was God’s original plan to govern the heavens and earth and that the later
promise of rest reflects and derives from it.108
Therefore, if the creation rest is God’s original plan to govern the heavens and
earth, the question would be this: What is the relationship between divine rest (‫ שָ בַ ת‬and
‫)נּוח‬
ַ and the kingship of God? Pss 29, 89, 93 is the only textual evidence for this
association, apart from references to rabbinic literature and ANE myths.109 Particularly,
Ps 93 relates the creation of the world to the proclamation of God as king. The
108
Advocates of sanctuary/temple allusions argue that the Old Testament idea of the enthronement
of God is related to the divine activity described by the verbs ‫ שָ בַ ת‬and ַ‫( נּוח‬divine rest). The first step to
elucidate the significance of this relationship is to validate the meaning of the enthronement of God. Was
there a feast of the enthronement of God? There are two biblical passages portraying a ceremony or
procession in which God’s sanctuary/temple was installed: 2 Sam 6:1-23 and 1 Kgs 8:1-12. On the basis of
1 Kgs 8:2 (“Therefore all the men of Israel assembled with King Solomon at the feast [ ‫ ; ֶב ָחּ֑ג‬or at the
festival] in the month of Ethanim, which is the seventh month”), this ceremony was probably conducted
during the feast of the tents or tabernacles. Simon J. De Vries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2003), 124. Interpreters who seek cultic festivals in the Old Testament have matched this ceremony
and ascribed such cultic customs to some psalms (Pss 47, 93, 96-99), often termed “psalms of the
enthronement of God.” See Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalm Studies, trans. Mark E. Biddle, Society of Biblical
Literature History of Biblical Studies 2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 183-306. In view of the fact that there is no
biblical text that explicitly establishes a date for a New Year festival, scholars resort to connecting it with
the feast of the tabernacles. According to De Vaux, it is paradoxical to argue that the feast of the
tabernacles, an agricultural celebration, would also have a historical character in the celebration of creation.
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 504, 506. Moreover, De Vaux notes correctly, according to Israel´s religious
concepts, it is impossible to know who has enthroned ‫יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה‬. Consequently, the Hebrew expression ‫יְּ הוָ ֶ֣ה‬
‫ מָ לָ ְך‬in these psalms does not mean “the Lord has become King,” but rather, is an acclamation that
acknowledges the royal character of God. Therefore, these psalms are not enthronement psalms; rather, one
may consider that their function is to acclaim the kingship of God. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 505.
109
158
establishment of God’s throne and the establishment of the earth are paralleled as one
event. Moreover, this psalm associates these events with God’s dwelling place or house
(‫)ביִ ת‬.
ַ It is evident, according to Ps 93, that the sovereign kingship/rulership of God is
the connection between God’s dwelling place (temple) and creation. God’s
kingship/rulership is established and confirmed by the verbal actions ‫ שָ בַ ת‬and ַ‫נּוח‬. This
suggestion follows the idea that “the temple and the world stand in an intimate and
intrinsic connection. The two projects cannot be ultimately distinguished or disengaged.
Each recounts how God brought about an environment in which he can find rest.”110
The connection between Sabbath and temple in Isa 65:17-18 and 66:1-2 further
supports the idea of rest as the kingship of God. First, Isa 65:17-18 indicates that the
ultimate purpose of ‫שים ו ָָא ֶֶ֣רץ ח ֲָד ָשּ֑ה‬

ָ֖ ִ ‫בֹורא שָ ַמ֥יִ ם ח ֲָד‬
ֵ֛ ‫י־הנְּ ִנ֥י‬
ִ ‫“ ִ ָֽכ‬For behold, I create new
heavens and a new earth” parallels the kingship of God at Jerusalem (cf. Gen 1:1 and 2
Chr 36:23).111 The expression ‫ֱֹלהים‬

ָ֖ ִ ‫רא א‬
֥ ָ ָ‫ ב‬in Gen 1:1 and 2:3 indicates the ultimate
authority of creating ‫ ָה ָ ָֽא ֶרץ‬and ‫הַ שָ ַמָ֖יִ ם‬, where God extends his royal dominion during
the sabbatical activity of rest. Then, when God promises that the former world will be
forgotten by ‫שים ו ָָא ֶֶ֣רץ ח ֲָד ָשּ֑ה‬

ָ֖ ִ ‫בֹורא שָ ַמ֥יִ ם ח ֲָד‬,
ֵ֛ it reflects his sovereign authority and
royal dominion that is revealed from the sanctuary/temple, particularly by divine rest.112
Second, 66:1-2 is taken to be the most unequivocal evidence of the association between
Sabbath and temple (meaning rest as kingship of God). As discussed above, this passage
110
111
Note from these two texts that the Hebrew Bible begins with God’s command to create heaven
and earth, and ends with the command of the God of heaven and earth to build a temple.
112
John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 656-57.
159
is not indicating that God does not need a temple.113 Isa 66:1-2 is a rhetorical expression
underlining the insignificance of the earth and its inhabitants compared with God’s
cosmic kingship/rulership.114
Sabbatical Rest: Engagement or Disengagement
Thus far it has been observed that the meaning of “rest” is related to the divine
prerogative of kingship/rulership. However, scholars disagree on the nature of “rest” in
the creation account. They propose two different forms of rest: “disengagement”
(inactivity) versus “engagement” (activity). According to Levenson, Gen 2:1-3 gives the
impression that God’s rest is a state of mellow euphoria, or disengagement. He writes that
“God’s otiosity on the seventh day of the Priestly cosmogony exhibits features that
cannot be exhaustively explained by reference to the Sabbath.”115 On the other hand,
Walton assumes the idea of engagement, suggesting that the only divine rest in the Bible
is associated with God’s sovereign/royal presence in his temple.116 This notion combines
God’s activity of rest and his freedom to rule the world.117
113
De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 328-30.
114
Additionally, it has been suggested that “the Israelite priesthood dramatized the conclusion of
the creation by means of the Sabbath, just as the peoples of the ancient Near East dramatized their creation
epics in cultic dramas. This drama [was] perhaps a part of an enthronement festival or New Year
celebration, cultic ceremonies for which definitive textual evidence is lacking.” See Walton, Lost World of
Genesis One, 91; Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 58-75; Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath,
188; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Creator God in Genesis 1 and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarbiz 37.2
(1968): 109-16. Although these hints seem to connect creation, the sanctuary/temple, and the Sabbath rest,
they are more likely dependent on extra-biblical culture and literature.
115
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 109.
116
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 180; Walton, Lost World of Adam, 48-49. Cf.
117
There are at least two observations to ponder considering these two notions in a possible
sanctuary/temple scenario. First, the nature of divine rest and its implications for humanity tend to affirm
Block’s observation: Gen 1-3 “is a royal world, with the man being cast as a king, invested with the status
of ‘image of God’ (‫ֱֹלהים‬
ָ֖ ִ ‫צלֶ ם א‬
֥ ֶ ‫ ; ְּב‬Gen 1:26-27) and charged to subdue (‫ )כָ בַ ש‬and exercise dominion
160
God’s activity of rest is to govern creation and to maintain the created order.
Divine rest in Gen 2:1-3 and Israel’s rest (in the rest of the Old Testament) pertain to the
dominion and restoration of sacred time and space. As Bacchiocchi comments, “it is hard
to believe that a dynamic God would spend a day in static posture. . . . God’s cessation
from doing expresses his desire for being with his creation, for giving to his creatures not
only things but himself.”118 Therefore, divine rest is the sign of kingship/rulership and
presence, a notion in basic accordance with the Israelites’ activities on the seventh day.119
God’s rest upon completing creation in Gen 2:1-3 “is an archetype of the human
Sabbath celebration.”120 God gave humankind the capacity to enter into God’s
sanctuary/temple by acquiring “rest.” When the new created couple were placed within
the confines of sacred space and time, Adam and Eve’s distinctive creation, “Let Us
make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (‫מּותּ֑נּו‬

ֵ ‫)נַ ָֽע ֲֶש֥ה אָ ָד֛ם ְּבצַ ְּל ֵמָ֖נּו ִכ ְּד‬,
(‫ ) ָר ָדה‬over it.” See Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 5. The expression ‫ֱֹלהים‬

ָ֖ ִ ‫צלֶ ם א‬
֥ ֶ ‫ ְּב‬reflects God’s supreme
authority, and therefore the divine prerogative bestowed upon humanity to maintain God’s order and
kingship/rulership. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 683. Divine activities are engaged in from the
sanctuary/temple (Ps 96). Second, God’s rest in Gen 2:1-3 is fundamentally different from that of the gods
in other Near Eastern texts. See Doukhan, “Review of John H. Walton,” 87. Doukhan remarks that “unlike
the other ANE traditions, which view divine rest as a benefit that the gods enjoyed thanks to human
service, the biblical account refers to the Sabbath day as God’s good gift to humankind.” Doukhan,
Genesis, 47.
118
Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest, 67.
119
Walton affirms that divine rest in Gen 2:1-3 means that God is taking up his residence. See
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 48. Although this idea harmonizes with God’s kingship/rulership, Walton
goes too far in arguing that divine rest is the objective of creation. Walton, Lost World of Adam, 46. God
did not create/order the earth primarily for the sake of ruling over it. There is a more profound dimension:
relationship with humanity. God created the heavens and earth, sacred space and time, by establishing his
cosmic sanctuary/temple as the means to relate with humankind and meet its needs. Matthews aptly
observes that “according to the tabernacle narrative (Exod 25–40), Israel’s Sabbath and creation’s rest meet
in the holy place: the Creator who sanctified the seventh day because of ‘rest’ (Gen 2:2–3) is the covenant
Lord, who sanctifies his people and tabernacles among them (Exod 31:12–17).” Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26,
178. Cf. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3,” 235-50.
120
Stolz, “‫שָ בַ ת‬,” TLOT 3:1300.
161
was intended to reflect God’s royal presence on earth with the purpose of maintaining
God’s royal authority.121
Divine rest in creation points to God’s cosmic royal authority over heavens and
earth. Although sin alienated sacred space and distorted sacred time on earth, God’s rest
in the Israelite sanctuary/temple manifested his sovereignty. One may concede to Walton
that “the Sabbath element helps us to recognize the cosmic sacredness of the
sanctuary/temple equation and to realize the contextual significance of the functions and
functionaries in the creation narrative.”122 Therefore, God’s command to rest on the
seventh day reminds humankind of the original cosmic dimension of God’s kingship. The
Sabbath rest instituted at creation and developed in the later biblical narrative seems to
indicate that God’s rulership on earth is patterned after God’s cosmic sovereignty.
Accordingly, the Sabbath rest reveals God’s plan to reestablish sacred time and space on
earth.
The Fourth Day of Creation: Genesis 1:14
Gen 1:14 contains two key words (‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬and ‫ )מָ אֹור‬purportedly associated with
sanctuary/temple language. In this section, I will analyze the arguments in order to
establish how these two Hebrew terms fit into the meaning and structure of the whole
creation story. Advocates of the sanctuary/temple motif observe in ‫[ מֹועֵּ ד‬môḗḏ;
“appointed time,” “place,” “meeting,” “season”] and ‫[ מָ אֹור‬mā’ôʹr; “luminary”] a subtle
For a thorough discussion on the meaning of the Hebrew expression ‫מּותּ֑נּו‬

121 ֵ ‫ ְּבצַ ְּל ֵמָ֖נּו ִכ ְּד‬, see
Richard M. Davidson, “The Nature of the Human Beings from the Beginning: Genesis 1-11,” in “What Are
Human Beings That You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the Third International Bible Conference, Nof
Ginosar and Jerusalem, June 11-21, 2012, ed. Clinton Wahlen (Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015),
12-22.
122
Walton, Genesis, 152.
162
linkage with sanctuary/temple language, primarily by interpreting these two terms and the
creation narrative with a cultic character. They often cite Walter Vogels’ study to support
three proposals. First, the word ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬is never used in the Torah to indicate seasons of the
year. Second, the meaning of ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬in most texts of the Old Testament is “festivals.”
Third, the word ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬bears the connotation of meeting.123
Generally, scholars agree that the absence of the Hebrew words for sun (‫)שֶ מֶ ש‬
and moon (‫ )י ֵָר ַח‬is intended to avoid confusion with ANE astral deities.124 Instead, the
author uses the word ‫מאֹור‬,

ָ which generally refers (in the Torah always) to the lamps of
the sanctuary (cf. Exod 25:6; 27:10; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:37; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16).125 “The
sun and moon are presented as lamps, which are designated to illuminate the world, just
as the lamps of the sanctuary are used to illuminate the sanctuary.”126 However, does the
author of the creation story merely want to polemicize against ANE culture?
The author carefully selects his Hebrew vocabulary because ‫ מָ אֹור‬is better
understood in light of ‫מֹועֵּ ד‬. The range of meanings and translations of the Hebrew word
‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬varies in the Old Testament: place of meeting, assembly point, meeting, appointed
time, festival, time of festivity, and tent for assembly.127 The translation “and let them be
for signs and seasons, and for days and years”128 renders four different
123
Vogels, “Cultic and Civil Calendars,” 164-66, 168.
124
McKeown, Genesis, 24; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 127; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 21;
Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 154; Sarna, Genesis, 9.
125
126
127
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫מֹועֵּ ד‬,” HALOT 2:559.
128
Gen 1:14 ‫וְ הָ י֤ ּו לְ אֹ תֹ תֵ֙ ּולְ ַ֣מֹוע ֲִָ֔דים ּולְ י ִ ָָ֖מים וְ ׁשָ ִ ֶֽנים‬
163
functions/purposes of the ‫מאֹור‬:
ָ signs, seasons, days and years.129 It should be evident
that “signs” (or “indicators”)130 stands out from this list.131 The lamed in the prepositional
phrase ֙ ‫תת‬
ֹּ ‫ ְּל ֹּא‬is a lamed of purpose.132 In some cases, the lamed indicates the goal of the
preceding verb. In this case ‫ ָהיָה‬followed by ‫ ְּל‬might mean “become” in terms of
functionality.133 Another aspect to consider is the connecting particle ‫ ּו‬as explicative:
“and let them become signs, that is, seasons, and days and years.”134 In this case, ֙ ‫תת‬
ֹּ ֹּ‫ְּלא‬
covers both subcategories: (1) seasons, and (2) days and years.
The Hebrew word ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬can be reasonably rendered as “appointed time,”135
which does not necessarily exclude136 the notion of “festival occasions.”137 This notion is
attested elsewhere in the Old Testament.138 The translation “and let them become signs of
appointed times, and for days and years” preserves the plain meaning of the text. It
129
See, for example, John H. Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the
Creation Account (Sisters: Multnomah Books, 1996), 129-35.
130
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 127-28.
131
E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AYBC (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 6.
132
Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 202.
133
Moskala, “A Fresh Look,” 57-58. See also Doukhan, Genesis, 58.
134
Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 652.
135
See the following Bible versions: TEV “to show the time when days, years, and religious
festivals begin,” NIV “to mark sacred times, and days and years,” MNT “sacred seasons,” FRCL “that they
serve to determine festival [days], as well as the days and the years of the calendar.”
136
Cole argues that ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬should not be understood as “festival occasions.” Among other reasons,
he observes that the LXX renders ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬as καιρός “times” in Gen 1:14, rather than as ἑορταὶ “festivals” as in
Lev 23:37. See H. Ross Cole, “Genesis 1:14: Translation Notes,” AUSS 45.1 (2007): 64-66.
137
John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 30-31; William D. Reyburn and Euan M. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis (New
York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 42-43; Robert Davidson, Genesis 1-11 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 21; Rudolph, “Festivals in Genesis 1:14,” 23-40; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-
Figured, 85-86.
See the Hebrew word ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬in Num 15:3; 29:39; 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:4; 8:13; 30:22; 31:3;
138
Ezra 3:5; Neh 10:33; Isa 1:14; 14:31; 33:20; Lam 1:4; Ezek 36:38; 44:24; Hos 2:13; Zech 8:19.
164
should be remembered that ‫אֹות‬, which sometimes conveys religious significance (in
֙ ‫)לאֹּ תֹּ ת‬,

ְּ 139 governs two different subcategories in nature: (1) seasons, and (2) days and
years. This is a possible indication that the significance given to the celestial bodies is “to
determine the appointed moment of the yearly feast”140 related to calendars or cycles for
cultic, civil, or cultural (agricultural, navigation, travel) purposes.141 However, before the
fall and in the centuries thereafter, there is no biblical evidence for any cultic usage.
The above translation recognizes that the technical vocabulary employed by the
author of the creation story is subtle. Indeed, the words ‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬and ‫מָ אֹור‬, which are used
elsewhere in the context of sanctuary/temple narratives, prompt the reader to consider a
semantic framework embedded in two levels of understanding: a literal reading and a
symbolic/theological reading, in which “the sun and the moon are like sacred lamps in
the sanctuary of the universe.”142 In light of these observations, Doukhan affirms that the
central significance of the fourth day of creation is “due to the intention of the biblical
author to highlight the sanctuary connection.”143 Just as the Sabbath rest on earth
indicates that creation is patterned after God’s cosmic kingship/rulership paradigm, the
wording of Gen 1:14 seems to be also finely nuanced to connect linguistically and
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫אֹות‬,” HALOT 1:26. Cf. Lange and Schaff,
139
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 170-71.

140
141
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 23; Francis D. Nichol, Raymond F. Cottrell, and Don F. Neufeld,
“Genesis,” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 1:213; Sarna, Genesis, 9; Walton, Genesis, 122,
123; Frank H. Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space and Status,” in History and
Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, ed. Matt Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and
Jeffrey K. Kuan, JSOTSup 173 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 356; Rudolph, “Festivals in Genesis 1:14,” 23-31,
40.
142
Vogels, “Cultic and Civil Calendars,” 175; Turner, “Theological Reading of Genesis 1,” 74.
143
165
theologically with the sanctuary/temple framework. Gen 1 is referring integrally to the
motif found in Gen 2-3.
This chapter has considered two main aspects of the creation account that
seemingly connect the creation and the sanctuary/temple: the notion of divine rest (within
the motif of temple building), and two key words in the fourth day of creation. Two main
tentative conclusions seem to stand out from the sketch we have traced of the biblical
evidence about the possible sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1:1-2:4a.
First, the biblical evidence leads to the preliminary conclusion that the writer of
the creation narrative and the narratives of Eden had a compositional strategy.
Specifically, there is an implication here regarding the critical notion of textual and
conceptual differentiations between the so-called Yahwist and priestly sources.144 This
theory is weakened, among other reasons, by the fact that even though Gen 1 is
commonly attributed to the priestly source, paradoxically most of the connections with
the sanctuary/temple motif are found in Gen 2-3.145 Furthermore, considering that “the
Bible begins with creation for historical, literary, and theological reasons,”146 one of the
144
This theory maintains that the text shows the existence of different literary strata, as argued in
Christoph Levin, Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old Testament
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 52. This is highly speculative, and speculation is not our subject.
145
This is a paradox of profound importance that is not explored fully in current scholarship.
Generally speaking, critical biblical studies often find sanctuary/temple allusions, echoes, overtones, etc., in
the first chapters of Genesis. For example, see Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “God's Image, His Cosmic
Temple and the High Priest: Towards a Historical and Theological Account of the Incarnation,” in Heaven
on Earth, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon J. Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 81-99. On the
other hand, orthodox and conservative scholars are vexed by the possible emergence of sanctuary/temple
theology in the creation and Eden narratives.
146
166
purposes of the writer of Genesis in bringing Gen 1:1-2:4a into its final canonical shape
was to connect the theme of God’s cosmic kingship/rulership with sacred time and space
on earth, where God and humankind convene and are intimate. While it must be admitted
that the lexical and contextual information given in the creation narrative does not offer
an explicit reference to the concept of God’s resting place (literal sanctuary/temple),147
this investigation has found that the preeminence of God’s cosmic kingship/rulership
secures sacred space and time on earth; divine rest is a sanctuary/temple activity, and it
establishes God’s sovereignty. The Sabbath rest in Gen 2:1-3 is not a “theological
appendix,” but “intimates the purpose of creation and of the cosmos.”148 In this sense, it
could be said that rest on the Sabbath day “reaffirms the fundamental teaching of
Scripture, namely, that ‘God himself is personal.’”149
Second, the syntactic and literary characteristics of the fourth day of creation
prompt the reader to consider the theological and canonical function of the Hebrew words
‫ מֹועֵּ ד‬and ‫מאֹור‬.

ָ “These echoes of language, which evoke the life of the sanctuary,
suggest that the blueprint of creation is derived from a greater pattern of a supernatural
order.”150 This greater pattern of supernatural order seems to be hinted at in Gen 1:1,
where the creation of this world echoes the creation of the cosmos.
147
It should also be acknowledged that scholars have noted that “there is no ANE culture in which
temples and cosmos do not bear a significant relation to one another.” Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and
Sabbath, 39.
148
Turner, Back to the Present, 31.
149
Doukhan, Genesis, 71. See also E. Edward Zinke, “A Theology of the Sabbath,” JATS 2.2
(1991): 148.
150
Doukhan, Genesis, 58. Cf. Ps 78:69.
167
CHAPTER V
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
In chapters I-IV, I have summarized and reevaluated some of the most important
aspects that allude to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3. It was observed that the content of
Gen 1-3 introduces the readers to the newly created world of sacred time1 and space by
means of sanctuary/temple vocabulary and a symbolical conceptual framework.2 In this
chapter, I will not seek to further substantiate the association between the creation and the
sanctuary/temple, which I believe is already well established on solid ground.3 Rather, I
will move beyond these discussions to the theological implications arising from the text.
Particularly, I will suggest how the outworking of the association between creation and
sanctuary/temple can contribute to a better understanding of the creation/Eden canonical
narratives, in view of the consequent implications that the writer of Gen 1-3 might have
perceived the sanctuary/temple motif.
1
Vogels, “Cultic and Civil Calendars,” 178-79.
2
Contra Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 5, 21-27.
3
The biblical evidence reviewed in this dissertation may be summarized as follows: the motif of
temple building (divine rest); the Hebrew words ‫ מֹועֵ ד‬and ‫ מָ אֹור‬in the fourth day of creation; the Hebrew
word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8; the garden as a mountain in Gen 2:10; the river of Eden in Gen 2:10; the Hebrew
verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָׁ מַ ר‬in Gen 2:15; the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22; the
Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8; the Hebrew word ‫ כֻּ תֹּ נֶת‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ לָ בַ ש‬in Gen 3:21; the
Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24; and the eastern entrance to the garden in Gen 3:24.
168
A Conceptual Approach for the Sanctuary/Temple Motif
Scholarly literature on the sanctuary/temple motif in the Old Testament should
not develop theology exclusively upon the range and uses of a single word. Researching
concepts in biblical studies within specific narratives or frames should consider and
engage a large enough scope of intertextual relationships to establish the concept
meaningfully. Throughout the following sections, I argue that the sanctuary/temple motif
should be understood through a conceptual approach,4 which, in addition to lexeme-based
studies, builds upon previous scholarly works to answer the question of whether and how
the sanctuary/temple motif is embedded in the creation, pre-Fall, and post-Fall
narratives.5
A conceptual approach to studying the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3 can be
seen as complementary to the lexical-range exegesis and lexical-field exegesis.6 This
4
While a semantic-range study seeks to understand the range and uses of a single word, a
conceptual approach seeks to understand an idea or reality that may be expressed with a variety of lexemes.
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 27. See more details about the distinction between conceptual
and lexical research approaches in John F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of
Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation, SBT (Naperville: A. R. Allenson, 1972).
5
Due to certain methodological restrictions, in this chapter there are several exegetical issues left
untouched. As stated in chapter I, this study implemented Ryou and Talstra’s mode of synchronic analysis.
Furthermore, our theological task adopted van Wolde’s understanding of synchronic exegetical/intertextual
analysis. Thus, the conceptual approach proposed here should not be confused with the so-called “post-
critical exegesis” model of criticism, which was explored by Paul Morris, “A Walk in the Garden: Images
of Eden,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Deborah
Sawyer and Paul Morris, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 27. I have not followed the
presuppositions of critical scholarship in the reevaluation of the biblical evidence for the sanctuary/temple
motif in Gen 1-3, since they employ a diachronic exegetical analysis, Nevertheless, I have reexamined the
critical scholarship carefully because it highlights textual/conceptual features of great significance. Perhaps,
the result of this conceptual approach to Gen 1-3 is to link current textual/conceptual strategies with the
textual/conceptual contributions of both pre-critical and critical scholarship.
6
Lexical-range exegesis seeks to establish the definition of a lexeme and the extent of its range of
meanings. On the other hand, lexical-field exegesis seeks to establish the relationships between lexemes
with similar and/or overlapping meanings. See additional details in J. K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing
and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (Louvain: Peeters, 2007); Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the
Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 157 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); Milton Eng, The Days of Our Years: A Lexical
169
approach may be described in terms of two ideas. First, James F. Jordan explains that
studying individual lexemes is a critical component for understanding a biblical concept
such as creation. He writes: “Carefully defining each individual word enables an accurate
understanding of the relevant passages. But, these types of studies are focused on
defining only a single word; they are not intended to represent a full concept.”7 Second,
since this approach requires reviewing, analyzing, and organizing the available canonical
concepts, it neutralizes and avoids the so-called illegitimate total transfer,8 meaning that
“a nuance of meaning in one instance can be extrapolated to all other occurrences of a
given term.”9
In the field of linguistics, a conceptual approach may be associated with Frame
Semantics. Charles Fillmore prepared a series of studies10 in which he proposed a
conceptual approach to semantics, contending that “we have here not just a group of
individual words, but a ‘domain’ of vocabulary”11 that constitutes a concept. One may
think that, as Fillmore puts it, “the frame structures the word-meanings, and that the word
Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel, LHBOTS (New York: T & T Clark, 2011); Francesco
Zanella, The Lexical Field of the Substantives of “Gift” in Ancient Hebrew, SSN (Leiden: Brill, 2010).
7
James F. Jordan, “Frame Semantics: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Researching Concepts
in the Bible” (paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 2017), 4-5.
8
Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 218.
9
John Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological
Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 251.
10
See for example Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language,” Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 280 (1976): 20-32; Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen,
Studies in Linguistic Semantics (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1971); Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame
Semantics,” in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. Dirk Geeraerts (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
2006), 373-400.
11
Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” 378.
170
‘evokes’ the frame.”12 I would venture to suggest that one of the theological tasks of
exegesis is to pursue those semantic frameworks in the canonical biblical text in order to
elaborate and construe holistic concepts.13 This conceptual approach counteracts the risk
that John Peckham identified. He writes: “I discovered considerable discrepancies
between the exegetically apparent usage of terms in canonical context and the depiction
of the meaning and semantic range of those terms in some lexicons, theological
dictionaries, and commentaries.”14
There is a considerable agreement among scholars that although a concept might
be associated with one word more than any other, one single word is not often considered
to encompass a concept as a whole. Since the concept of the sanctuary/temple motif in
Gen 1-3 is composed of related actions and objects, the theological task comprises the
analysis of the “selected word groups by way of their usage in the canon in their contexts
to provide crucial background for engaging the wider canonical themes.”15 This is the
reason why the concept of canon plays a central role in the study of Old Testament
theology. Clements puts it like this:
At the very basic level we can see that it is because the OT forms a canon, and is not
simply a collection of ancient Near Eastern documents, that we can expect to find in it
12
Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” 378.
13
I think that Margaret Barker has provided several hermeneutical guidelines to reconsider. She
seems to follow a conceptual approach to elaborate the essentials of temple theology. Barker writes:
“Words, actions and places were used both to express and to realize temple theology. So closely did the
words, actions and places interrelate that it is not possible to separate them. . . . It was this system of temple
theology which carried the original Christian message.” Margaret Barker, On Earth as It Is in Heaven:
Temple Symbolism in the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 12. Cf. Barker, Temple
Theology, 17; Barker, Gate of Heaven, 16.
See more details of Peckham’s canonical approach to systematic theology in Peckham,
14
Canonical Theology, 250.

15
Peckham, Canonical Theology, 251.
171
a “theology,” and not just a report of ancient religious ideas. There is a real
connection between the ideas of “canon” and “theology,” for it is the status of these
writings as a canon of sacred scripture that marks them out as containing a word of
God that it is still believed to be authoritative.16
In this sense, from a canonical context and perspective,17 this dissertation has endeavored
to reevaluate some of the most common arguments for the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen
1-3.
It could be argued, consequently, that the crucial theological question that cuts
across the reevaluation of the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3 is this: What is a
sanctuary/temple? What makes a sanctuary/temple a “sanctuary/temple”?18 In order to
answer this question, the heavenly sanctuary/temple should be considered the
prototypical ideal for any other sacred space or structure/building that performs such
functions. Therefore, the more textual and conceptual correspondences with the heavenly
realm, the more legitimate the interpretation. One might endeavor to understand this
motif through a lexeme/word study. However, this method does not provide an adequate
view of the whole concept. The conceptual approach to this motif undergirds the
16
Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978),
15.
17
As stated in the first chapter of this dissertation, we have taken the text in its final canonical
form. Thus, conceptual historic developments and speculative diachronic textual reconstructions (critical
views such as the so-called P source) are not pertinent to our research. Despite considerable diversity,
canonical approaches to Old Testament theology generally focus on the final form of the individual books.
See Schultz, “What Is ‘Canonical’?,” 96. Cf. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 15-
16.
18
There is, I think, much confusion in current scholarly literature regarding these inquiries. See for
example, Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the
Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006), especially chapter 4 entitled “Temple as
Cosmos or Temple in the Cosmos,” 111-44. It is imperative to explore the theological implications of this
conceptual approach to sanctuary/temple canonical theology, just as the motif was reevaluated in Gen 1-3
in chapters I-IV of this dissertation. The core and substance of this approach reveal that it was the Garden
of Eden, the wilderness tabernacle, and later sanctuaries that were shaped to correspond with and represent
the preexisting heavenly sacred space.
172
historical (and therefore adaptable) functionality of the sanctuary/temple in the biblical
narrative.
Note, at this juncture, that the concept of the sanctuary/temple will have
modifiers/nuances according to its context (or semantic field).19 For example, the word
park, on its own, is ambiguous between the senses “moving a vehicle” and “a public
area.” Hence, the semantic frame determined by the collocation of words is essential to
the conceptual approach. This fact is explained by T. Muraoka:
A word is hardly ever used in isolation and on its own, but normally occurs in
conjunction with another word or words. Such collocations help to establish the
semantic “profile” of the word concerned. Two words which are closely related may
not wholly share their “partners,” each thus gaining its individuality. Such
information about collocations a given word enters provides important clues for
defining its senses and determining its semantic “contours.”20
Perhaps an observation from C. John Collins might be helpful here. He explains
that “Genesis never uses any word for sin or disobedience, but it would be foolish indeed
to conclude that what Eve and Adam did was not ‘sin’.”21 In the same way, a reevaluation
of the biblical evidence in Gen 1-3 reveals a cluster of words related to sanctuary/temple
actions and/or objects, thereby creating a concept/frame. “The patterns and conventions
19
“Semantic field theory makes a meaning claim that the meanings of words must be understood,
in part, in relation to other words that articulate a given content domain and that stand in the relation of
affinity and contrast to the word(s) in question.” See Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, Frames,
Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum
Associates, 1992), 3-4.
20
T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and Twelve
Prophets (Louvain: Peeters, 2002), XI.
21
Collins, Did Adam and Eve, 25-26.
173
in the ways words are combined—the collocations and idioms in which they
participate—are a significant aspect of their meaning.”22
Schachter reached the same understanding:
A visual reading of the Eden story leads to dramatic new understandings, but it has an
inherent value apart from its relationship to any given story, especially for the reader
who has difficulty relating to grand ideas through a verbal message alone.
Visualization allows readers to connect more easily and intimately with the Hebrew
Bible, facilitating direct access to the Bible's deeper themes without reliance on
scholarship, whether traditional or academic. With the insights gained through
visualization, readers come to appreciate that the Bible is more complex and
multilayered than previously realized.23
It is noteworthy to highlight some implications resulting from Davidson’s seven-faceted
theological center of Scripture, emerging from Gen 1-3 and unfolding throughout the rest
of Scripture.24 The seventh facet refers to a sanctuary/temple setting as a hermeneutical
key to interpret Scripture. Another way to approach Davidson’s proposal is to recognize
the conceptual approach while reevaluating the sanctuary/temple motif in Scripture, and
particularly in Gen 1-3. Such a study reveals that the sanctuary/temple motif is an
overarching worldview or shaping narrative/story in Scripture. Walton has argued
correctly that in order to understand the Old Testament, it is vital to consider the
connection in the ANE between the creation/cosmos and the sanctuary/temple, which is
22
Stephen L. Shead, Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 25.
23
Schachter, “Garden of Eden,” 77. Albert M. Wolters rightly writes that “to miss the grand
narrative of Scripture is a serious matter.” Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a
Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 125.
24
Davidson, “Back to the Beginning,” 4-8. The seven facets according to Davidson would be: (1)
Creation and the divine design for this planet; (2) The character of the Creator; (3) The rise of the moral
conflict concerning the character of God; (4) The Gospel covenant promise centered in the Person of the
Messianic Seed; (5) The substitutionary atonement worked out by the Messianic Seed; (6) The windup of
the Moral Conflict with the end of the serpent and evil; (7) The sanctuary setting of the moral conflict.
174
an ancient worldview concept.25 Collins has shown why this is a crucial methodological
insight: “The worldview is not an abstraction derived from the story; that is, one cannot
treat the story simply as the husk, which we can discard once we have discovered the
(perhaps timeless) concepts.”26 The above discussion does not promote a philosophical or
anthropological reading of the text, as some scholars have suggested.27 Rather, I argue
that Gen 1-3 should be read historically,28 looking for terminological frameworks, which
lead to concepts that allow one to build deeply entrenched analogical connections from
the biblical canonical perspective.
25
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 27, 123-34. One difficulty with Walton’s conclusion
that the universe is a cosmic temple is the apparent monolithic religion and/or massive uniform cosmology
in the ANE (or in Walton’s words: a cognitive environment) that seems to be implied. It should be kept in
mind, as Walton himself emphasizes when doing comparative research studies, that “when literary or
cultural elements are borrowed they may in turn be transformed into something quite different by those
who borrowed them” (see p. 27). I do not accept the idea that the biblical writer “borrowed” the worldview
concept, but rather that the biblical writer’s view shared some common elements.
26
Collins, Did Adam and Eve, 27. A number of theologians have implemented this approach to the
Bible: see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992);
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2006); Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our
Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Michael D. Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found:
The Covenant Story of Redemption (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2005); C. John Collins, “The Theology of the Old
Testament,” in The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Study Bible, ed. Lane T. Dennis (Wheaton:
Crossway Bibles, 2008), 29-31.
27
Leon Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (New York: Free, 2003), 9-11.
28
There is no scholarly consensus on whether Gen 1-3 should be read literally, historically, or
figuratively. For our study’s purpose, it suffices to state that the author intertwined sanctuary/temple
conceptual symbolism into the account of Gen 1-3. Then, this is evidence to reconsider the idea that the
only legitimate approach to Genesis 1 is to read it “literally.” Turner has argued correctly that “this position
assumes the text to be one-dimensional. Rather, it is a complex and subtle narrative that works at more than
one level, rewarding both literal and theological/symbolic readings.” Turner, “Theological Reading of
Genesis 1,” 77-78. The conceptual approach to Gen 1-3 requires a literal reading; it is not a shift to a more
figurative understanding, as Todd S. Beall seems to observe. Todd S. Beall, “Reading Genesis 1-2: A
Literal Approach,” in Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2013), 45. On the other hand, I think Tremper Longman refuses to term his method
“figurative hermeneutic,” but at the same time he frequently identifies figurative language in a
literal/historical narrative, in a genre that he has called “historical theology.” Tremper Longman, “What
Genesis 1-2 Teaches (And What It Doesn't),” in Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J.
Daryl Charles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013), 110.
175
Taking conceptual frameworks as a hermeneutical approach to Gen 1-3 concurs
partly with Walton’s statement that “in the ancient world they [the Hebrew nation] are
more likely to think of the world in terms of symbols and to express their understanding
by means of imagery.”29 However, I am not ready to go as far as he does to conclude that
this approach to reality indicates that the Hebrews understood creation exclusively in
terms of functions. As we will see below, that the ancient peoples expressed their
understanding by means of imagery does not prove that their narratives only make sense
at the abstract level of functionality. In fact, imagery conveys some sort of physical
reality. Undoubtedly, Gen 1-3 contains imagery pertaining to the sanctuary/temple, but
this imagery reports the historical and material origins of the cosmos, rather than simply
functions for worship. Since Gen 1-3 offers enough evidence to interpret the narrative
from a conceptual viewpoint, this should lead us to think of Gen 1-3 in terms of
sanctuary/temple thematic imagery ingrained in ancient Hebrew thought.
The conclusion that I advocate, which should be obvious by now, is that the
sanctuary/temple motif, as an overarching worldview/shaping narrative/story in Scripture,
is an essential approach to biblical canonical theology.30 I will endeavor to explore the
main theological implications of this approach in the following sections of this chapter.
29
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 136. Cf. Matthias Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar:
The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4, Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 77-80.
30
This does not necessarily mean that the sanctuary/temple motif is embedded in all of the biblical
narrative. Admittedly, Hasel says it clearly: “Old Testament is so rich that it does not yield a center for the
systematization or organization of an Old Testament theology.” Hasel, Old Testament Theology, 168.
Rather, using the sanctuary/temple motif as a hermeneutical key allows one to appreciate the overarching
worldview/shaping narrative/story of the Bible in more detail. Perhaps a different way to state this is by
using the expression sanctuary/temple ideology, where “ideology” is a complex of exegetical/conceptual
sanctuary/temple features that function paradigmatically within the canonical biblical narrative. Morales
(following Lundquist’s definition) comes near to this notion; see Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 2.
176
Canonical Biblical Theology of Genesis 1
The Semantic Framework of the Creation Narrative
Up to this point, this dissertation has reflected on the biblical evidence dealing
with the sanctuary/temple. Here, this theological reflection is projected onto the
following questions that were posed earlier in our research: Is creation the theological
foundation for the entire sanctuary/temple system/framework? Alternatively, is the
sanctuary/temple system/framework the theological foundation for the created cosmos?
This section will lead us to consider how a canonical biblical theology may develop the
sanctuary/temple motif as the theological framework of the creation/cosmos,31 observing
that the theology of creation is advanced in Scripture more in accord with the
sanctuary/temple motif. Let us ponder two key theological implications emerging from
the premise that the sanctuary/temple system/framework is the theological foundation for
the created cosmos, and indeed, a rationale for a canonical biblical theology of Gen 1.
Genesis 1 as a Temple Text
It seems clear after reviewing the biblical evidence in previous chapters of this
research that Gen 1 contains cultic terminology. This fact compels the interpreter of the
Cf. John M. Lundquist, “The Common Temple Ideology in the Ancient Near East,” in The Temple in
Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, ed. Truman G. Madsen, Religious Studies
Monograph Series 9 (Provo: Brigham Young University, 1984), 53; Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 17,
39-42; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading
(Bloomington: Indiana University, 1987), 44. This theological implication is not a dogmatic view on
hermeneutics. To be sure, as Waltke explains citing Hans-Georg Gadamer, “all of us interpret texts out of
tradition, a consensus, and/or under the influence of some authority. This is inevitable and rational . . . we
are aware of our own limitations and accept that others have better understanding.” Waltke, An Old
Testament Theology, 236. Cf. Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, ed. G. Barden and J. Cumming
(New York: Seabury, 1975), 248.
31
As opposed to creation being the theological foundation for the entire tabernacle system; see
177
creation narrative to inquire whether the literary and theological purpose is arranged
according to and centered on the sanctuary/temple motif. The theological implications
arising out of considering this motif as a semantic framework may be of help to
understand better when Gen 1 is labeled as a temple text.
First, what is implied by the expression “temple text” for the literary genre of Gen
1? Fretheim proposes that “Gen 1 in its present form is not a liturgical piece. It is more
probable a prose paraphrase of an older hymn. Originally it had its place in the liturgy,
but it was adapted to serve a primary teaching function.”32 Fretheim recognizes two
important aspects of the creation narrative: literary/conceptual artistry and an ancient
function in worship. However, the sanctuary/temple literary/conceptual artistry does not
necessarily indicate that the prose of Gen 1 is a paraphrase of an older hymn. Admittedly,
all Hebrew texts had their place in ancient Israel’s religious life, but this text was not
focused exclusively on worship or written primarily for a teaching function. Doukhan has
argued convincingly that in the particular case of Gen 1 the literary arrangement implies a
historical event. He writes:
This literary genre, however, must not be confused with that of a hymn, or that of a
poem which has been composed for recitation. Recitation does not automatically
imply hymnic purposes, unless we define differently the notion of hymn. We must
not forget that in distinction from a hymn which aims essentially to praise God and
which, therefore, expresses a feeling, our text is essentially a story which tells about
an event.33
32
Terence E. Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1969), 50-51. Cf. Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement,” 510.
33
Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 169-70.
178
Although scholars have seriously questioned whether Gen 1 can be taken as a
temple text,34 the centrality of sacred time and space in the narrative seems to indicate the
cultic concern of the writer. This cultic imagery is found in Gen 1 not because of its
literary worship purpose or postexilic origin, but rather, because the theological semantic
framework is commenced and interwoven at the creation event, thus reverberating
throughout the Bible in worship settings where texts were composed and used for
recitation purposes.35 This is not to say, as B. W. Anderson writes (following Paul
Humbert), that the narrative of Gen 1 was shaped over a period of many generations to
reflect on a festal week rather than an ordinary week. Anderson’s assumption that “the
creation story is most at home in a setting of worship”36 neglects the clear possibility that
the festivals celebrated in weekly cycles were reminiscences of the creation week, which
set the theological/cultic framework for the later sanctuary/temple services and festivals.
The canonical biblical perspective would indicate, rather, that weekly cycles in the Bible
are embedded in the theological semantic framework of the sanctuary/temple motif that
commenced at the creation event. Hence, it is not the creation story, but the
sanctuary/temple semantic framework that arises throughout Scripture, which is most at
34
Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 21. Cf.
Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 1:106-92;
35
There are significant examples of this semantic echoing particularly in the book of Psalms. See
Gnanamutham W. Wilson, “A Descriptive Analysis of Creation Concepts and Themes in the Book of
Psalms” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995), 124-94. Cf. Martin G. Klingbeil, “Creation in the
Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An Intertextual Approach,” JATS 20.1-2 (2009): 19-54.
36
Bernhard W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), see chapter 13 entitled “Creation Faith in Its Setting of Worship,” 208, 211.
179
home in a setting of worship.37 It is from this perspective that one must understand that
the creation themes (stories) had cultic usages and value throughout the ANE.38
Moreover, this perspective signals the vertical typological sanctuary/temple framework
between the heavens and the earth,39 already hinted in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1.40
Consequently, if the creation narrative (Gen 1) is called a temple text because of
the presence of the sanctuary/temple motif, the necessary question that follows is this:
does the theological semantic framework of the sanctuary/temple motif require a
symbolic reading of the creation narrative? Sanctuary/temple advocates often do not
hesitate to acknowledge that a cultic reading of the creation narrative (and Eden
narratives) is indeed a symbolic interpretation. Interestingly, the motif arising out of the
sanctuary/temple theological framework indicates for some scholars that the text of Gen 1
should be interpreted literally, but the narrative/event is not to be understood as
37
See for example Ps 24 as explained in J. Clinton McCann and Nancy Rowland McCann, A
Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 71-79.
Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 80. Cf. Stephen David Ricks and John J. Sroka, “King,
38
Coronation, and Temple: Enthronoment Ceremonies in History,” in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual
and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1994), 248.
39
See the following discussion in this chapter on the theological implications of the archetypal
framework of protology and eschatology.
40
In chapter IV of this dissertation, Gen 1:1 was mentioned as indicating a double reading: the
creation of this world and the creation of the cosmos. Similarly, Terry Mortenson explains John 1:1 as
follows:
The phrase “from the beginning” (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς) occurs 20 times in the NT. Of those 20 uses, 5 have the
initiation point of the cosmos in view. Never does it clearly refer to the beginning of the human race.
It appears three times in 1 John 1:1 and 2:13-14. Comparing the language of these two passages to
John 1:1-3 (which uses Ἐν ἀρχῇ, “in the beginning”) shows that John is referring to the beginning of
creation (not merely the beginning of the human race), for he speaks of Christ being in or from the
beginning and the Creator of all things.
See Terry Mortenson, “Jesus' View of the Age of the Earth,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical
Authority and the Age of the Earth, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest: Master, 2008),
319.
180
happening in actuality. In Bryan C. Hodge’s words, these temple days, although literal,
are representative of a concept, not a measurement of literal temporal units. He writes
that “they represent the consecration of what is ordered as a temple in an effort to convey
a theological concept about God, humans, and the universe in which they reside.”41
Walton, in his approach to the cultic terminology of Gen 1, also labeled it as a temple
text, meaning that “from the idea that the temple was considered a mini cosmos, it is easy
to move to the idea that the cosmos could be viewed as a temple.”42 He further contends
that “if the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that
concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole
have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.”43 For Walton, the
cultic terminology of Gen 1 indicates that the cosmos itself is a temple, and that the days
of the creation week were periods of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of
the cosmic temple. Let us explore three relevant issues from the perspective and purpose
of this dissertation in order to reevaluate Walton’s temple text interpretation.
First, Walton’s temple text interpretation is certainly an invitation to reexamine a
possible figurative approach to the imagery of Gen 1. Indeed, Gen 2-3 more explicitly
portends the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple), as
it was patterned according to the heavenly model. Yet, Gen 1 seems to be more
concerned with the general worldview of sacred time and space, having the purported
41
Bryan C. Hodge, Revisiting the Days of Genesis: A Study of the Use of Time in Genesis 1-11 in
Light of its Ancient Near Eastern and Literary Context (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 68.
42
43
181
function of preparing the reader to encounter the sanctuary/temple motif in a more
explicit conceptual framework in Gen 2-3. The reevaluation of the biblical evidence
points to an interpretation where the sanctuary/temple imagery of Gen 1 is not to be taken
as metaphorical or figurative; rather, the cultic terminology, in addition to describing the
actual origins of the cosmos, also signals a greater reality: God’s heavenly abode as it
was portrayed on earth by sacred space and time. Thus, the theological semantic
framework prompts us to think that the literal/historical44 and symbolic readings of the
sanctuary/temple imagery in the text are not mutually exclusive, as Walton proposes.
Here the meaning of the expression “a symbolic reading” revolves around the notion that
the semantic framework validates the historicity of the text while at the same time being
representative, indicative, and/or illustrative of an overarching worldview/shaping
narrative/story in Scripture: the sanctuary/temple. Turner seems to ponder this issue as he
writes,
The fact that the biblical text weaves sanctuary symbolism into its account of creation
also constitutes a significant counter to frequent exhortations from certain quarters
that the only legitimate approach to Genesis 1 is to read it “literally.” This position
assumes the text to be one-dimensional. Rather, it is a complex and subtle narrative
that works at more than one level, rewarding both literal and theological/symbolic
readings.45
One should not take Turner’s “theological/symbolic reading” in opposition to “literal
reading.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to the theological reading of the
It is important to consider the relationship between a “literal” and a “historical” understanding

44
of Gen 1. For some scholars, a historical creation day does not necessarily indicate a literal day. As Walter
M. Booth puts it: “The question of literal days is an issue more among conservatives—who accept the
creation account as historical but differ among themselves on the time element—than between
conservatives and liberals.” Walter M. Booth, “Days of Genesis 1: Literal or Nonliteral?,” JATS 14.1
(2003): 102.
45
Turner, “Theological Reading of Genesis 1,” 77.
182
cultic terminology of Gen 1 not in terms of abstract symbolism (or temple ideology)46 but
in the sense of a “conceptual reading,” where the sanctuary/temple motif becomes one
hermeneutical frame for its meaning. Admittedly, not all biblical narratives containing
the sanctuary/temple motif are symbolic in their literary purpose, yet they are evocative
of a higher reality.47 Hodge’s reasoning might be helpful. He advocates a symbolic
reading of various aspects in Gen 1-11:
Occasionally, one’s misunderstanding of the text stems from one’s misunderstanding

of language in general. As discussed before, it is often thought that if the text uses
symbolic language, what it conveys is imprecise. This is then further extrapolated to
mean that the text cannot answer modern questions at all. The flip side of this view is
to see figurative language as untrue and conclude that everything in these passages,
therefore, must be literal in order to be true. In short, the use of what is figurative is
equated with what is loosely defined and the use of the literal language is equated
with what is precisely defined. Hence, if something is not precisely defined, it is not
literal, and it is not literal, it is not true.48
In other words, no “literalistic” hermeneutic should be employed exclusively in Gen 1
(and Gen 2-3) that overlooks canonical biblical concepts emerging from intertextuality.49
46
Contra Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 199.
47
Cf. Gen 2:1-3, Ps 132, and Heb 8. See for example the sanctuary/temple semantic framework
of ‫ירים‬
ָ֖ ִ ‫שיר הַ ִש‬֥ ִ as it is explored in Christopher Wright Mitchell, The Song of Songs (Saint Louis:
Concordia, 2003), 104-10, 1188. In a particular sense, the Song of Songs is a return to Eden. See also
Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 552-53.
48
Though there is much to appreciate from Hodge’s discussion, I think that a mere symbolic
reading of the text would exclude or marginalize events the biblical author believed to be the actual past.
Hodge, Revisiting the Days, 14.
49
The ongoing debate between science and faith should be recognized. Perhaps the most common
unsettled topic in this debate is what it means to read a text literally. The current climate of scholarly
conversation maintains that a literal/historical reading of Gen 1 is conditioned by the post-Enlightenment
demands of scientism. For our case, the sanctuary/temple cultic terminology of Gen 1 does not eliminate or
adapt the literal/historical reading; therefore, it does not address issues related to the theodicy dilemma
(natural evil, animal suffering, death before the fall, etc.). Scholars usually resort to modifying the reading
approach to explain or accommodate these dilemmas. See, for example, this work, with a foreword by
Walton: Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: On Literalism and Animal Suffering (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2014), especially 25-121. Refer to the following dissertation dealing with these issues while
maintaining a literal/historical reading of Gen 1: Marco T. Terreros, “Death before the Sin of Adam: A
Fundamental Concept in Theistic Evolution and Its Implications for Evangelical Theology” (PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 1994).
183
Furthermore, the cultic terminology in the creation account does not indicate that the
event described is not literal/historical. The literary purpose of the narrative as it emerges
from this semantic framework is not merely to be a cultic document for spiritual
reflection. Thus, when Gen 1 is labeled as a temple text, it should refer to the conceptual
reading of the creation account within the sanctuary/temple semantic framework (via
intertextuality).
Second, Walton’s temple text interpretation of Gen 1 orbits around an
unwarranted and artificial conceptual description of the so-called “functional ontology.”
In fact, according to this view Gen 1 is not an account of creation but an account of
“ordering.” While Walton alerted us to the danger of “imposing modern concepts of
cosmological ontology onto the ancient world,”50 at the same time he is taking the risk of
imposing a foreign ontology onto the biblical text. One should give credit to Walton’s
analysis on the semantic range of the verb ‫[ ָב ָרא‬bārā́ ’; “create”], which includes
functions.51 However, one cannot altogether disregard the literary intent of material
origins of ‫ב ָרא‬.
ָ 52 Indeed, to consider that God would have created something without
50
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 127.
51
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 40-44; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 128-39.
52
The lexical/semantic contention for an exclusive functional ontology, as Walton himself seems
to acknowledge, is uncertain and capable of material ontology. See Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 41;
Walton, Lost World of Adam, 43. Cf. J. Stek, “What Says the Scripture?,” in Portraits of Creation: Biblical
and Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation, ed. Howard J. Van Till (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), 211-13. For example, the following passages using the verb ‫ בָ ָרא‬allude to/echo the creative action
of God with the purpose of establishing a relationship with the creation week, an event already known and
registered in a narrative (cf. Exod 34:10; Num 16:30; Deut 4:32; Pss 51:12 [Eng. 51:10]; 102:18 [Eng.
102:19]; 104:30; Isa 4:5; 41:19-20; 42:5). It is not the purpose of this relationship to explain cosmic origins.
There are additional aspects to reconsider; see Jacques B. Doukhan, “A Response to John H. Walton's Lost
World of Genesis One,” AUSS 49.1 (2011): 200-201; Noel Weeks, “The Bible and the ‘Universal’ Ancient
World: A Critique of John Walton,” WTJ 78.1 (2016): 1-28.
184
intending it to have purpose goes against the overall biblical view on creation. Walton
considers the understanding of the Hebrew word ‫[ יֹום‬yôm; “day”] as a twenty-four-hour
day to be accurate,53 and in his effort to prove the functional ontology, he regards the
ANE texts as the hermeneutical key.54
What distinguishes John Walton’s approach from those of others who attempt to
explicate the Bible from outside contemporary sources is that rather than comparing
specific items attested in some external text or object with a claimed biblical parallel,
he sees the biblical text as a product of, and hence explicable in terms of, a mentality
that the biblical authors shared with their contemporaries, irrespective of religious
differences.55
Walton observes correctly that the ANE cosmogonies are more about functionality than
material origins.56 However, the understanding of the biblical creation days as merely
functional contradicts not only the literary purpose of Gen 1 (and Gen 2-3), but also
53
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 109. In fact, Barr’s assertion is still valid. He was an Old
Testament scholar who did not believe in the book of Genesis, which gives his comments special
importance because he had no interest in defending any historical accuracy. He wrote: “Probably, so far as I
know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe
that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a
series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” James Barr, letter to
David C. C. Watson, 23 April 1984, quoted in Jay Seegert, Creation and Evolution: Compatible or in
Conflict? (Green Forest: Master, 2014), 196.
54
Walton’s methodology is evident when he first presents the ANE literature as the paradigmatic
ontological worldview, then applies these hermeneutical presuppositions to the analysis of Gen 1. See
Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 17-121 and 122-92. Cf. Noel Weeks, “The Ambiguity of Biblical
‘Background,’” JTS 72.2 (2010): 229-30. This is probably why some interpreters claim that the connection
between creation and cosmos only “is plausible on the grounds of ancient Near Eastern parallels and from
the muted, though still present, witness of the Old Testament, especially when read in the light of early
Jewish interpretation.” James Palmer, “Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle,” in Heaven on
Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander (Waynesboro: Paternoster, 2004), 14-
15.
Weeks, “The Bible and the ‘Universal,’” 1. Cf. Ronald Hendel, “John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as
55
Ancient Cosmology,” JSS 58.1 (2013): 221-22.

56
Doukhan, “Response to John H. Walton,” 197-98.
185
opposes the general accord of the canonical biblical testimony showing that
references/allusions to the creation event emphasize its material nature57 and historicity.58
Furthermore, another problem with Walton’s functional ontological view is his
proposal that before God bestowed temple/cultic functions there was a “pre-functional
cosmos,”59 meaning that there was life on earth (and therefore death) as part of a long
process of development.60 This is unacceptable theology and a notion closer to the
evolutionary theory than to the biblical narrative,61 because it implies that death is not the
consequence of sin.62
Third, Walton’s temple text interpretation contradicts the vertical typological/
paradigmatical view found in the Bible and in the rest of the ANE. The cosmos is not a
57
Gordon J. Wenham, Rethinking Genesis 1-11: Gateway to the Bible (Eugene: Cascade, 2015),
13.
58
Exod 20:8-11; Isa 40:25, 26, 28; 42:5; Jer 10:12; Ps 33:6,9; 102:25; Job 38:44; Neh 9:6; Rom
1:20-25; Col 1:16. See Doukhan, “Review of John H. Walton,” 85.
59
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 169; Walton, Lost World of Adam, 28. Walton describes
this stage of the earth elsewhere as a pre-cosmic condition, and he equates the Hebrew expression ֙ ‫ֹֹּׁ֙תהּו‬
‫ ָו ִֹּ֔בהּו‬in Gen 1:2 with the state of the cosmos prior to creation in ANE literature. See Walton, Genesis 1 as
Ancient Cosmology, 140-44. The expression ‫ ֹֹּׁ֙תהּו ֙ ָו ִֹּ֔בהּו‬does not indicate a symbolic/non-functional state of
the earth; rather, it means emptiness, “characterizing the earth as uninhabitable and inhospitable to human
life.” Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 131. Cf. Doukhan, Genesis, 51-52; McKeown, Genesis, 20-21. Consider
additionally the meaning of emptiness of ‫ ֹֹּׁ֙תהּו ֙ וָבִֹּ֔ הּו‬via a structural parallelism with Gen 2; Doukhan, “The
Genesis Creation Story,” 19.
60
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 100, 138-40. One may wonder how he explains Adam and
Eve’s status before God bestowed the “functional role” of being humans. Walton’s lost world is one filled
with bloodshed, disease, and death. The words of Christ in Mark 10:6 have to be reinterpreted, because in
Adam and Eve’s perfect state, their lost world (Walton’s) was presumably surrounded by a cruel and
merciless world.
61
Although Walton affirms that God created matter, he denies that Gen 1 has anything to say
about how/when matter came into existence. It seems contradictory when Walton argues that his temple
text interpretation is not a “dodge to accommodate evolution” while at the same time advancing the notion
that his approach is congenial to evolutionary theory. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 169-70. Cf.
Andrew Steinmann, “Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation,”
LE (2012): 1-8.
62
Terreros, “Death before the Sin,” 283-304.
186
temple, as Walton contends;63 rather, the sanctuary/temple motif interwoven in the sacred
biblical text implies a creation/re-creation paradigm in salvation history. Then, the basic
question that must be answered is this: Does creation precede the temple, or does the
temple come before creation? One should notice that while the biblical text of the book of
Genesis starts chronologically with the creation event, the unfolding of the canonical
biblical narrative ingrains vertical typology as the proper canonical perspective on
salvation history. This means that when looking at the sanctuary/temple imagery of Gen 1
(and Gen 2-3), from a canonical biblical perspective, the strong linguistic and conceptual
connection64 leads us to consider that the notion of the sanctuary/temple precedes the
event of creation. Just as the wilderness tabernacle historically had a preceding model
(Exod 25:9, 40), the creation narrative and its canonical echoes do not preclude the
previous existence of a heavenly sacred time and space, which the Bible plainly indicates
has a historical and continuous interaction with its earthly counterpart (1 Kgs 8:30-35,
41-50; 2 Chr 30:27; Isa 6:1-7). The cosmos is not a temple because this view does not
harmonize with the biblical view of a cosmic/heavenly realm of sacred space and time.
63
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 78. See also J. Richard Middleton, “The Role of Human
Beings in the Cosmic Temple: The Intersection of Worldviews in Psalms 8 and 104,” CanTR 2.1 (2013):
44-58. The idea of perceiving the heavens and the earth as a cosmic temple seems to be taken from
Levenson. He argued that “the Temple within the world is absurd because the world is itself a temple.”
This observation follows Levenson’s proposal that the temple-building project was foreign to Israelite
religion, and therefore unwanted by most people. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 89. See the
discussion below on Isa 66:1-2.
64
Walton is right when he writes that “the only [way] we can move with certainty beyond that
which was intended by the Old Testament author is if another authoritative voice (e.g. a New Testament
author) gives us an extension of meaning.” Walton, Lost World of Adam, 19. This is exactly the case when
the sanctuary/temple imagery of Gen 1 is intertextually analyzed with other biblical narratives, for
example, with Ezek 28:11-19 and Rev 22:1-5. See chapters II and III of this dissertation.
187
The sanctuary/temple vertical typology found in the Bible65 and in the rest of the ANE66
between heavens and earth is too well known and studied, for example by Souza,67 to
warrant a review here. However, Souza pondered this issue like this:
Are such intertextual relationships an indication that the sanctuary should be

interpreted as a type of the cosmos/world/creation? Or is there another explanation
capable of doing justice to the biblical data? As noted above, since the Bible portrays
the sanctuary and its services as the means by which the Lord would deal with the
sins of his people and restore the covenantal relationship, the answer to the first
question is a negative one.68
It seems implied in Souza’s negative answer that the creation should also not be
considered as a type of the sanctuary/temple. From any intertextual directionality,
Souza’s conclusion is derived from a post-lapsarian perspective of the sanctuary/temple.
He claims that the Bible “portrays the sanctuary and its services as the means by which
the Lord would deal with the sins of his people.” Yet, this statement is partly true,
because the canonical biblical narrative does not describe the sanctuary and its services
exclusively to deal with the problem of sin. Vertical typology from a pre-lapsarian
perspective enhances one’s view of the chronological order and function of the
65
See for example, Heb 8:1-5; 9:23-26. William L. Lane commenting on Heb 9:23 writes: “The
additional statement that the heavenly prototypes of the earthly tabernacle and its cultus required cleansing
‘by better sacrifices than these’ clearly implies that the heavenly sanctuary had also become defiled by the
sin of the people. Although this implication has been dismissed as ‘nonsense’ . . . , it is consistent with the
conceptual framework presupposed by the writer in 9:1-28. His thinking has been informed by the Levitical
conception of the necessity for expiatory purification.” Lane concludes “that the effects of sin also extend
to the heavenly world is a corollary of the solidarity that the writer perceives between ultimately reality in
heaven and its reflection on earth. The cultus on earth is inseparably linked to the situation in heaven (cf.
8:5; 9:7, 11-12, 23; 12:18-24).” William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47b (Dallas: Word Books, 1998), 247.
See also Papaioannou and Giantzaklidis, Earthly Shadows, Heavenly Realities, 31-263.
66
Anderson and Bishop, Contours of Old Testament, 201; Waltke, An Old Testament Theology,
546.
See Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple," for ANE background 26-82, and for the biblical
67
evidence 83-482. Cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 113-14; Elaine Ford, “Heavenly Temple and
Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978): 179-99.
68
188
sanctuary/temple system/motif, meaning that the sanctuary/temple system/motif does not
necessarily exist solely to deal with the problem of sin. Souza concludes:
Again, the occurrence of verbal, conceptual, and iconic connections between the
earthly sanctuary and creation does not appear to portray the latter as the antitype of
the former. Rather on the basis of the broad context of the Scriptures, creation as it
appears in relation with the sanctuary functions as the operational system according to
which the entire ritual system and the theology derived from it can make sense. And
this happens when creation is integrated with salvation/redemption.69
Souza points out correctly that the biblical evidence seems to warrant that creation is not
an antitype of the sanctuary/temple. However, it is more likely, in considering the
intertextual directionality of the biblical/canonical semantic framework through vertical
typology, that the operational system is the sanctuary/temple motif. This observation is
reasonable not only because of its chronological precedence in the biblical canonical
narrative, but also because the creation by itself does not constitute a teleological
rationale for salvation/redemption. Accordingly, “it is not creation that speaks about the
temple with the intention of conveying ideas of salvation; it is the temple that speaks
about creation in order to emphasize the cosmic scope of salvation.”70
Therefore, if it is correct to understand that the heavenly sanctuary/temple concept
chronologically and canonically precedes the creation event of Gen 1,71 the theological
69
70
Doukhan, “Response to John H. Walton,” 202.
71
Jer 17:12 says: ‫שנּו‬
ָֽ ֵ ‫“( ִכ ֵּסֶ֣א כָ ִ֔בֹוד ָמ ָ֖רֹום ֵ ָֽמ ִראשּ֑ ֹון ְּמקָ֖ ֹום ִמ ְּק ָד‬A glorious high throne from the
beginning is the place of our sanctuary” NKJV). This text deserves special attention because it has been the
subject of various interpretations. Critical commentators often suggest that this verse is not Jeremiah’s. On
the one hand, they are divided on whether this passage refers to Jerusalem’s Temple or contradicts the
prophet’s perception of it (cf. Jer 7:1-15; 26:1-6). See Andrew W. Blackwood, Commentary on Jeremiah:
The Word, the Words, and the World (Waco: Word Books, 1977), 147-48; Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 106-7; John L. Mackay, Jeremiah 1-20: An Introduction and Commentary
(Fearn: Mentor, 2004), 519. On the other hand, other commentators advance the notion that the vocabulary
is related to the heavenly realm. See Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah: Based on the Revised Standard Version
(NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 244-45. Although it is disputable, there are four reasons to
189
implication is that there is a historical correspondence between the Old Testament
realities and the New Testament eschatological fulfillment.72 This intertextual
directionality of the biblical semantic framework does not endorse the theory that the
creation story originated in postexilic times;73 this proposal has been already reassessed.74
The overarching worldview/shaping narrative/story dealing with the sanctuary/temple
motif is one of the ways God reveals himself to the human race in history, and thus it is
debatable in Walton’s view the notion that the cosmos is a temple. Souza aptly states that
“from a prophetic/eschatological perspective, the antitypical/archetypical temple to which
the earthly tabernacle pointed is not the earth/world nor the cosmos as a whole—or
heavens, for that matter—but the heavenly sanctuary of God located in heaven.”75
reconsider Jer 17:12 as describing a primal and heavenly motif/reality that reverberates through Scripture.
First, ‫ ִכ ֵּסֶ֣א כָ ִ֔בֹוד‬is an expression connected to YHWH’s heavenly throne (Isa 6:1-3; Ezek 1:26-28; 43:2-5;
Ps 11:4; Isa 66:1; cf. Exod 33:18-23; Ps 24:7-10). Second, ‫ מָ ָ֖רֹום‬is a word that speaks of YHWH’s
dwelling place in heaven (Jer 25:30; Isa 24:18; 33:5; Ps 102:20 [Eng 10219]; cf. Job 16:19; 25:2; 31:2; Pss
7:8 [Eng 7:7]; 148:1). Third, ‫ ֵ ָֽמ ִראשּ֑ ֹון‬seems to echo a point prior to the wilderness tabernacle. William
McKane seems to be right when he writes that “‫ ֵ ָֽמ ִראשּ֑ ֹון‬does nor refer to a historical beginning, but to a
transcendental origin which temporalities cannot contain.” William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and Graham Stanton, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 1:406. If it is correct to relate this word with ‫אשית‬ ָ֖ ִ ‫ ְּב ֵר‬of Gen 1:1, this
relationship would harmonize with the idea that there is only one glorious throne preceding the creation in
Gen 1, that is, the heavenly sanctuary/temple (cf. Exod 15:17; Prov 8:22-23). Fourth, consequently ‫ְּמקָ֖ ֹום‬
‫שנּו‬
ָֽ ֵ ‫ ִמ ְּק ָד‬would reveal, as Ps 68:34-36 [Eng 68:33-35] seems to imply, that “Jeremiah understood that the
Lord, not the temple itself, was Israel’s only hope (cf. 14:8; 50:7).” See F. B. Huey, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, NAC 16 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 175. Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-
20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 793.
Souza’s dissertation has provided further evidence to identify the sanctuary/temple heavenly motif in this
passage. Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple,” 338-442.
72
Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 377-88; Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative,” 102-19.
73
This view is a foundational premise of higher biblical criticism that claims that “it is now
increasingly agreed that the Old Testament in its final form is a product of and response to the Babylonian
Exile.” Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1997), 74-75.
74
See for example Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the
Babylonian Exile, trans. Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960), 175-200.
75
190
The persistent occurrences of the sanctuary/temple motif (conceptually and
linguistically interwoven with creation terminology/imagery) function to stress the idea
that the sanctuary/temple motif operates as the foundational and overarching semantic
framework from which the theology of redemption articulated in creation/re-creation
finds its ultimate rationalization: redemption of humanity from the devastating
consequences of sin. Hence, this discussion leads us to the conclusion that the
sanctuary/temple system/framework is the theological foundation for the created cosmos,
and one of the hermeneutical keys to develop a canonical biblical theology of Gen 1.
The Seventh-Day Sabbath as Theological/Canonical Framework
Scholarly studies about the Sabbath are generally focused on its origin, history,
and theological/canonical implications. As the first two are well established and
reexamined,76 this reflection will focus on the third aspect. The Sabbath passage in the
creation narrative is characterized by a manifold collection of purposeful concepts,
encircling God’s initial plan of relationship, love, and presence. The Sabbath, as it is
understood through the sanctuary/temple framework, announces neverending blessings to
the human family, as well as looking forward to the covenant and redemption. The
sanctuary/temple implications of the seventh-day divine rest are often overlooked when
scholars focus on the most common characteristics of the creation event. It is said about
the creation Sabbath that “God not only provided a divine example for keeping the
76
It is commonly observed that from the middle of the seventh century BCE, military invasions of
Israel brought not only destruction but also the introduction of foreign cultural influences that challenged
Israel’s religio-historical traditions. While this observation is true, it is not entirely correct that this context
gave rise to the creation narrative. Instead, the relationship between the seventh day of the creation week
and the sanctuary/temple seems to indicate that this narrative pertains to a religio-historical relationship of
antiquity. Contra Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 54.
191
seventh day as a day of rest, but also bless[ed] and set apart the seventh day for the use
and benefit of man.”77 Although this statement is completely true, the bigger picture has
been overlooked: God’s cosmic power and sovereignty are God’s indisputable attributes.
It is from the perspective of the sanctuary/temple motif that the fullest meaning of God’s
rest/cessation on the seventh day can be understood. Hence, the role of the seventh-day
Sabbath within the theological framework of the sanctuary/temple motif is helpful to
establish its canonical contours. In other words, because the creation narrative and the
Eden narratives are transmitted by means of a sanctuary/temple semantic framework
intentionally incorporated by the author into these narratives, the literary and theological
purpose of divine and human rest becomes the hermeneutical key to their interpretation.78
The theological centrality of the seventh-day rest in the creation account becomes
more evident from the perspective of the sanctuary/temple motif. For example, Marc
Vervenne termed Gen 1:1-2:4a from the point of view of this theological framework “the
cosmic liturgy of the seventh day.”79 Specifically, a canonical theology of the Sabbath
rest is better understood when considering the operational framework interwoven in the
Old and New Testaments alike. In this particular instance, Walton is correct in observing
that the theological import of the seventh day is better observed in the context of a
functional account.80 Reading God’s Sabbath rest through the sanctuary/temple motif
77
G. H. Waterman, “Sabbath,” ZPEB 5:183; Hasel, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” 24.
78
“The first three chapters of the book of Genesis are made up of two compositional units which
hinge around Gen 2:4. The units in question generate both their meaning and their function within the
context of the composition Gen 1-3. The relationship between both segments is essential since they only
disclose their meaning in relationship with one another.” See Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 52.
79
Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 53.
80
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 72; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 178-84.
192
necessarily implicates a theological function. The interpretation of Day Seven should not
be limited to a material account of origins. According to Nicholas P. Miller, Walton’s
observation seems to contribute appropriately to this issue. Miller writes: “A functional
view helps to clarify that the Sabbath is not merely an addition to the six days of creation.
Rather, on the Sabbath day God created the ongoing temporal order and organization
within which creation operates. Thus the seventh day is firmly a part of the week of
creation and not merely an afterthought tacked on to the end.”81 Nevertheless, the
sanctuary/temple motif does not endorse the notion that “Gen 1-2 is an account of the
origins of sacred space rather than an account of the origins of the material cosmos.”82
For example, intertextual analysis between Gen 1 and sanctuary/temple-building accounts
does not follow the same reasoning in the sense of being focused merely on functions.
The semantic framework in these two accounts describes material and functional
realities.83 Thus, let us explore three aspects that describe the sacred function of the
seventh-day Sabbath within the theological framework of the sanctuary/temple motif.
Nicholas P. Miller, “A Scholarly Review of John H. Walton's Lectures at Andrews University

81
on the Lost World of Genesis One,” AUSS 49.1 (2011): 192.

82
83
Walton’s thesis of functional creation is helpful overall, although it is evident that exclusivity of
functional origins over material origins is beyond the text in its theological framework. Walton’s discussion
of vocabulary and semantics leads him to see “evidence of a functional orientation in Genesis 1, an
orientation in which ‘to create something’ means to give it a function.’” Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient
Cosmology, 139. Walton, Lost World of Adam, 35-45. Several aspects call for caution in implementing this
view because it tampers with its canonical intent. Gen 2:1-3 indicates that God “ceased . . . from his all
work” (‫אכתָ֖ ֹו‬
ְּ ָ‫ ִמכ‬. . . ֙ ‫בת‬
ֹּ ‫)וַיִ ְּש‬, implying a divine activity that involved more than “giving functions”:
it required “material activity.” Second, if God’s resting place/space came into existence only after the
functions were given, God was neither at rest nor in control. God’s sovereignty and cosmic kingship cannot
be limited to the narrative of Gen 1-3. Walton’s contribution is significant in the sense that he has paid
scholarly attention to the functional aspect of the creation narrative. The functional dimension of the
seventh day is often neglected partly because the account of material origins has been emphasized and
apparently “nothing material takes place on day seven.” Walton, Lost World of Adam, 46. Walton is right
about insisting that God inaugurated a function on the seventh day. Gen 2:1-3 is not an appendix, a
postscript, or a mere afterthought. The sanctuary/temple background adds a meaningful theological
193
First, the notion of sacredness permeates the entire creation account and therefore
the entire canonical framework. Indeed, the sanctuary/temple motif offers a subtle
connection between the sacred space/time and the stability/governability of the created
order.84 As soon as the sacred space/time is lost in Gen 3, Sabbath rest becomes the
redemptive theological framework, with the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness
tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple) representing the reality of God’s heavenly abode. This
connection demonstrates that the biblical author considered that cosmic order followed a
cultic order by God’s institution of sacred place/space. Frank H. Gorman explains how
cult is situated in the structure of the cosmos:
The priestly writers have placed the construction and meaning of sacred space in the
context of the construction and meaning of cosmic order. Just as Yahweh constructed
and created order in seven acts of speech, so Yahweh gave instructions for the
construction of sacred space in seven speeches. So also Yahweh gave instructions for
the sacrificial activity to be performed in sacred space in seven speeches. Moses
constructs the tabernacle in seven acts and ordains the priesthood in seven acts.85
Defilement of the sacred space/time (for example, the sanctuary/temple) is of such
importance within this theological framework because it threatens the kingship/rulership
perspective to the Sabbath rest. In fact, interpreting the seventh day of the creation narrative with no
awareness of a cultic framework hinders the message God wanted to convey. The biblical canonical
semantic framework of the sanctuary/temple motif seems to mark the divine rest in Gen 2:1-3 as the climax
of the creative acts.
84
The role of sacred place/time in Scripture is revealed by several sevenfold patterns: Exod 25-31
(seven speeches: instructions to build the tabernacle); Exod 40:17-33 (seven acts of Moses: the construction
of tabernacle); Lev 1-7 (seven speeches: instructions to sacrificial activity); Lev 8 (seven acts: ordination of
priesthood). As soon as the sacred place/space becomes operational for the first sacrifices (Lev 9), a
problem is raised by two individuals who introduce sin and defile the sacred place/space (Lev 10). It is not
a coincidence that seven acts of speech in the creation narrative (Gen 1) are followed by two individuals
who introduce sin and defile sacred place/space (Gen 3). See further in Sarah Stokes Musser, “Sacrifice,
Sabbath, and the Restoration of Creation” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2015), 97-139.
85
Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 52.
194
of YHWH.86 In other words, Sabbath rest representing sacred space/time in the creation
narrative is one constitutive element of God’s notion of order. Divine rest is the
establishment of God’s sovereignty, and the preeminence of God’s kingship/rulership
secures sacred space and time. Through the seventh-day Sabbath (rest), God institutes the
sacredness of time, and God’s presence transforms the newly created Garden into a
sacred place, that is, a sanctuary/temple: a ‫[ תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ; “shape,” “form,” “pattern”] of
the heavenly reality.
The above leads us to an important second point: Sabbath rest reveals God’s plan
to establish sacred time and space on earth as it is in the sanctuary/temple model in
heaven. The historical and canonical import of the sacred cosmic time/space implies that
divine rest87 is the paradigm for human rest. Divine rest as the model for human rest is
better appraised through the semantic framework of the sanctuary/temple motif.
86
Some scholars have ventured proposals about the significance of time and space in Gen 1-3.
Critical interpreters argue that with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, “holy time” (Sabbath)
became more important than “holy space/place” (sanctuary/temple). See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in
Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 87-88; Samuel L. Terrien, The
Elusive Presence: The Heart of Biblical Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 393. The
reasoning behind this proposal is that “holy time has a ‘strongly universal character,’ while holy place has a
‘strongly particular character.’” Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3,” 248. This distinction is partly correct because
divine rest in Gen 1 reveals the cosmic dimension of space/time; it speaks of both universal and particular
sanctuary/temple functionality.
87
Skinner, Genesis, 35. In fact, while for our contemporary minds rest follows work, according to
the biblical text “the Sabbath as a day of rest, as a day from abstaining from work, is not for the purpose of
recovering one’s lost strength and becoming fit for the forthcoming labor. The Sabbath is a day for the sake
of life.” See Abraham J. Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: The Noonday,
1994), 14.
195
Divine Rest
The Sabbath in Gen 2:1-388 is described only in terms of God. The theological
implication that emerges is that the text is dealing with the doctrine of God (theology and
not anthropology).89 “By resting on the seventh day, God is thereby shown to have
entered into the time of the created order.”90 Divine rest prompts active sacred intimacy
through sovereign governance. The traditional understanding of the seventh day neglects
that divine rest is a relational marker that enhances the governance purpose of God over
creation. This perspective contrasts with the notion that sovereignty implies
detachment.91 Thus, there is a juxtaposed connection between divine presence, intimacy,
rest, and the sanctuary/temple.92 “It [Sabbath] is also tied to the notion of the presence of
Yahweh. Since the tabernacle, which is patterned on the divine plan, reveals that presence
88
As noted in chapter IV of this dissertation, the amount of scholarly literature dealing with the
origin of the seventh day and the Sabbath as institution is far too great to review it here. Although it has
been observed that the seventh-day Sabbath occurs with significant consistency throughout the Old
Testament, there is only one explicit reference to the Sabbath in the Psalms/Wisdom literature: Ps 92. See
Richard M. Davidson, “The Sabbatic Chiastic Structure of Psalm 92” (paper presented at Society of
Biblical Literature, Chicago, November, 1988). Cf. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC (Dallas: Word
Books, 1990), 460-71. According to Andreasen, it is a multifaceted research area where no satisfactory
answer has been found: Andreasen, “Recent Studies,” 456. In view of this, it should not be surprising that
we turn to the theological task of reconsidering a sanctuary/temple semantic framework for a better
understanding of the Sabbath as a cessation/rest day.
89
Raoul Dederen, “Reflections on a Theology of the Sabbath,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and
History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand and Daniel Augsburger (Washington: Review and Herald, 1982), 296. This
leads to the conclusion that the creation and Eden narratives are theocentric. The subject is the Creator God
(‫ֱֹלהים‬
ָ֖ ִ ‫)יְּ הוָ ֥ה א‬, the One who exercises will to create everything, including humanity. “Gen 1:1-2:4a is not
anthropocentric.” See Fishbane, Text and Texture, 11.
90
Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 63.
91
Tonstad, Lost Meaning, 33.
Richard M. Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return to Eden,” AUSS
92
27.1 (1989): 5.
196
and shares in the role of the heavenly temple to proclaim the sovereignty of the deity, so
the Sabbath shares in the proclamation of the sovereignty of Yahweh.”93
The Old Testament contains some references to the heavenly courts of the
sanctuary/temple. These passages (1 Kgs 22:19; cf. Job 1; Ps 82; Isa 6; Ezek 1, 40-48;
Zech 3) depict God’s activity in heaven as directly involving human affairs on earth.94
Andreasen seems correct that in the Old Testament, there are no seasons of rest in the
heavenly courts. Moreover, he categorically concludes that “there is nothing in the Old
Testament statements about the Sabbath which would warrant their applications to the
heavenly situation.”95 However, God in his heavenly rest should not be viewed as
disengaged, but as busily occupied with the universe’s stability. This may be a possible
explanation for the origin of the motif of divine rest in the creation account.96 Inasmuch
as God rested when he created the heavens and the earth, God wanted to rest after
creating the nation of Israel, which would enjoy rest as well. As Jürgen Moltmann notes,
“the God who rests in the face of his creation does not dominate the world on this day: he
‘feels’ the world; he allows himself to be affected, to be touched by each of his creatures,
He adopts the community of creation as his own milieu.”97
93
Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3,” 247.
94
95
96
Another explanation that is often proposed by scholars is drawn from ANE literature. It has
been assumed that the author of Gen 1-3 knew some cosmogonies in which deities rested after their
creative activities. However, the idea that the biblical divine rest parallels the ANE myths is not congruent
with the biblical notion of rest. While in the biblical account the origin, purpose, and nature of God’s rest
are sovereign, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian gods struggle to reach rest. See Walton, Ancient Near
Eastern Thought, 114, 157-64, 194, 196-99, 215.
97
Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation, trans. Margaret Kohl
(London: SCM, 1985), 279.
197
Moreover, divine rest is found in the Bible exclusively within the
sanctuary/temple framework. On the seventh day “God ceases to create. Yet God is still
active.”98 The Sabbath rest, being the climax of the creation narrative,99 is inherently
related to a divine cessation/rest from work in a just completed and created world. It
should be mentioned that while the creative acts during the first six days were called
good, the Sabbath was declared holy. This means that holiness is inherently founded on
God’s activity, and not merely on time. Timothy Watson puts it like this:
It would, however, be difficult to support from Scripture the idea that the seventh day
was holy simply because the Sabbath involved “time.” Genesis 2:1-3 states that the
seventh day was blessed and sanctified “because in it He rested from all His work
which God had created and made.” Thus, it is God who sanctifies the day, not its
temporal nature. The focus of this narrative is on God, not time. And it is his
“finishing” and “resting,” rather than a movement from spatial to temporal realities,
that is emphasized.100
What is crucial is the cultic nature of the relationship between divine cessation/rest and
the recent created world:
This holy seventh day is not part of the heavens and the earth that can be
comprehended by the senses. Holy time is a spiritual, not a physical matter. It can
only be experienced, not observed. By concluding with God resting, blessing and
sanctifying, the account makes it clear that any view of the world that excludes the
spiritual is totally inadequate. Without that, God’s work would not be finished.101
98
God is the subject of four verbs; see Doukhan, Genesis, 68.
99
The writer of the creation account does not place the Sabbath rest in a vacuum: “the importance
of this passage to the creation story is emphasized by its location at its very end.” Isaac Kalimi, Jewish
Bible Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 107. Cf. Doukhan,
“The Genesis Creation Story,” 31; Norman R. Gulley, Satan's Trojan Horse: God's End-Time Victory
(Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2004), 195; Andreasen, Rest and Redemption, 71.
100
Timothy Watson, “Is Heschel's Sabbath Biblical?,” AUSS 40.2 (2002): 269.
101
Turner, Back to the Present, 30. Dietrich Bonhoeffer coherently expresses this idea: “In the
Bible ‘rest’ really means more than ‘having rest.’ It means rest after the work is accomplished, it means
completion, it means the perfection and peace in which the world rests, it means transfiguration, it means
turning our eyes absolutely upon God’s being God and toward worshiping him.” Bonhoeffer, Creation and
Fall, 40.
198
This conclusion is further supported and confirmed by the literary/thematic
emphasis on sacred time in the creation account.102 Westermann rightly observes that “by
fitting the motif of rest into the creation work, P has given creation the character of an
event that moves through time towards its goal.”103 Thus, the creation narrative takes the
form and meaning of a historical event, implying that the God who acts in history is the
same God who acts in creation.104 The historicity of God’s Sabbath rest viewed through
the sanctuary/temple semantic framework (in biblical canonical narratives) becomes a
redemptive covenantal motif.105 Specifically, the Sabbath is a palace in time.106
Walton’s suggestion that “rest” in Gen 2:1-3 “is more a matter of engagement
without obstacles than disengagement without responsibilities”107 might be true.
Otherwise, an aesthetic and contemplative definition of “rest,” though it is right, seems to
leave the impression that a greater perspective is absent.108 God’s rest in the context of
the sanctuary/temple semantic framework seems to signify the redemptive hope and the
102
The relationship between the created world (space) and time is found from the very beginning
of the creation narrative. “The first silence precedes time, the second sanctifies it.” Fishbane, Text and
Texture, 9.
103
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 89-90.
104
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 90.
105
106
Heschel, The Sabbath, 12. Cf. Watson, “Is Heschel's Sabbath Biblical?,” 272.
107
108
This seems the case in McKeown, Genesis, 28.
199
divine sovereignty of his cosmic kingship/rulership,109 a ‫[ תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ; “shape,” “form,”
“pattern”] of the heavenly reality.110
Human Rest
In 1933 Von Rad wrote that “among the many benefits of redemption offered to
man by Holy Scripture, that of ‘rest’ has been almost overlooked in biblical theology.”111
Forty years later, Kaiser’s assessment of Von Rad’s opinion concluded that there had
been no substantial progress.112 However, today, more than eighty years after Von Rad’s
assertion, the motif of rest is regaining a prominent role in biblical theology, particularly
from the perspective of sanctuary/temple theology.
The theological locus of human rest should be understood from God’s activity in
Gen 2:1-3 and within the sanctuary/temple semantic framework. Although there are some
109
In this sense Walton seems to be correct when he insists that Sabbath rest means that God “is
taking command, that he is mounting to this throne to assume his rightful place and his proper role.”
Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 75. However, it is important to mention two differences that Walton
seems to overlook. Doukhan aptly observes: “The ancient Near Eastern cosmos becomes functional after
the rest, while in Genesis 1 the world is made functional before the Sabbath rest (a point that Walton
consistently makes). Note also that the gods’ rest is only achieved when humans are created for the purpose
of working for them, while in the biblical story God rests after he created humans.” See Doukhan, “Review
of John H. Walton,” 87.
110
Does “divine rest” in the creation account necessarily require the notion that the cosmos is a
temple, and thus, that the event of creation was a cosmic-sized cultic act? No. Viewing the Sabbath rest of
the creation account in light of the sanctuary/temple motif seems to indicate that God’s creative/sovereign
work on earth extends and continues beyond Gen 1-3.
111
Von Rad, Problem of the Hexateuch, 94.
112
200
contextual differences throughout this frame,113 the original nature and purpose of
sabbatical rest are retained for humankind.114
The relationship between human observance of the weekly seventh-day Sabbath
and the sanctuary/temple motif is indisputable.115 This relationship is central to
understand Sabbath holiness. Divine blessings are usually bestowed upon people and
animals, and lead to fruitfulness and prosperity. It is puzzling, then, that the day when
God ceased from His work is set apart as holy and blessed. Why did God set apart the
seventh day? Wenham writes that “the seventh day is the very first thing to be hallowed
in Scripture, to acquire that special status that properly belongs to God alone.”116 It is
precisely divine holiness that makes the human seventh-day rest blessed. Indeed, the
textual evidence of the semantic framework equates the Sabbath and the sanctuary/temple
113
There is a clear shift in emphasis from divine work in Gen 1:1-2:1-4a to human work in Exod
25-40. Fishbane observes two indicators of this shift: First, while in the creation narrative the Creator God
(‫ֱֹלהים‬
ָ֖ ִ ‫ )יְּ הוָ ֥ה א‬is the subject of the account, Moses stands out in the construction of the tabernacle;
moreover, while in the creation narrative the Spirit of God ( ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִִ֔ ‫ )וְּ ֶ֣רּוחַ א‬intervenes at the beginning of
the creative process, it is also the Spirit of God (‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִִ֔ ‫ )וְּ ֶ֣רּוחַ א‬who inspires Bezalel’s role in constructing
the tabernacle (Exod 31:3). Second, and more important, Sabbath rest in the creation account is a divine
prerogative, while in the construction of the tabernacle it is human cessation from labor. See Fishbane, Text
and Texture, 12.
114
The Sabbath day, and therefore the cessation/rest, is described in Scripture as a creation
ordinance, that is, a mandate given to humanity before its embodiment in the Mosaic covenant with the
people of Israel. See Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord's Day,” 346. This implies that the cultic cessation/rest
was instituted before the building/inauguration of the sanctuary/temple on earth. Thus, the temporary nature
of the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple) in Israel would point back to
the time of creation, when there was no Israel, but still a cosmic sanctuary/temple where the cultic
cessation/rest found its place.
115
For example, Laansma observes that numerous passages depict the Sabbath celebration in the
sanctuary/temple (2 Kgs 11:4-12; 16:17; Isa 1:10-14; Lam 2:6). Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest,” 68. This
is especially evident in the exilic period. Andreasen writes that “at the time, we learn that the Sabbath was
understood to be closely associated with the now lost temple, and we may presume, therefore, that the
exiles considered an appropriate Sabbath celebration to be a temple’s celebration.” Andreasen, The Old
Testament Sabbath, 241.
116
201
in holiness, “elevating the sanctity of the Sabbath to the level of the sanctuary.”117 One
further point to recognize is the unique sanctifying character of time. The fact that, before
sin, no literal or physical dimension (sanctuary/temple) is explicitly declared as holy
“suggests that man can have fellowship with God at any place.”118 God created an Eden
on earth in order to expand his fellowship already prototypically established in the
heavenly Eden. However, this rest-fellowship was subject to a crucial reality: a sinless
creation. The introduction of sin marred this rest-fellowship,119 and God manifested
himself later throughout the same edenic semantic framework in a particular and physical
place: the sanctuary/temple.
Now, what do the blessedness and holiness of the seventh-day Sabbath mean for
humankind? In the words of Sakae Kubo, “the Sabbath is first of all a memorial of God’s
friendship to man, a monument of God’s presence with him.”120 Yet, these two attributes,
blessedness and holiness, that were given to this period of time do not stem from
humankind’s behavior during the Sabbath; instead, the blessedness and holiness of the
seventh-day Sabbath depend upon God’s activity of sanctuary/temple rest—God’s
tabernacling presence. “The sanctification of the Sabbath institutes an order for
humankind according to which time is divided into time and holy time. . . . By
sanctifying the seventh day God instituted a polarity between the everyday and the
117
Jared Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews
and its Priestly Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 46.
118
Moskala, “The Sabbath,” 61.
119
120
Sakae Kubo, God Meets Man: A Theology of the Sabbath and Second Advent (Nashville:
Southern, 1978), 16.
202
solemn, between days of work and days of rest, which was to be determinative for human
existence.”121
The seventh day is granted to humankind as a sacred space in history, one which
is not bound to time or place.122 “To participate in the rest in the seventh day is to
participate in the continuous creative activity of Elohim.”123 This divine activity reenacts
the re-creation of heavens and earth according to the primal order. The sanctuary/temple
semantic framework places the Sabbath rest for humans in the perspective of the
boundless cosmic kingship/rulership of God. The sovereignty of God’s kingship/rulership
encompasses the whole universe; it incorporates the heavens and earth. Specifically,
sanctuary/temple rest as portrayed in Gen 2:1-3 (and reflected in the Old Testament)
shows a connection between heavenly and earthly activities: human rest teleologically
emulates and/or echoes the divine rest.124 Andreasen argues that the creation narrative
does not develop a heavenly Sabbath as the antitype of the earthly Sabbath. Andreasen’s
assertion is based upon the assumption that divine rest is only discussed in connection
with the creation week because there is no certainty whether “the divine Sabbath rest
121
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 171. Gane comments that the holiness is available wherever the
person is. He writes that “just as the sanctuary was the physical place where the Lord and the Israelites
were especially connected, Sabbath was the time that showed in a special way that God made holy the
people who were his because He had redeemed them from Egypt.” Roy E. Gane, Altar Call (Berrien
Springs: Diadem, 1999), 136.
See Fernando L. Canale, “Philosophical Foundations and the Biblical Sanctuary,” AUSS 36.2
122
(1998): 184-86.
123
Vervenne, “Genesis 1:1-2:4,” 53.
124
The Sabbath is an important element that connects the divine and human categories of reality.
The dynamic interaction of Gen 2:1-3 and Exod 20:8-11 yields the cosmic harmonious relationship
between humankind’s rest and God’s; it reveals the structural and functional correspondence between the
earthly rest and the heavenly rest. “Just as the tabernacle was built along lines specified by divine decree,
so too in the sequence is the human Sabbath institution modeled on the divine pattern (Exod 20:8-11;
31:17).” See Wallace, “Genesis 2:1-3,” 246.
203
continued henceforth, or whether God returned to some other work on the following first
day.”125 It should be admitted, however, that in the strict sense of the term the Sabbath
rest was not a temporary vertical type. Roy Gane explains this issue:
If the Sabbath were a temporary vertical type, we would expect some indication in the
Bible regarding the end of its typical significance as we have in the case of the earthly
sanctuary. The earthly temple lost its significance when the original heavenly temple
took the place of the earthly as the location toward which worship should be directed
(Heb 7-10). But there is no such indication that a similar dynamic applies to the
Sabbath.126
The relationship between earthly and heavenly realities is crucial to understand
the seventh-day theological framework of human rest. The goal of human rest follows the
perennial divine rest, meaning that the rationale of human rest on the seventh day goes
beyond Gen 2:1-3 and should be traced back to God’s eternal rest. Davidson notes:
In the Old Testament the main noun for “rest” (Hebrew menuchah; Greek katapausis)
also means “resting place,” and is equated with Mount Zion (the city of Jerusalem),
and in particular, with the place of God’s throne in the sanctuary or temple. Thus it’s
no wonder that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, immediately after mentioning the
Sabbath rest in Hebrews 4, the author invites us to “come boldly to the throne of
grace [in the heavenly sanctuary, God’s “resting place”].127
In this sense, some elements in Meredith G. Kline’s interpretation of the creation
account128 seem to capture the theological significance of the connection between earthly
and heavenly realities. Quite apart from Kline’s conclusion that the creation narrative
125
126
Roy E. Gane, “Sabbath and the New Covenant,” JATS 10.1-2 (1999): 322.
127
Richard M. Davidson, “Transformed in Christ by Entering God's Rest,” AR 3 (2005): 11. Cf.
Gallos, “Katapausis and Sabbatismos,” 294-306.
128
Meredith G. Kline’s interpretation is known as “literary framework.” This interpretation
proposes that the creation account should be read figuratively with no indicators of its chronology or
duration. See Meredith G. Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” WTJ 20 (1958): 146-57. See similar views
in Mark Ross, “The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1.2::3,” in Did God Create in
Six Days?, ed. Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall (Taylors: Southern Presbyterian, 2005), 113-20; Blocher,
In the Beginning, 49-59; D. F. Payne, Genesis One Reconsidered (London: Tyndale, 1964), 5-29.
204
does not intend to indicate the chronology or duration of the acts of creation, he proposes
a two-register cosmology in which the biblical drama is developed by constant interaction
between the heavens and the earth.129 Kline’s eschatological development features the
Garden of Eden as the sacred center of the earthly reproduction of the heavenly reality;
humankind’s fall radically affected the way the replication of holy heaven on earth was to
unfold. Considering that the seven days of the creation week are “seven times” the
twenty-four hours of a solar day, and if the Garden of Eden follows the sanctuary/temple
semantic framework and vertical typology, this would signify that the seventh day on
earth emulates and/or echoes a heavenly “time,” not time measured by astronomical
signs. “In the Genesis prologue the unending nature of God's Sabbath is signalized by the
absence of the evening-morning formula from the account of the seventh day.”130 Divine
rest is not limited by the time factor (Gen 2:1-3), as opposed to human rest (Exod 20:8-
11). Then, the conceptual parallelism between lower and upper registers (in Kline’s
words) is evidence that the creation followed a paradigmatic pattern; it does not indicate
that the creation week is to be understood figuratively. Nevertheless, one may agree
moderately with Kline:
Rounding out the series of acts of spatial and temporal replication in the Genesis
prologue is the reproduction of the pattern of the Creator's time in the instituting of
the Sabbath ordinance. This ordinance superimposed a special temporal grid on the
calendar of days and seasons marked by astronomical sequences. The Sabbath was
designed for symbolic purposes within the covenant community, as a sign calling to
consecration and the imitation of God and as a seal promising consummation of the
129
Kline thinks that “the six days fall naturally into two triads, one dealing with creation kingdoms
and the other with the creature kings given dominion over them. . . . The earthly products of the first three
days mirror one or another characteristic of the invisible heaven, the above realm.” See Meredith G. Kline,
God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006),
232.
130
Meredith G. Kline, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” PSCF 48.1 (1996): 11.
205
kingdom to the covenant keepers. By this promise the Sabbath reminds us that lower
register history as a whole is patterned after upper register time in that it is a
consummation-directed eschatological movement. The weekly scheme of the Sabbath
ordinance portrays this overall seventh-day-bound design of lower register time while
it symbolically mirrors the archetypal heavenly creation week itself.131
Moreover, Doukhan persuasively argues that since the Sabbath is called a sign
(Exod 31:13; Ezek 20:12) “the Sabbath is intended to be a language that speaks to
believers not only about a reality that involves them now but also a reality that is beyond
themselves.”132 The Sabbath celebration/keeping/observance is not only a remembrance
of creation in the past and an earthly hope for redemption in the future, but does allude to
cosmic/universal realities.133 Indeed, “the themes of creation, Sabbath, redemption and
sanctification are inseparably linked together, and with the Sabbath’s covenant aspect
they reach into the eschatological future.”134 In this respect, it is important to recognize
that the rest promised in the Sinai covenant not only comes to resemble that enjoyed by
God upon the completion of his work in Gen 1-3,135 but typifies the cosmic nature of the
Sabbath as an institution. Human celebration/keeping/observance of weekly rest, echoing
God’s rest, is therefore connected theologically with the sanctuary/temple canonical
development of Heilsgeschichte.136 To fully understand Sabbath rest, it is necessary to
131
Kline, “Space and Time,” 11-12.
Jacques B. Doukhan, “Loving the Sabbath as a Christian: A Seventh Day Adventist
132
Perspective,” in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi, Daniel J.
Harrington, and William H. Shea (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 150. See also Hasel, “Sabbath in the
Pentateuch,” 34; Philip E. Hughes, “Rest,” BEB 2:1839.
133
Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 122-23.
134
Hasel, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” 21, 33-35. See also Dederen, “Reflections on a Theology,”
297.
135
This theological implication goes against the often argued idea that “there is no indication that
136
men and women participate in God’s Sabbath, either now or in the future.” See Laansma, “I Will Give You
206
explore the eschatological development/fulfillment of the cultic festal cycle of the
sanctuary/temple in salvation history and covenant history.137 Hans K. LaRondelle
follows this reasoning and writes that “the connecting link between God’s covenant of
creation with his covenant of redemption is God’s Sabbath (Gen 2).”138 Hence, it should
be recognized that divine rest becomes an expression of faith and a holy experience of
communion139 for the covenantal people of God.140
To summarize thus far, the divine rest (heavenly “time”) and human rest on the
seventh day (earthly time) are among the conceptual cornerstones of the sanctuary/temple
semantic framework. Significantly, Sabbath rest regarded in its canonical development
becomes the cultic motif/reality that connects heavens and earth, thus protology and
eschatology.141 “The future event of God’s salvation may be actualized in the Sabbath,
Rest,” 65. However, it is correct to understand that in the Old and New Testaments, human rest is not
God’s rest, but a projection into the eschatological and complete restoration beyond Heilsgeschichte.
137
“The temple was to be the one place on earth where the people could enter into the rest of God
and again be in the Sanctuary where the Lord God dwelt.” See Ross, Recalling the Hope, 89. Haran
indicates that in priestly terminology any hallowed article or object (in this case, time) can be considered a
“sacred place” or “sanctuary.” Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry
into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1985), 15.
138
Hans K. LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology
(Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2005), 11.
139
De Vaux explains that “its [Sabbath rest] characteristic feature lies not in the regularity with
which it recurs, not in the cessation of work, nor in the various prohibitions which the cessation of work
implies: all this is found, more or less, in other civilizations. Its distinctive trait lies in the fact that it is a
day made holy because of its relation to the God of the covenant; more, it is an element in that covenant.”
140
Roy Gane notes that Exod 31:16-17 is one of the two references to “a covenant forever between
God and the Israelites as a whole during the period of their wandering in the wilderness.” The other
reference is found in Lev 24:8. See Gane, Altar Call, 164-65. See also Brevard S. Childs, The Book of
Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 416.
141
The structure of the book of Genesis is valuable to understand elements in protology and
eschatology from the perspective of the creation and sanctuary/temple relationship. Doukhan has proposed
the following chiastic structure (ABCB1A2):
A Eden: Adam (1-2)
207
the sabbatical year or even in the institution of the Jubilee (Ps 92:4; Jer 25:9-12; Isa 61:1-
2; Dan 9:2, 24-27).”142 The sanctuary/temple semantic framework of Gen 1 (and Gen 2-
3) definitely shows that there is a divine ordering of history such that as history moves
toward its consummation, it moves towards the pivotal goal of God’s sanctuary/temple
rest.143 As Walter Kaiser puts it: “The rest which God gives is at once historical
(Canaan), soteriological (salvation), and eschatological (the kingdom and our reign with
Christ).”144 From the Christian perspective, Sabbath rest in the New Testament bears the
same theological significance as the weekly Sabbath rest in the Old Testament145 because
“the on-going applicability of the Sabbath, which God instituted at Creation, has not
ceased because the Sabbath has never functioned as a temporary type.”146 Richard C.
Barcellos notes:
B From Eden to Babel (3-11)

C From Babel to Promised Land (12-22:19)
B1 From Promised Land to Egypt (22:20-48-20)
A2 Prospect of Promised Land: Israel (48:21-50:26)
“This is precisely the message registered in the framework of the book of Genesis, which begins
with creation and ends with the promise of God’s visitation.” Doukhan, Genesis, 27, 31. The presence of
God from creation to the Exodus experience is the sign of the covenant; God secures rest in the Promised
Land. This pattern thus established finds its consummation in the second advent of Christ to the earth. The
series of Psalms called “apocalyptic Psalms” (93-100) describes a moment when YHWH alone is king,
reigning over all peoples and lands. Kaiser observes that the theme of “divine rest is set in the context of
these Psalms celebrating the second advent of our Lord,” where the kingdom of God is eschatologically
tied up with the inheritance of the land. See Kaiser, “Theology of Rest,” 143-45.
142
Doukhan, Hebrew for Theologians, 206.
143
Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord's Day,” 349.
144
145
Although one of the main differences between the Old and New Testament forms of Sabbath
rest is the perspective of the land, the similarities favor the continuity of the Heilsgeschichte. See Laansma,
“I Will Give You Rest,” 66-70. Additionally see Robert M. Johnston, “Soul Rest and the Seventh Day
Rest,” in Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala
(Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews
University, 2016), 367-68; Roy E. Gane, “Sabbath and Sanctification,” JATS 22.1 (2011): 14-15.
146
Gane, “Sabbath and the New Covenant,” 317.
208
The writer of the Hebrews sees God’s rest from the foundation of the world not as
inactivity, or only as God’s enthronement over the world. He sees it as pointing
forward and as something for man to enter. It is not only something that points to
Christ and then is swallowed up and ceases to exist once He comes to live, die, and be
raised from the dead. The author sees God’s rest as a state of existence that could be
attained. He sees it as present symbol of a type of life man did not enjoy via creation
but is brought to only by redemption. He sees it as eschatological life for man.147
In the final restoration to Edenic conditions (re-creation), the eschatological
Sabbath reunites the divine and human rest of the Old and New Testaments,148 as it was
originally intended at creation.149 Only the eschatological Day of Atonement, or Yom
Kippur, could accomplish this.150 “If the Sabbath is a kind of Tabernacle in time, no less
is the Tabernacle a Sabbath in space.”151
Kaiser, commenting on this topic, concludes:
The rest of God is distinctively his own rest which He offers to share first with Israel
and through them with all the sons of men who will also enter into it by faith While
there were antecedent aspects of that final rest to come, chiefly in the divine rest
provided by the inheritance of the land of Canaan, because it was not accompanied by
the inward response of faith to the whole promise of God, of which this rest was just a
part, the land of Canaan still awaits Israel and the people of God The rest of God, lost
in the fall, again rejected by the older wilderness generation and subsequently by their
erring children is still future to us in our day.152
147
Richard C. Barcellos, Better than the Beginning: Creation in Biblical Perspective (Palmdale:
Reformed Baptist Acamedic, 2013), 144.
148
Gallos, “Katapausis and Sabbatismos,” see especially the section “Eschatological and
Soteriological Remarks Concerning Hebrews 3 and 4” in 173-87. Cf. Von Rad, Problem of the Hexateuch,
102.
149
Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 225. In the same vein, one might observe through the
sanctuary/temple semantic framework that the characterization of God’s Sabbath rest in Gen 2 has a cosmic
outlook, related as it is to the creation of the world. See also Robinson, Origin and Development, 420. This
observation also indicates that the seventh day in Gen 2:1-3 is a creation “ordinance.” Some arguments
against this conclusion are set forth in A. T. Lincoln, “Sabbath Rest, and Eschatology in the New
Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D.
A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 345-60.
150
Richard M. Davidson, “The Good News of Yom Kippur,” JATS 2.2 (1991): 15.
151
William Henry Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,
AYBC 2 (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 692.
152
209
Thus, the Sabbath rest is a symbol of salvation, a return to Eden.153 This does not mean
that the creation week was not a historical event. This theological implication is derived
from the idea that the biblical way of thinking portrays the theological/spiritual lessons as
rooted in historical events, and not vice versa.154 In this sense, one may agree with Barth
when he claims that “the history of the covenant was really established in the event of the
seventh day.”155 Consequently, the conceptual framework of the Sabbath rest becomes
central in God’s redemptive and sacred history (Heilsgeschichte) due to the fact that “the
Sabbath is the actualization of a past event upon the basis of which can be thought the
miracles of tomorrow. Hope is made of memory.”156
Now, the theological framework of the Sabbath rest would indicate that just as the
created sacred space (the Garden of Eden and by extension the whole earth) was modeled
according to a heavenly ‫ת ְּבנִ ית‬,

ַ the entrance of sin into the world became a cosmic
defilement, a state that required purification.157 Since the “sacred space must be protected
153
Felix H. Cortez, “Creation in Hebrews,” AUSS 53.2 (2015): 299.
154
There is a common notion in critical scholarship that the story of creation is told confessionally.
For example, according to Westermann, this means that “praise of God, the Creator, does not presuppose
the creation story. The present narrative is, in fact, a developed and expanded confession of faith in God as
Creator.” Claus Westermann, A Thousand Years and a Day: Our Time in the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1962), 3. Cf. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 210-11. Yet, the present position
and form of the creation narrative certainly prioritize the historical event over the human worship
experience. Doukhan is justified in suggesting: “Hebrew thinking takes the reverse direction and prefers, on
the contrary, to place history and existence before spiritual and theological constructions (Exod 24:7).”
Doukhan, “Response to John H. Walton,” 202; Doukhan, Hebrew for Theologians, 192-93.
155
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. J. W. Edwards and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1958), 3:217.
156
157
Events such as the ‫[ מַ בּול‬mabbûʹl; “flood”] should be placed in this theological framework.
The entrance of sin into the world did not affect only the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬, but in fact the entire created earth (Gen
6:3-6). It is a faulty argument that a local cataclysmic flood would be intentionally described as a global
flood for rhetorical purposes and theological reasons. Contra Tremper Longman and John H. Walton, The
Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2018), 91-99. The sanctuary/temple framework implies a cleansing of the earth’s space as a global event. It
210
and cleansed when necessary,”158 biblical narratives describing destruction of the
earth/land and purification of the sacred space are correlated by means of the
sanctuary/temple motif. This is a rationale for covenant and redemption within the
semantic framework of the creation account.
Creation, Redemption, and Covenant
It is extremely significant that the biblical narrative starts with Genesis and not
with Exodus, with creation and not redemption.159 This is, the biblical narratives of God’s
dealings with his chosen people are preceded by the creation account and the origins of
humankind. Similarly, the Bible ends with a new heaven and a new earth. “From a
literary point of view, it is the created order that constitutes a grand ‘envelop structure’
for the whole of Scripture with the theme of creation/recreation enclosing everything
else.”160 In this way, the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1 (and 2-3) reveals the framework
of covenantal redemption. A superior perception—and, more importantly, the
canonical/biblical theological framework—starts with a preexisting heavenly
sanctuary/temple (before creation in Gen 1) and ends with a sanctuary/temple (after re-
creation in Rev 21). This is a striking observation because the beginning of the biblical
narrative is not about the origin of the nation of Israel, but about human beginnings. At
should be noted also that this perspective is taken in Peter’s (2 Pet 2:3-7, 10, 13) and John’s words (Rev 19-
22). The dual character of salvation, “it both saves and destroys,” will be explored in the next section,
“Creation, Redemption, and Covenant.”
158
Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 51.
159
Fretheim, God and World, xiv.
160
Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 149. Cf. Claus Westermann, Beginning and End in the Bible, Facet Books
Biblical Series 31 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 37; Doukhan, “The Genesis Creation Story,” 13.
211
the same time, the canonical/biblical theological framework is about God’s cosmic
sovereignty. There is no other far-reaching scope possible. Sailhamer explained it in this
way:
The opening of the Pentateuch, along with its echo in Exodus 15, moves us in two
directions, suggesting an answer to the problem of the relationship between kingdom
ideas and covenants. If we view the notions of covenant and kingdom together with
the biblical idea of universal (Gen 1:1) and local creation (Gen 2), one might say that
creation and preparation of ‘the earth’ (Gen 2), is recounted as the proper context
within which one must view the covenant blessings; that is, obedience is required of
those who live in the Land (Gen 2:16-17; 3:24), and at the same time all creation
(Gen 1:1) is subject to God’s dominion, that is, kingship.161
Indeed, creation and re-creation, the beginning and end of Scripture, strongly suggest the
presence of the sanctuary/temple motif. This in turn would indicate that the historical
development in the biblical canon of God’s redemptive acts is framed by an overarching
worldview/shaping narrative/story in Scripture: the sanctuary/temple.
At this stage of our study, one may inquire about the relationship between
sanctuary/temple and covenant (redemption) in a canonical/biblical theology of
creation.162 The fact that the tabernacle came to be constructed after God’s people
obtained freedom from slavery does not limit either the covenantal relationship between
God and his people or the sanctuary/temple framework of functions/purposes prior to
Sinai.163 As was stated previously,164 the sanctuary/temple system/framework is the
theological/canonical foundation for the created cosmos.165 Thus, in order to explore a
161
Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 582.
162
For an examination of recent canonical approaches to Old Testament theology see Schultz,
“What is "Canonical"?,” 83-99.
163
Contra Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 31-32.
164
See chapters II and III of this dissertation.
165
Margaret Baker has made a valuable contribution on the Old Testament temple theology; see
further in Barker, Temple Theology, 17. For a New Testament perspective see John W. Welch, The Sermon
212
biblical/canonical theology of the creation narrative in relationship to redemption and
covenant, three points of discussion deserve special attention.
First, the argument has already been made that the conceptual backdrop of the
creation narrative (and Eden narratives) is the sanctuary/temple motif.166 Consequently,
this leads us to affirm that a canonical biblical theology develops the sanctuary/temple
motif as the theological framework of the creation/cosmos,167 recognizing that the
theology of creation is advanced in Scripture more in accord with the sanctuary/temple
motif.168 If this premise is correct, then the sanctuary/temple system/framework is the
theological foundation for the history of salvation, and indeed, a rationale for a canonical
biblical theology of Gen 1.
Second, creation and redemption should be considered as two different ideas in
canonical/biblical theology. Yet, complementary to this affirmation—indeed, more
on the Mount in the Light of the Temple (England: Ashgate, 2009), 15-37. In this study, John Welch argues
that themes, vocabulary, allusions, and rituals associated with the Jerusalem temple provide the unity and
authority for the Sermon on the Mount.
166
See chapters II-IV of this dissertation. For additional recent studies see Dinah Dye, The Temple
Revealed in Creation: A Portrait of the Family (Rio Rancho: Foundation in Torah Publishing, 2016); Dinah
Dye, The Temple Revealed in the Garden: Priests and Kings (Rio Rancho: Foundation in Torah Publishing,
2018).
167
As opposed to the creation as the theological foundation for the entire tabernacle system;
168
While the sanctuary/temple motif is the system/framework by which the entire created cosmos
came into existence, the notions of creation and redemption are correlative. See Bernhard W. Anderson,
“Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith,” in Creation in the Old Testament,
ed. Bernhard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 6. From a canonical/theological perspective,
creation is the seed of redemption. Cf. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption
and Law in Exodus,” Int 45.4 (1991): 354-65; Terence E. Fretheim, “‘Because the Whole Earth is Mine’:
Theme and Narrative in Exodus,” Int 50.3 (1996): 229-39; Hans H. Schmid, “Creation, Righteousness, and
Salvation,” in Creation in the Old Testament: Issues in Religion and Theology, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 102-17. Morales argues that “creation and redemption are the pillars of
biblical theology, but redemption serves and fulfills the former while creation gives meaning and substance
to the latter.” Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 51.
213
specifically because of it—they are equally interdependent, as the history of salvation is
developed within the sanctuary/temple semantic framework.169 Furthermore, the
historical reality shown by its canonical intertextuality portrays redemption (and
169
This observation goes against the idea that the creation narrative depends on ANE cosmologies,
and therefore as a tradition handed down, the biblical account is not saying anything new. This assertion
holds the view that creation is never the object of a revelation. For example, Westermann argued that there
is a polarity between creation and redemption that can be traced through the whole Bible, that their
relationship is extremely varied, and that they cannot be separated from each other. See Westermann,
Creation, 123. One cannot agree with Westermann because the rationale for his conclusion assumes that
the notion of creation emerged out of a spiritual (soteriological) reflection. Cf. Westermann, Creation, 113-
14. Similar positions were held previously by Gerhard Von Rad, “The Theological Problem of the Old
Testament Doctrine of Creation,” in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 53-64. Cf. also Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul's Letters and
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002), 12-14. Doukhan observes that this hermeneutical
presupposition harmonizes with the Marcionite approach to the Bible, opposing redemption to creation, the
Savior to the Creator. Hence, the idea that creation emerged out of a spiritual (soteriological) reflection
“betrays the classic Marcionite paradigm that prioritizes spiritual redemption over material creation.”
Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 224, see entire discussion in 217-36; Doukhan, “Response to John H.
Walton,” 202. The problem of the subservience of creation to redemption is that, as H. Wayne House has
pointed it out, “this view suffers from taking the problems of human beings as a starting point in
theological inquiry rather than the purposes of God. It tends toward individualizing faith so that creation is
not seen as a corollary of redemption with its different emphases and purposes. This form of interpretation
is a result of the secularization of theology and the overemphasis of one theological perspective to the
exclusion of others.” H. Wayne House, “Creation and Redemption: A Study of Kingdom Interplay,” JETS
35.1 (1992): 12. This dissertation has found that the biblical semantic framework through vertical typology
has as its operational system the sanctuary/temple motif, which precedes the historical event of creation in
the biblical canonical narrative. This does not endorse Westermann’s and Von Rad’s idea that creation is
subordinated to soteriological considerations (soteriologische Verständnis des Schopfungswerkes).
Although from Walton’s temple inauguration view the temple precedes creation, Walton’s historical point
of reference for “temple” are the rituals later instituted in ancient Israel (the wilderness tabernacle and/or
Solomon’s Temple). Cf. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 87-92; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient
Cosmology, 187-92. Our findings also indicate that the canonical concept of the sanctuary/temple precedes
the creation; however, the theological rationale for this conclusion is based on radically different grounds.
Specifically, the sanctuary/temple semantic framework operates within the biblical understanding of the
pre-lapsarian and post-sin function and historical reality of the heavenly sanctuary/temple. In view of the
fact that the eschatological redemption is understood as a historical re-creation, the creation event described
in Gen 1 is not a mere theological reflection, but a real event in history, derived from a higher heavenly
reality. Thus, creation and redemption can be understood as two different historical elements.
Heilsgeschichte presents them as equally interdependent, though the motif/reality of the sanctuary/temple
canonically precedes the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1-3). It should be admitted that it is
beyond human theological reflection (and revelation) to place the historical origin of the sanctuary/temple
at some moment in God’s eternal existence. See the section above entitled “Genesis 1 as a Temple Text” in
reference to Jer 17:12.
214
covenant) in terms of creation/re-creation,170 the creation/re-creation events being the
canonical frame of the sanctuary/temple motif.
The intertextual directionality of the biblical semantic framework through vertical
typology has as its operational system the sanctuary/temple motif. This pattern is
established by the fact that the sanctuary/temple reality/motif chronologically precedes
the historical event of creation in the biblical canonical narrative (Ezek 28:11-19). Also,
it should be mentioned that the creation by itself does not constitute a teleological
rationale for salvation/redemption, although “to believe in the actual and future
redemptive activity of God presupposes the belief in creation. Redemption implies
creation.”171 On the other hand, creation itself does not entail redemption/covenant
because the teleological rationale for creation does not include the atonement of sin.172
170
In pre-exilic times, for example Exod 34:10, the verb ‫[ בָ ָרא‬bārā́ ’; “create”] “is occasionally
used to refer to God’s redemptive activity in history. See Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood, 55.
171
172
Scholars have long discussed whether creation implies covenant. For Wellhausen, the answer is
affirmative: Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian, 1957),
338, 339, 385. However, in contrast, Blenkinsopp remarks that “the Sinaitic stipulations concerning the
sanctuary and its appointments end with the injunction to observe Sabbath as a perpetual covenant and a
sign of creation which ended with the Sabbath of God (Exod 31:12-17). From the context the inference
would appear to be that just as God rested after creating the world so must Israel after constructing the
sanctuary. We are not thereby obliged to adopt the view of Wellhausen that creation implies covenant.”
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 281. De Vaux argues that creation is the first action in the history of
salvation, with the Sabbath being the sign of the covenant. This covenant, as understood by De Vaux, was
abolished by Jesus’ new covenant, and therefore its sign (the Sabbath) became obsolete. See De Vaux,
Ancient Israel, 481, 483. However, it should be considered, against De Vaux but following his reasoning,
that from the perspective of the sanctuary/temple semantic framework, the first action of salvation was to
elect. In Eph 1:4 (cf. 1 Thess 1:4; 2:13; Rom 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9) the apostle Paul affirms this fact. Peter T.
O’Brien explains Paul’s words: “To say that election took place before creation indicates that God’s choice
was due to his own free decision and love, which were not dependent on temporal circumstances or human
merit. The reasons for his election were rooted in the depths of his gracious, sovereign nature.” Peter T.
O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 100. Then, the first act of
salvation before creation is in actuality an election into eternity, in which only God himself existed and
governed from his sanctuary/temple. This election came to be effectuated as covenant when sin marred
creation. Cf. Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 582-83.
215
Yet, the interdependence between these two notions emerges when one realizes that the
creation/re-creation is patterned after the sanctuary/temple motif. This is why an isolated
study of the notion of creation does not portray or convey ideas of redemption, but the
study of creation/re-creation in light of the sanctuary/temple semantic framework does
indeed portray and convey these ideas.173
Third, the relationship between creation and redemption is foundational for an
eschatological re-creation. This is precisely what Doukhan perceives as he writes:
Thus creation is an eschatological concept in that it teaches that, since the beginning
has been the fact of God, the end belongs to him. The eschatological dimension does
not lie in the nature of the event of creation but rather in the faith of God as Creator.
To believe that God is the Creator leads one to believe in a God who has power over
Creation, hence over history, in a God to whom the last word belongs. Faith in the
Creator leads to faith in the Savior, not that creation is the same idea as redemption,
but rather because both “concepts” make necessary the same quality of faith.174
The sanctuary/temple motif in the Bible portrays the eschatological ultimate event of re-
creation as the destruction of the earth and purification of the sacred space: in other
words, as judgment. The rationale for this is the dual character of salvation: “it both saves
and destroys.”175 This is an anti-creative aspect of biblical judgment. In this regard, Gage
claims that the “prophetic judgment sustains an antithetically parallel relationship to the
creative word.”176 These two dimensions are canonically interwoven through the biblical
173
Thus, the sanctuary/temple motif depicts creation in order to emphasize the cosmic scope of
salvation. See Doukhan, “Response to John H. Walton,” 202.
174
Doukhan, “Literary Structure,” 231-32.
175
176
See Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 42. This aspect is also perceived by Von Rad, who believes
that the story of the flood shows an eschatological world judgment. Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary,
129-30. Davidson similarly affirms that the connections between Gen 1-2 and the global nature of the flood
“serve to theologically connect protology (creation) and eschatology (judgment/salvation) in the opening
chapters of Scripture. The flood is an eschatological step-by-step ‘uncreation’ of the world and humanity
followed by a step-by-step ‘re-creation’ of the new world.” See Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence
for the Universality of the Genesis Flood,” in Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is
216
narratives dealing with judgment: “To truly save, God must create anew, and the creation
of the new necessitates the destruction of the old.”177 John Polkinghorne is surely correct
in emphasizing that our hope of purification and redemption lies in the purging fire of
judgment. He remarks:
Just as a plant in a darkened cave will respond to the slightest glimmer of light that
draws its growth in that direction, so we may hope that the slightest positive response
to the light of God’s presence will be enough to initiate in us the final work of
salvation. Properly conceived, judgment is the divine antidote to human sin, just as
resurrection is the divine antidote to human mortality.178
Tellingly, it is within the sanctuary/temple semantic framework that the day of the
atonement or Kippur179 reactualizes the eschatological re-creation/heavenly Kippur,
which celebrates the cosmic judgment of God.180 Doukhan’s understanding of the cosmic
judgment of God is significant. He correctly establishes the association of judgment and
creation as the essence of the Day of Atonement:
Both the rituals of Kippur, as prescribed by Leviticus 16, and the traditional Jewish
prayers testify to this dual concern with judgment and creation. The biblical
symbolism of the ritual of Kippur has implications that extend beyond individual
destiny. Not only are the people of Israel forgiven of “all of their sins” (Lev 16:21-
22), but the sanctuary itself is purged of all the sins and declared atoned (verses 16,
Vital to the Doctrine of Atonement, ed. John T. Baldwin (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 89-90. A
further example of this anti-creative aspect of biblical judgment may be found in intertextual linkages
between Gen 6-9, Exod 20:11, and Rev 14:7. John T. Baldwin affirms that given the judgment context of
Rev 14 as an end-time message in preparation for the eschaton, and in view of the fact that the global
undoing nature of the flood (judgment upon creation), it is possible that “by alluding to the Genesis flood in
the phrase ‘springs of water’ John might be also implicitly warning of the imminence of a second global
undoing of creation—this time, as indicated in Revelation 19:20-21:1, not by water, but by fire.” See John
T. Baldwin, “Revelation 14:7: An Angel's Worldview,” in Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a
Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine of Atonement, ed. John T. Baldwin (Hagerstown: Review and Herald,
2000), 27-28.
177
178
John Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World (New Haven: Yale University,
2002), 132.
179
Lev 16:30. See Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, 126-29.
180
Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 124. Cf. Davidson, “Yom Kippur,” 4-27.
217
33). For the ancient Israelites, this “atonement” of the sanctuary was more than a
spring cleaning. Rather, it symbolized, in biblical thought, the atonement of the whole
earth, because the ancient Israelites understood the Temple and the tabernacle as the
“microcosm” of creation.181
The sanctuary/temple motif framing the biblical narrative from the book of Genesis to the
book of Revelation connects the new heavens and the new earth with the creation of the
New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2; cf. Isa 65:17-18).182 The New Jerusalem becomes to the new
heavens and the new earth what the Old Jerusalem never succeeded in being to Israel and
the world.183
Thus, the historical/canonical development of creation/re-creation theology within
the sanctuary/temple semantic framework reaches its climactic stage when the Garden of
Eden is once more Adam and Eve’s home (Rev 22:1-5). “Redemption is a way of
achieving the original telos of creation despite the Fall.”184 The purpose of eschatological
redemption is to re-create humankind by returning the redeemed to an edenic setting.
This is already anticipated from the linguistic and conceptual connections with biblical
narratives dealing with liberation, particularly the exodus event: a semantic pattern that
establishes Bible prophecy.185 George Athas notes the following fact:
181
Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 133. Cf. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 78-99.
182
Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 365-73. Cf. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence,
89-90.
183
Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 576.
184
Kline, “Space and Time,” 4. The relationship between creation, redemption, and eschatology is
rooted in the same historical reality: “When the New Testament considers the eschatological restoration of
all things, it does not speak of this as the eventual realization of Creation but as the final restoration of
God’s initial Creation that was marred by sin.” Dederen, “Reflections on a Theology,” 300.
185
Jon Paulien, The Deep Things of God (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2004), especially 39-
45. See also Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 19; David Melvin, “Making All Things New (Again):
Zephaniah’s Eschatological Vision of a Return to Primeval Time,” in Creation and Chaos: A
Reconsideration of Hermann Gunkel's Chaoskampf Hypothesis, ed. Richard Henry Beal and Jo Ann
Scurlock(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 269-81.
218
The creation of Israel implies their liberation and, therefore, their distinction from
Egypt. Yet, the narrative does not end there. Beyond the Exodus event itself lies
Israel’s encounter with Yahweh at Sinai, where they are given the law. It is this law
that further defines the function of Israel, giving greater resolution and solidity to the
order God was bestowing on them: they are to be a kingdom of priests who serve God
and relate to him in a dynamic way. The tabernacle is a physical representation of this
relationship. It had defined spaces of specific dimensions within which particular
furniture was situated and particular functions took place. It also demonstrated
Yahweh’s intention of forging a relationship with Israel, as is seen in the final few
verses of Exodus, when Yahweh’s glory fills the tabernacle (Exod 40:34-35).186
The sanctuary/temple semantic framework portrays redemption as re-creation.
The song of the sea in Exod 15:17 offers two foundational theological implications. First,
this poem post-figures the Eden narrative (if not the whole of the creation narrative).187
Second, this poem pre-figures the cultic context of the heavenly sanctuary and foretells
God’s original/ultimate plan of “returning to the mountain” where the immense crowd of
the redeemed will sing a song of victory (Rev 15:2-4).188 It is noteworthy that the
eschatological redemption also portrays the re-creation of humankind (and of the heavens
and the earth) by destroying sin (and unrepentant sinners), thereby inaugurating anew the
Garden of Eden and letting the redeemed enter into the eternal sabbatical rest of the holy
city.189
George Athas, “The Creation of Israel: The Cosmic Proportions of the Exodus Event,” in
186
Exploring Exodus: Literary, Theological and Contemporary Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner and Paul R.
Williamson (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 57, see also 51-56.
Sailhamer notes that “the author of Exodus 15 understands the garden of Eden in Gen 2 in
187
terms that anticipate the tabernacle sanctuary (Exod 21-31).” Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 577,
581.
188
Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 143. Cf. Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch, 573.
189
Interestingly, the theme of creation as re-creation when converged in the same semantic
framework may give the impression of simultaneity. Doukhan explains that “the past event of the Exodus
will be reactualized in the return from the Exile (Jer 31:1-8). The past event of the return of the exile will
be reactualized in the final salvation (Ezek 37:21-28). The more specific battle of Jezreel of the past (2 Kgs
10:11) will be reactualized in another future battle (Hos 1:4-11).” Doukhan, Hebrew for Theologians, 206.
219
Preliminary Conclusions
The sanctuary/temple semantic framework presents the seventh-day Sabbath as a
covenant sign.190 Childs is very right in stressing the following:
The tabernacle represents the fulfillment of the covenant promise: “I will make my
dwelling with you . . . I will be your God and you shall be my people.” But the actual
sign of the covenant is the Sabbath. Therefore, the observance of the Sabbath and the
building of the tabernacle are two sides of the same reality. Just as the Sabbath is a
surety of Israel’s sanctity (Exod 31:13), so the meeting of God with his people in the
tabernacle serves the same selfsame end (24:43). There can be no genuine tension
between these two signs. The witness of the tabernacle and that of the Sabbath both
testify of God’s rule over his creation (31:17).191
The heavenly sanctuary/temple existing before the creation (at the beginning of the
biblical narrative) and the renewed Eden in the holy city emerging out of the re-creation
(at the end of the biblical narrative) represent the semantic framework of Heilsgeschichte.
In the biblical narrative of salvation history, “the Sabbath is a covenant sign through
which God has pledged that the present proleptic experience of freedom, liberation, joy
and communion on the weekly Sabbath is but a foretaste of the ultimate reality in the
glorious future.”192 Eugene H. Peterson fittingly concludes:
When we want renewal and restoration of mind and spirit, want to recover intimacies
in family and marriage, our usual practice is to leave the city for the country, or
wilderness, or resort—some variation on Eden or paradise or Arcadia that we are apt
to call “heaven on earth.” And there seems to be biblical precedence for it. Our sin
resulted in expulsion form the garden, shouldn’t salvation be a restoration to it?
Gardens are quiet. In gardens we stroll and contemplate, smell the roses . . . and
commune with God in the cool of the evening. A garden is life blessed and ordered
by God. Paradise is a garden in Genesis. Love is a garden in the Song of Songs.193
190
Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest, 139.
191
Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, 541-42. Cf. Doukhan,
“Loving the Sabbath as a Christian,” 162.
192
Hasel, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” 37.
193
Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination
(San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 173-74.
220
In summary, just as rest was the climactic goal and culmination of the creation
narrative, it will also be the eschatological goal and culmination of God’s work of re-
creation.194
Canonical Biblical Theology of Genesis 2-3
The Semantic Framework of the Narratives of Eden
The purpose of the present study was to reevaluate major current scholarly
arguments for and against allusions to the sanctuary/temple in the creation and Eden
narratives. In the process, it was found that a terminological cluster accords with a
conceptual semantic framework, particularly in Gen 2-3. In this section, I will explore
key implications of the sanctuary/temple semantic framework in Gen 2-3, as this motif
can encompass a canonical/biblical theology of the sanctuary/temple in the Old and New
Testaments.
The linguistic artistry involved here, on one hand, and its strong conceptual
intentionality, on the other hand, call for further study beyond isolated words. The
semantic framework allows a theological interpretation of Gen 2-3 that emerges from the
sanctuary/temple motif. Therefore, the theological reflection here is projected onto the
sanctuary/temple canonical/biblical scenery, following the previous point that the
sanctuary/temple system/framework is the theological foundation for the created cosmos.
Now, let us contemplate two theological implications emerging from this premise in
order to elaborate a canonical/biblical theology from Gen 2-3: the cosmological
Barker, “Rest, Peace,” DOTP 689. Cf. Robert Butterworth, The Theology of Creation (Notre
194
Dame: Fides, 1969), 67.
221
framework of the sanctuary/temple motif and the archetypal framework of protology and
eschatology.
The Cosmological Framework of the Sanctuary/Temple Motif
The cosmological framework that emerges from Gen 2-3 indicates that the created
cosmos and its historical/canonical unfolding follow the ‫[ תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ; “shape,” “form,”
“pattern”] of the heavenly reality (Exod 25:9, 40). Thus, the creation of the heavens and
the earth and their eschatological re-creation are modeled/connected via the redemptive
events to atone for sin, prefigured in the earthly sanctuary/temple services (the wilderness
tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple), and accomplished in actuality by Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary/temple. The cosmological framework of the sanctuary/temple motif can be
explored further from the following three considerations.
First, the sanctuary/temple cosmological framework portrays reality on earth as it
is in heaven. On this point, one may partly agree with Beale’s symbolic understanding of
the temple. He affirms that the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness
tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple) was comparable in symbolic design to the heavens and
earth.195 Yet, it should be mentioned, in contrast to Beale, that heaven and earth are two
distinct realities that do not overlap; rather, the heavenly reality is the system that
predetermines the earthly one, which reflects it.196
195
Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 31-38. See discussion below on Isa 66:1.
196
Block’s assessment of Beale’s work on the temple concludes that it is fundamentally sound, but
from a particular perspective. Relevant to the purpose of our study, Block concludes that Israel’s
sanctuaries were designed, constructed, and decorated as microcosms of YHWH’s heavenly temple.
Whether or not Moses was able to gaze into the heavenly throne room on Mount Sinai, the tabernacle
represented a replica ‫( תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnı̂ ṯ) built according to a divinely revealed plan (Ex 25:9, 40). While the
temple in Jerusalem had the same basic structure as the tabernacle, it seems the plan revealed to David (1
Chr 28:9-19) also envisioned a replica of the heavenly temple, complete with a throne room (represented by
222
Second, the biblical evidence discussed in chapters III and IV points to the
conclusion that this cosmological framework of the sanctuary/temple motif is inherent in
Israel’s religion: properly said, a motif (‫ )תַ ְּבנִ ית‬acquired through revelation. Levenson’s
article “The Temple and the World” set forward the idea that the temple was a foreign
body largely unrelated to the Israelite religion, and therefore its cosmic symbolism was
the result of foreign influence.197 De Vaux stated that the Israelites indeed distinguished
between the temple, where men prayed, and heaven, where God dwelled (1 Kgs 8:30).
But he argued, similar to Levenson, that the Israelites’ understanding of the temple as
representing the universe (and thus any notion of cosmic symbolism) emerged only long
afterwards. De Vaux explains:
If the temple did not have a symbolic value, then we ought to look for the key to it not
in myths nor in cosmology, but in Israel’s history, for the religion of Israel is not a
religion of myths nor a nature religion, but an historical one: Just as the great
liturgical feasts recalled the different events of the Exodus, and the Ark of the
Covenant recalled God’s pact with his chosen people, so the temple recalled and
signified Yahweh’s choice of Jerusalem.198
At first glance, De Vaux’s position seems to agree with Levenson’s. However, it is
precisely the historical nature of the religion of Israel that argues against De Vaux’s idea
(and Levenson’s), that a cosmic symbolism emerged from foreign influence and/or long
afterwards. The canonical/biblical history of the sanctuary/temple motif as it emerges
from various semantic frameworks of the Holy Scriptures (cf. Gen 2-3; Ezek 28),
the Holy of Holies) and a throne (represented by the Ark of the Covenant). Second, while functioning as
replicas of YHWH’s heavenly residence, both tabernacle and temple were also constructed as miniature
Edens. See Block, “Eden: A Temple?,” 3-4.
197
For example, from Phoenician craftsmen’s iconographic tradition. See Levenson, “Temple and
the World,” 279, 281, 286.
198
223
including creation, contradicts the idea that one has to turn to “ancient Near Eastern
parallels” and “early Jewish interpretation” in order to approach and construe a
cosmological framework of the sanctuary/temple motif.199 The cosmological framework
emerges, rather, from the canonical/biblical understanding of the preexisting
sanctuary/temple in heaven.200
Third, the cosmological framework interwoven in Scripture assumes that the
sanctuary/temple motif is the overarching worldview/shaping narrative/story of
Heilsgeschichte. In this respect, one should mention Levenson’s idea of a “double
directionality of the homology of temple and world.”201 Does the semantic framework
portray the sanctuary/temple as a world or the world as a sanctuary/temple? Concerning
Levenson’s intertextual directionality “temple-world,” there is abundant biblical evidence
pointing to the cosmological framework of the earthly sanctuary/temple (Ps 78:69).202
199
So Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 27-28. However, it should be
admitted that an examination of ANE texts and extra-biblical literature of the Second Temple period
demonstrates this biblical view. See, for example, the temple-building process of King Gudea of Lagash,
Richard E. Averbeck, “The Cylinders of Gudea,” in Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions,
Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K.
Lawson Younger (Boston: Brill, 2003), 417-33; the Baal cycle of Ugarit, Mark S. Smith and Simon B.
Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 119-41; and the concept of temple in ancient
Egypt, Ward, “Temples and Sanctuaries: Egypt,” ABD 6:369.
200
It should be admitted that, as Ronald E. Clements prudently writes, “Not all of these supposed
symbolic references of features of the temple are convincing, but the essential claim that the temple and its
furnishings did possess cosmic, or naturalistic symbolism must be upheld. Such features were designed to
stress the divine power over the created order, and to establish the temple as a source of blessing for the
land and people of Israel. The underlying idea was that the temple was a microcosm of the macrocosm, so
that the building gave visual expression to the belief in Yahweh’s dominion over the world” See Clements,
God and Temple, 67.
201
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 86-87.
202
The argument that “cosmological perceptions of the sanctuary or temple are not primarily
based on the biblical text but, rather, are dependent on extra-canonical writers who most probably borrowed
such ideas from their cultural and literary environment” is not necessarily warranted. Contra Souza,
“Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” 30. See the discussion on Eden in chapter II of this
dissertation.
224
However, the intertextual directionality “world-temple,” which Levenson upholds, fails
to follow the same pattern and framework as the “temple-world” relationship. Distinctly,
this directionality would entail that the biblical evidence did not support the creation as
an antitype of the sanctuary/temple;203 although the “world-temple” relationship contains
linguistic correlations, a “world-temple” conceptual framework seems to be
unidentifiable.204
There has been scholarly debate about the meaning of Isa 66:1-2.205 Is this
passage conveying the intertextual directionality “world-temple”? Does this comparison
203
Two reasons may be offered: first, the chronological/historical precedence of the
sanctuary/temple in the biblical canonical narrative, and second, the idea that the creation by itself does not
constitute a teleological rationale for salvation/redemption.
204
Scholars often claim that the Sinai covenant played an important role in the compositional
purpose of Gen 1. See, for example, Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 28-29. This statement clearly
assumes a postexilic origin of the creation narrative, and apparently harmonizes with the idea proposed
here that the cosmological framework interwoven in Scripture depicts the sanctuary/temple motif as the
overarching worldview/shaping narrative/story. However, the rationale for this intertextual directionality
proposed in this study is rather derived from the preexisting heavenly sanctuary/temple (a
canonical/biblical reading of Scripture). Thus, regardless of the speculative sources of the documentary
hypothesis, Seth D. Postell seems to be correct in affirming this: “Unfortunately, the division of Genesis 1-
3 into two different sources (‘P’ and ‘J’) blurs the fact that . . . while Genesis 1 foreshadows the
construction the tabernacle, Genesis 2-3 (Eden) anticipates the physical appearance of it.” Postell, Adam as
Israel, 108. Noticeably, Sailhamer and Postell agree. However, apart from Postell’s theological critical
presuppositions, his statement may be assimilated via an understanding of the heavenly sanctuary/temple
vertical typology of Scripture. Wenham’s comment is very illustrative on this respect: “Gen 1 has been
called a festive overture to P, for it introduces themes that are characteristic of and developed in much
greater detail in other priestly material later in the Pentateuch. By tracing back to creation the classificatory
system among plants and animals, the Sabbath, and the origins of divine blessing, the writer is giving these
institutions the authority of primeval antiquity. Though there is little in the chapter that relates directly to
worship, the prime interest of the P material, the references to the fixed times (v 14), and to the seventh day
(2:1–3) may be construed as hints of the editor’s preoccupation with the cult.” See Wenham, Genesis 1-15,
38-39.
205
Critical scholars often derive theological implications by placing this text around the late sixth
century BC. See John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, WBC 25 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 929; Lange
and Schaff, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 698-99. However, quite apart from diachronic concerns
about the compositional history of the book of Isaiah, commentators usually affirm that this passage
contrasts spiritual and false worship. See Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40-66 (Louisville: Westminster,
1998), 2:252-53; Raymond C. Ortlund and R. Kent Hughes, Isaiah: God Saves Sinners (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2005), 448-50. Other commentators have suggested that this text has to be explained mainly in
relation to God’s accessibility. See Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster, 2001), 539-40.
225
establish the concept of a cosmic sanctuary/temple? Although this passage has been the
focus of various studies, to our knowledge, these specific questions have captured the
interest of few commentators.
‫כֹּ֚ה אָ ַמֶ֣ר יְּ ה ָוִ֔ה הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם ִכ ְּס ִ ִ֔אי וְּ הָ ָא ֶָ֖רץ‬ ֹּ 66:1
66:1
Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is My throne, ‫נּו־לי‬ִִ֔ ‫הֲדֹּ ם ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י אֵ י־ ֶז ֥ה בַ ֙יִ ת ֙ א ֲֶשֶ֣ר ִת ְּב‬ֶ֣
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build ‫וְּ אֵ י־ ֶז ֥ה מָ קָ֖ ֹום ְּמנּוחָ ִ ָֽתי׃‬
me? And where is the place of my rest?
‫שתָ ה וַיִ ְּהיּ֥ו כָ ל־‬ ָ ִ֔ ָ‫ וְּ אֶ ת־כָ ל־אֵ ֙לֶ ה ֙ י ִ ֶָ֣די ע‬66:2
66:2
For all those things my hand has made,
And all those things exist,” ֙ ‫ֵאָ֖לֶ ה נְּ אֻּ ם־יְּ הוָ ּ֑ה וְּ אֶ ל־ ֶזֶ֣ה אַ ִִ֔ביט אֶ ל־עָ נִ י‬
Says the Lord.
“But on this one will I look: ‫ל־דבָ ִ ָֽרי׃‬ ְּ ַ‫ה־רּוחַ וְּ חָ ֵ ָ֖רד ע‬ִ֔ ֵ‫ּונְּ כ‬
On him who is poor and of a contrite
spirit,
And who trembles at My word.
Let us explore four key issues that appear to be subject to further consideration in
relation to our inquiry. First, God’s own dwelling place is located in heaven (1 Kgs 8:30).
The entire Bible contains a vertical typology hermeneutical perspective showing plainly
that the heaven is not the sanctuary, but that there is a sanctuary in heaven (Ps 11:4; Heb
8:1-2; Rev 5:11).206 As Melody D. Knowles comments, the prophet Ezekiel presents a
special perspective:
In the book of Ezekiel, the prophet attributes to YHWH radical mobility—God can
cross the Chebar in a multi-wheeled chariot (Ezek 1), God’s glory can leave and
return to the temple (Ezek 9:3; 10:18–19; 11:22–23; 43:1–5), and God can function as
206
Cf. Acts 7:55; Rom 8:5, 34; Eph 1:20; Heb 9:24; Rev. 11:19; 14:17; 15:5). Therefore, passages
about the construction of an earthly dwelling place (I Kgs 8:13, 17) should not be interpreted as conflicting
geographies for God’s dwelling. This earthly dwelling is part of God’s plan in sending his ‫ מַ ְּלאָ ְך‬to dwell,
guide, and protect his chosen people (Exod 3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2). This constitutes the
covenantal relationship with the Israelite nation that prefigured the Messiah’s intercessory death and
heavenly ministry.
226
a “sanctuary for a little while” (or “to some extent;” ‫ )מעט למקדש‬for the people in
Babylon (Ezek 11:16b).207
Ezekiel’s perspective does not contradict the rest of the biblical evidence that God’s own
dwelling place is in heaven. Indeed, the vocabulary and imagery employed in Isa 66:1 are
reminiscent of the Psalter. Westermann identified particular connections locating God’s
throne in heaven (Pss 11:4; 103:19; cf. Isa 40:22).208 This observation harmonizes with
Isa 66:1. However, although the Bible presents heaven as God’s dwelling place, Isa 66:1
is not addressing or explaining this aspect. Note that the Hebrew expression is ‫כ ְּס ִ ִ֔אי‬.
ִ 209
The imagery used in Isa 66:1 is found elsewhere in the Bible as a reference to God’s
royal domain. “This imagery presents God as a King on a throne, ruling over all the
kingdoms of the earth; he is not limited to any temple made by some king (1 Kgs 8:27–
30) or to any one group of people.”210
Second, according to Isa 1:1, the prophet carried on his ministry during the reigns
of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. This information rules out the possibility that Isa
66:1 is making reference to the building or rebuilding of a temple; on the other hand, Isa
66:1 is not implying that it is wrong for humans to build temples, since Isa 66:6 states
207
Melody D. Knowles, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and
the Diaspora during the Persian Period, SBL 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 2.
208
Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 412.
Levenson believes that this is the only Old Testament passage where “the temple is described as a world, a
microcosm.” See Jon D. Levenson, “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8,” in Traditions in
Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern, Jon D. Levenson, and Frank M.
Cross (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 164. Cf. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 929.
209
From the Hebrew word ‫ ִכ ֵּסא‬, kissḗ’; “seat,” “throne.”
210
Gary Smith explains further that “the idea that God is a king who is enthroned in heaven is a
theme found in the preaching of the prophets (6:1- 6; 29:11; 37:16; 40:22; 63:15; Jer 10:10 -11; Dan 4:17,
25, 32, 37; 5:21; 6:26; 7:9), the narrative stories in the historical literature (Exod 15:18; 1 Kgs 8:23, 30, 34,
36, 39, 43, 45; 22:19), and in the nation’s songs of praise (Pss 2:4, 11:4; 29:10; 47:2, 7–9; 93:3; 95:3–5;
97:1, 9; 99:1–4.” See Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 40-66, NAC 15b (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009),
728.
227
that judgment comes out of the temple (cf. Isa 56:7; 66:20-22).211 Isa 66:1 is not an anti-
temple polemic.212
Third, the imagery employed in Isa 66:1 seems to focus on the transcendence of
God’s royal domain. Isa 65:17 is the closest reference to ‫ הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם וְּ הָ ָא ֶָ֖רץ‬and speaks of
the creation of the new heavens and earth. Both passages have in common the theme of
God’s sovereignty. John N. Oswalt offers an acute comment:
The Creator God who can make a new heaven and earth whenever it suits him is
certainly not a sky father or an earth mother who could be housed is some structure
made with human hands. This understanding is hardly new to Isaiah. It is part and
parcel of Israelite theology from the earliest considerations of the building of a temple
(2 Sam 7:4-14; 1 Kgs 8:27) on through its destruction and rebuilding (Jer 7:12-14;
23:24; Pss 11:4; 103:19; Matt 5:34-35; Acts 7:49).213
John Goldingay is of the opinion that Isa 66:1 recalls Solomon’s prayer and seems to
reflect on the same fact: that a temple cannot contain God’s glory (1 Kgs 8:27).214 Thus,
special attention should be given to Stephen’s quotation of Isa 66:1-2, which is in total
agreement with Solomon’s prayer by acknowledging the greatness of God the Creator. 215
As Peter D. Miscall has well said: “The question, and all of Isaiah by implication, does
211
Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 667.
212
Jonathan Teram, You Are Israel: How Isaiah Uses Genesis as a Means of Identity Formation
(Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 105.
213
Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 666.
214
John Goldingay, Isaiah, UBCS (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 369-70.
215
See Timothy C. G. Thornton, “Stephen's Use of Isaiah 66:1,” JTS 25.2 (1974): 432-34; Herbert
M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1985),
252. Stephen’s quotation of Isa 66:1 criticizes the use of the temple to restrict, confine, and ultimately try to
manipulate God. John B. Polhill says that “the concluding quotation from Isa 66:1f. caps off the entire
argument. God is transcendent. He cannot be restricted to any ‘house,’ where one can say, ‘This is where
God is to be found.’ He is Creator of heaven and earth, and his presence is to be found in all his creation.”
John B. Polhill, Acts, NAC 26 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 204. In the same vein, Jesus’ usage
of this expression in Matt 5:34-35 is termed as “biblical metaphors” thereby meaning that all oath taking
implicates God. See Donald A. Hagner, Matthew, WBC 33a (Dallas: Word Books, 1998), 128. Cf. Craig
Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 112.
228
not reject a temple or sanctuary in itself; it rejects the theology and ideology that would in
any way restrict God’s presence in the world to a particular building or site.”216
Fourth, if God’s throne is in heaven, then, what sort of function does the ‫דם‬
ֹּ ֶ֣ ֲ‫ה‬
‫ ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י‬play? And more importantly, where is it located? According to Westermann, Isa
66:1 is the only Old Testament text that portrays God’s footstool as the earth; elsewhere,
God’s footstool is the ark (1 Chr 28:2; Ps 132:7; cf. Ps 99:5; 110:1; Lam 2:1).217 On this
respect, I would agree with Watts’ line of reasoning:
The place that demonstrates YHWH’s sovereignty to humankind is Canaan: promised

to Abraham, given through Moses and Joshua, secured through David and Solomon.
The vision has seen “the land” as the arena for YHWH’s actions. To this place he
summoned first the Assyrian to destroy and then the Persian to rebuild. . . . “My rest”
in Ps 95:11 refers to Canaan, which was denied to the wilderness generation. This
passage presents the same tension between a rebellious generation and God’s
sovereign rule over heavens and earth (see vv 3–4). Ps 132:8 relates the term to Zion
to stress the permanency of YHWH’s presence there, but the total phrase here seems
to be unique in linking YHWH to a “place.” YHWH’s objection lies precisely in that
emphasis on a place that can claim exclusive rights to YHWH’s presence when he is
the one who has made all things and presumably goes wherever he chooses.218
216
Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2006), 177. Similarly, Ben Witherington affirms
that “the point is not that God’s presence can’t be found in the temple (clearly Acts 2–4 shows it can), but
that God’s presence can’t be confined there.” Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 273.
217
Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 412. Actually, the idea of a footstool is used seven times in the Old
Testament, but only once in a literal sense (2 Chr 9:18, the word used is ‫כבֶ ש‬ ֶ ָ֫ ). On the remaining six
occasions, the expression ‫ה ֶ֣דֹּ ם ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י‬
ֲ is used in a metaphorical sense (note the use of different pronominal
suffixes, 1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 110:1; 132:7; Isa 66:1; Lam 2:1). These passages make references to the Ark
of the Covenant, the Temple (which contains the ark), the earth, and the enemies of his Messiah King.
Moreover, M. A. MacLeod reports that “the footstool of Tutankhamun of Egypt is carved with pictures of
his enemies, and other Egyptian kings are shown resting their feet on their enemies’ heads.” See M. A.
MacLeod, “Footstool,” NBD, 380. Cf. William S. Sailer, “Footstool,” BEB 1:806. The biblical semantic
framework that emerges from this imagery is associated with God’s authority (cf. Gen 3:15; Rom 16:20; 1
Cor 15:25, 27; Eph 1:22; Heb 1:13; 2:8; Rev 19:15).
218
Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 929-30.
229
According to Watts, the land of Canaan is ‫דם ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י‬
ֹּ ֶ֣ ‫ה‬
ֲ , the particular geographical region
where YHWH’s dominion and sovereignty are being threatened;219 it is from this special
geographical region that the whole earth will learn ultimately about God and his cosmic
domain. Therefore, it is very likely that the Hebrew expression ‫הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם ִכ ְּס ִ ִ֔אי וְּ הָ ָא ֶָ֖רץ‬
‫הֲדֹּ ם‬
ֶ֣ speaks of the place and kingly domain of God’s cosmic sovereignty and not of the
geographical sphere (or description) of his heavenly sanctuary. Smith remarks:
The experience of seeing a vision of God in his heavenly temple caused him to realize
that one day the glory of God would fill the whole earth (6:3), not just the small city
of Jerusalem or just the state of Judah. Throughout the book of Isaiah, God reveals his
plans for the destruction of all nations of the earth (chaps. 13–23) as well as the
salvation of people from all nations (2:1–5; 11:10–16; 14:1–2; 19:18–25; 45:22–25;
60–62; 66:18–23). His plans as King of the heavens and the earth are to transform this
world by creating a new heaven, a new earth, a new people, a new Jerusalem, and a
new situation without death or the curse (65:17–25). Yes, he is King over the whole
heavens and earth.220
Finally, these points lead us to ponder that the writer of Isa 66:1-2 did not intend
to use the expression ‫דם ַרגְּ ָל ּ֑י‬

ֹּ ֶ֣ ‫ה‬
ֲ ‫ הַ שָ ַמֶ֣יִ ם ִכ ְּס ִ ִ֔אי וְּ הָ ָא ֶָ֖רץ‬as a literal and/or geographical
description of the cosmos.221 Humankind does not have the capability to build a structure
for God’s dwelling. I am in agreement with Blenkinsopp, who reads the statements of Isa
66:1-2 “not against the temple itself, or the project of rebuilding, depending on the date
assigned to the paragraph; it was instigated by opposition to those who controlled, or
219
The divine rest motif is linked to the sanctuary/temple. Thus, the reference to “the place of my
rest” is connected with YHWH’s dominion and sovereignty. See the previous section “Divine Rest” in this
dissertation.
220
Smith, Isaiah 40-66, 729. Cf. Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, trans.
Michael Friedllander (London: Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873), 299.
221
Contra Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 179, 187; Walton, Genesis, 146, 148; Barker,
On Earth as It Is, 8. This does not mean that there is no connection between temple and rest, or between
creation and temple. From the biblical perspective, the heavenly temple should be viewed as the center of
the cosmos and not as the cosmos itself.
230
were about to control, the operations of the temple.”222 For this reason, I believe that this
Hebrew expression is not concerned with a sacred structure (literal sanctuary/temple). It
seems rather clearly to portray the divine cosmic kingship in terms of God’s surprising
condescension (cf. Isa 6:2; 57:15).223 Said in different words, this is a rhetorical
expression underlining the insignificance of the earth and its inhabitants as compared
with God’s cosmic sovereignty.
The Archetypical Framework of Protology and Eschatology
The concept of Eden is the archetypical semantic framework from the beginning
of the canonical/biblical narrative to the end of it, and even beyond Heilsgeschichte into
eternity. The concept of Eden is archetypal because the intertextual relationship between
protology and eschatology comprehends a correlational semantic framework: the
canonical/biblical narrative commences with Eden in heaven (Ezek 28), continues with
Eden on Earth (Gen 2-3), and ends with a heavenly Eden on earth (Rev 22).224 Another
way to put it is through the theological concept of the land. O. Palmer Robertson asserts:
Land did not begin to be theologically significant with the promise given to Abraham.
Instead, the patriarch’s hope of possessing a land arose out of the concept of
restoration to the original state from which man had fallen. . . . This simple fact, so
222
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB
19b (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 296.
223
H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah, and Servant in the Book of
Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 7.
224
This canonical/biblical understanding of the Eden/sanctuary relationship is a helpful
hermeneutical approach to answer, among other things, Bevan’s inquiry: “I do not venture to speculate as
to which of these two results came first in order of time, that is to say, whether the legend of the Garden of
Eden is older or later than the building of the earliest Semitic temples. In any case it would appear that the
two things were closely connected; the legend of the primeval garden served to explain the decorations of
the sanctuary, and the sanctuary, in its turn, seemed to an uncritical age a standing witness to the truth of
the legend.” See Bevan, “King of Tyre,” 503.
231
often overlooked, plays a critical role in evaluating the significance of the land
throughout redemptive history and its consummate fulfilment.225
Thus, there are at least three points to ponder from this theological implication.
First, Eden can be traced in Scripture through God’s dealings with his creation, in
pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian historical phases of humankind.226 “The fact that Moses
alludes to the Promised Land as he is writing about the Garden of Eden (cf. Joel 2:3)
suggests that he places the hope of the Promised Land in the perspective of the Garden of
Eden.”227 Protology and eschatology substantiate the theological framework of Eden as a
literary eschatological unity of Scripture, where creation/re-creation intertextuality
reverberates through the sanctuary/temple motif.228 In a special sense, the end of the
Bible is the beginning of the Bible brought to its intended goal because temple
symbolism is present in Gen 1-3 and Rev 22-23.229 T. D. Alexander puts it in this way:
225
O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg: P&R,
2000), 4.
226
Indeed, as Michael Fishbane long ago noted (following Martin Buber), through the intertextual
allusions in the creation and sanctuary/temple narratives, the “final compositor wished to direct the
attentive hearer-reader to a correspondence between world building and shrine building, and therewith
convey his theological insight that it is the task of humankind to extend and complete on earth the divine
work of creation.” Fishbane, Text and Texture, 12.
227
228
The edenic city upon the cosmic mountain fully expresses the great redemptive hope of biblical
eschatology throughout the testaments. See Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, 51. Levenson explores this
theological aspect. He considers that “the Temple serves, among many other things, as a survival of the
primal paradise lost to the ‘profane’ world, the world outside the sanctuary (Latin, fanum) and as a
prototype of the redeemed world envisioned by some to lie ahead. It connects the protological and the
eschatological, the primal and the final, preserving Eden and providing a taste of the World-to-Come.” Jon
D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New
Haven: Yale University, 2006), 90. I think it could be argued with a good measure of canonical/biblical
consistency, as Baker has noted, that “the origins of the relationship between the Jerusalem temple and
eschatology that are established upon the links to creation and creation’s link to eschatology display the
foundations of why Israel might expect the Jerusalem temple to play a role in coming eschatological
matters.” Baker, “Eschatological Role,” 39.
229
Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning, 37. One may reasonably conclude that, as golden cubes,
the Holy of Holies and the New Jerusalem are connected. According to their descriptions (for example, the
symmetrical dimension, cf. 1 Kgs 6:20; Rev 21:16-18), the apostle John seems to imply that the entire city
232
“The very strong links between Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 22-23 suggest that these
passages frame the entire biblical metastory.”230 Davidson called it a “cosmic
metanarrative,”231 connecting the great cosmic conflict between good and evil and the
sanctuary/temple motif. Then, Israel drew attention to its exceptional identity among the
surrounding nations by articulating and depicting the historical creative deeds of God, not
confined to the sanctuary/temple cultic services, but demonstrated in God’s dwelling with
his people.232
is going to be a sanctuary, that is, a temple-city. See Alexander, From Eden, 20. These biblical narratives
confirm that the semantic framework follows the same pattern of temple building from Eden to the New
Jerusalem. Cf. Beale, Temple and the Church's Mission, 371; Dumbrell, “Biblical Theology: Retrospect
and Prospect,” 53-65; M. H. Woudstra, “The Tabernacle in Biblical-Theological Perspective,” in New
Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. Barton Payne (Waco: Word Books, 1970), 88-103.
230
Alexander further writes that “as is often the case, a story’s conclusion provides a good guide
to the themes and ideas dominant throughout. By resolving an intricate plot that runs throughout a story, a
good denouement sheds light on the entire story.” Alexander, From Eden, 10.
231
232
An important element in this historical conceptualization relates to God’s own nature, as the
Eden motif may render a glimpse into God’s dwelling in Scripture. The semantic framework of the Eden
motif traces in Scripture the main characteristics of God’s reality. Fernando L. Canale elaborates on the
idea that the writers of Scripture understood the reality of God as temporal-historical (Job 36:26; Ps
103:15-17; Mic 5:2; Heb 1:10-12; Titus 1:2; cf. 2 Tim 2:9; 1 Cor 2:7), and therefore able to dwell in
created/human space and time. For example, he thinks that Mic 5:2 “affirms clearly the infinitude of God’s
temporality before the creation of the universe and its limited time and space.” He explains further the
meaning of divine temporality:
God’s eternal and infinite reality experiences the flux of time in its fullness, according to His own
divine nature. He also is able to directly experience our limited created time without limiting himself
to it. The analogical understanding of divine time help us to understand why biblical authors had no
problem in speaking of an infinite, eternal, and immutable God that was able to act directly and
personally within the flux of created time.
See Fernando L. Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 2005), 64, 72.
Canale has extensively explored the connection between philosophical principles and the
sanctuary/temple motif. For the purpose of our study, it will suffice to cite Canale’s conclusion on the
philosophical principle underlying God’s temporality:
When we recognize that biblical reflection on God simultaneously reveals not only his historical
presence but also his being, a view of the God principle compatible with our space and time comes
into view. We need only formulate that view in technical categories and use it as hermeneutical
233
Usually when we think of the sanctuary we associate it all the ritual sacrifices, but
when God instructed Moses concerning the structure of the sanctuary He did not say,
‘Build me a sanctuary where you can offer sacrifices’ o ‘where you can worship me’.
Instead He said, ‘Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among
them’ (Exod 25:8). That was the primary reason for the existence of the sanctuary.233
Actually, this edenic dwelling/fellowship identity for salvation transcends the Old
Testament covenant with Israel and goes beyond the New Testament church.234 Levenson
also captures the spirit of the protological relationship between creation and
sanctuary/temple when he writes that “the world which the Temple incarnates in a
tangible way is not the world of history but the world of creation, the world not as it is
but as it was meant to be and as it was on the first Sabbath.”235 Thus the origin of the
principle for the interpretation of the biblical sanctuary. This interpretation of the God principle
eliminates what has forced classical and modem theologies to various metaphorical interpretations.
See Canale, "Philosophical Foundations," 206. Cf. John Peckham, “Divine Passibility, Analogical
Temporality and Theo-Ontology: Implications on a Canonical Approach,” in Scripture and Philosophy:
Essays Honoring the Work and Vision of Fernando Luis Canale, ed. Tiago Arrais, Kenneth Bergland, and
Michael F. Younker (Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society, 2016), 32-53.
Following Canale’s definition of God’s temporality, one may understand Westermann’s
recognition that primal time and end time are not the first and the last sections of history. He writes that
“they [primal time and end time] constitute a framework for history in such a way that their essence is
different from that of history as we know it in our present existence in terms of criteria drawn from present
reality.” See Westermann, Beginning and End, 27. Although Westermann terms primal time and end time
as “nonhistorical,” I would argue that he is right in the sense that God’s creativity acts share with his
creatures the divine temporality, a reality marred by sin and restored at the eschatological re-creation.
233
Gudmundur Olafsson, “Immanuel: God with Us,” in The Great Controversy and the End of
Evil: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Angel Manuel Rodriguez in Celebration of his
Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015), 123-24.
234
A key hermeneutical concept to support this notion is the sanctuary/temple vertical typology
viewed from the semantic framework. Morales is one who believes that “the tabernacle/temple cultus, in
common with the general sanctuary ideology of the ancient Near East, participated in vertical typology: the
tripartite architectural structure related the inner sanctus of the holy of holies to the heavenly sphere
(corresponding to the summit of the sacred mountain), so that worship was, to some degree, a participation
in the liturgy of heaven.” Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 19. Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest,
Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster, 1995), 113;
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 286.
235
234
relationship between the sanctuary/temple and edenic eschatology is rooted in the
creation semantic framework, since the sanctuary/temple is depicted as Eden.236
Second, consequently, the content of Gen 2-3 (the Garden of Eden narratives) is
not just a general introduction to Israel’s history.237 The canonical/biblical narrative
portrays God’s archetypal cosmic order and dealings with humankind in Heilsgeschichte
within a consistent theological framework, where Israel’s salvation experience is a
reminiscence of Adam’s salvation experience, and the Promised Land is a reminiscence
of the Garden of Eden. Therefore, Eden is not an “exceedingly marginal text,”238 nor are
the contexts of Gen 2-3 “conspicuously isolated”239 in the Old Testament, contrary to the
critical view that the content of Gen 2-3 is not really Hebrew but a literary corpus
dependent upon ANE cosmologies. As Stordalen observes, “it is plainly inconceivable
that the religious community behind the Pentateuch would preface its national history
with a ‘foreign’ cosmology.”240 The biblical evidence discussed in chapters III and IV of
236
John Randall Price, “The Desecration and Restoration of the Temple as an Eschatological
Motif in the Tanach, Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and the New Testament” (PhD diss., University of
Texas at Austin, 1993), 94. Cf. Baker, “Eschatological Role,” 38, see also 27-40. It is to the point here to
note that the image of Eden as a sanctuary seems to have disappeared almost completely from Jewish
exegesis. Schachter reflects on this possibility and affirms that “this took place because the bearers of
Jewish tradition wanted to distance themselves from the Christian view of Jesus as a reincarnation of
Adam, the original priest, with Eden as his sanctuary.” Schachter, “Garden of Eden,” 76.
237
The Garden of Eden is not only the gateway to understanding the land of Canaan, but the entire
conceptual framework of the “Promised Land.” See A. Smith, “The Fifth Gospel,” in Eyes to See, Ears to
Hear: Essays in Memory of J. Alan Groves, ed. P. Enns, D. Green, and M. Kelly (New Jersey: P&R, 2010),
79. Cf. Werner Berg, “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: der Garten als Bild des Heiles im Alten Testament,”
BZ 32.1 (1988): 35-51. Some scholars believe the connection between the Garden of Eden and the
Promised Land is not only metaphorical and symbolic, but also geographical. See Magnus Ottosson, “Eden
and the Land of Promise,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (New
York: Brill, 1986), 177.
238
Brueggemann, Genesis, 41.
239
Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 102.
240
Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 28.
235
this dissertation has led to the conclusion that the sanctuary/temple semantic framework
conceptualizes canonical/biblical theology through the Eden motif. Gen 2-3 is not merely
about Israel’s origins; in fact, as an archetypal framework the Eden motif originated
before Gen 1 and later became the pattern for Heilsgeschichte. Neglecting this fact has
generated the idea, among other theories, that the exile of Adam and Eve from the
Garden of Eden in Gen 3 mirrors Israel’s own exile. This implies a later date for the Eden
narrative. However, the canonical/biblical approach to the theology of Gen 2-3 indicates
the opposite. The sanctuary/temple system/framework, as the theological/canonical
foundation for the created cosmos, demonstrates the pattern of God’s archetypal cosmic
order and dealings with sin. In the canonical/biblical narrative, Israel’s exilic experience
echoes a former exile, Adam’s, while at the same time Adam’s exile echoes the cherub’s
exile, not vice versa.
Third, the archetypal framework of Eden also emerges from humankind’s twofold
status in Gen 1 and Gen 2-3, eschatologically combined in Rev 5:10; 20:6. Indeed, while
Adan and Eve in Gen 1 are characterized as “kingly ambassadors” in relation to the
world, in Gen 2-3 they are characterized as “priests” in relation to the Garden of Eden.241
There is no literary and theological disunity between Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 regarding
humankind’s two fold status. Kingly and priestly roles are complementary as they
describe the holistic design of creation. The fact that the book of Revelation depicts the
241
Wagenfuhr prefers to describe ‫ אָ ָדם‬in Gen 2-3 using the function of “ambassador” instead of
“priest.” See Wagenfuhr, “Toward a Palatial Biblical Theology (Conference Title: Reconsidering the
Cosmic Temple: Palaces and the Priesthood of All Believers)” (paper presented at Evangelical Theological
Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2017), 1-9. This preference leads him to consider Eden as a royal
garden. See more in Isaac, “From Land to Lands,” 22-32.
236
redeemed as both kings and priests points to the original plan of creation described in
Gen 1-3.
“The ongoing possession of Eden on the basis of obedience to commandments,
the theme of curse and blessing, and even the structure of the divine curses in Gen 3:14-
19”242 demonstrates, among other things, a teleological approaching language to the
eschatological salvation and a revelatory function of creation in the biblical narrative.243
Dumbrell profoundly elucidates this theological implication:
Both Israel and Adam were placed in divine space: Israel in Canaan and Adam in
Eden. Israel was given, as was Adam, law by which the divine space could be
retained. Israel transgressed the law, as did Adam. Israel was expelled, as was Adam,
from the divine space. . . . Clearly the creation account indicates to Israel the nature
and purpose of her special status and role, which once belonged to the man. After
Adam, the priest-king, failed to exercise his dominion over the world, the mantle
passed to national Israel, a corporate royal priest.244
Preliminary Conclusions
The redemptive and historical developments of the biblical narrative may be
explained as proceeding from a ‫[ תַ ְּבנִ ית‬taḇnîʹṯ; “shape,” “form,” “pattern”] of the
heavenly reality. Whereas God through the seventh-day Sabbath (rest) institutes the
sacredness of time, God’s presence in Eden transforms the newly created garden into a
sacred place, that is, a sanctuary/temple. As a result of the entrance of sin into the world,
the concept of Eden becomes more pervasive as an archetypal semantic framework. “The
pre-Fall Garden Eden was God’s ‘exhibit A’ for what he had planned for humanity. It
242
Postell, Adam as Israel, 109.
243
Barcellos, Better than the Beginning, 41-67. Cf. Bolger, “Compositional Role,” 298-99.
244
William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1994), 29.
237
was the one time when it could be said that ‘God’s will was done on earth as it was in
Heaven.’”245
Consequently, the conceptual approach to the purpose of the biblical
sanctuary/temple narratives finds its canonical framework in Eden. Westermann rightly
observes, “In its first pages the Bible speaks of the beginning, and in its last pages, of the
end. It is surprising then that in the Christian church so little is said about the beginning
and the end in their relationship to each other, and that in Christian theology so little
attention is devoted to them.246 Therefore, one may advocate the conclusion that
archetypically the Garden of Eden was, is, and shall be the ideal place of rest in protology
and eschatology.247
Chapter V explored some of the most important theological implications
emerging from considering the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3. It was observed that a
canonical/biblical theology of Gen 1-3 is better construed within a sanctuary/temple
semantic framework, which further substantiates the type of relationship between the
creation and the sanctuary/temple. Specifically, a canonical biblical theology develops
the sanctuary/temple motif as the theological framework of the creation/cosmos. The
theological concepts arising from the biblical evidence in Gen 1 and Gen 2-3
245
Simon Thiessen, Back to Eden: A Biblical Perspective on Wealth and Poverty (Victoria:
Friesen, 2016), 217.
246
Westermann, Beginning and End, 1.
247
Isaac, “From Land to Lands,” 43-44. Cf. Yairah Amit, “Biblical Utopianism: A Mapmaker's
Guide to Eden,” USQR 44.1-2 (1990): 11-17; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 14.
238
demonstrated that the semantic outworking of the association between creation and
sanctuary/temple can contribute to a better understanding of the creation and Eden
narratives as they reverberate throughout the biblical canon.
First, canonical/biblical theology emerging from the sanctuary/temple semantic
framework in Gen 1 has led to the conclusion that the cultic terminology of the creation
account should be read not in terms of abstract symbolism (or temple ideology), but in
the sense of a “conceptual reading,” where the sanctuary/temple motif becomes one
hermeneutical frame. A symbolic reading of Gen 1 revolves around the notion that the
semantic framework validates the historicity of the text while at the same time being
representative, indicative, and/or illustrative of an overarching worldview/shaping
narrative/story in Scripture: the sanctuary/temple. Another significant implication is the
key role of the seventh day. The Sabbath rest reveals God’s plan to reestablish sacred
time and space on earth as it is in the sanctuary/temple model in heaven. “The temple is
to space what the Sabbath is to time.”248 Divine rest and human rest become the
covenantal motif that connects the heavens and the earth and displays the climactic
fulfillment of protology in eschatology. Larry L. Lichtenwalter remarks:
The action taken by God on the seventh day gives expression to the total purpose
intended for creation. Later biblical connections made between creation, Sabbath, and
the sanctuary further nuance God’s intended purpose. As the climax of creation, the
Sabbath became “a sanctuary in time,” not space, reflections and recapitulations of
the first temple of the Garden of Eden—a unique place of God’s presence where
Adam walked and talked with God (Gen 3 8). Revelation’s (21-22) new creation
allusions to Genesis 2-3 bring promise of the final presence of God among his people,
248
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 298. This means that both domains belong to God:
time and space. The creation narrative speaks of time, while the Eden narratives speak of space. God’s
cosmic divine rest is “to fill time with a content that is uncontaminated by, and distinct from, anything
related to natural time. . . . That content, displacing the various ideas and phenomena associated with
natural time, is the idea of the absolute sovereignty of God.” See Tsevat, “Basic Meaning,” 458.
239
who see him face to face (21:3-5, 22: 4). The envisioned sabbatical consummation is
fully and gloriously realized (21:3-7). 249
Thus, the Sabbath rest is a symbol of salvation, a return to Eden. Indeed, the purpose of
eschatological redemption is to recreate humankind by returning the redeemed to an
edenic setting.
Second, canonical/biblical theology emerging from the sanctuary/temple semantic
framework of Gen 2-3 has led to the conclusion that its cosmological framework suggests
that the events of the creation and its eschatological re-creation are modeled/connected
via the redemptive events to atone for sin. This framework is prefigured in the earthly
sanctuary/temple services (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple), and
accomplished in actuality by Christ in the heavenly sanctuary/temple. This idea entails
that the Garden of Eden is an archetypal framework of canonical/biblical theology. The
canonical/biblical narrative commences with Eden in heaven, continues with Eden on
Earth, and ends with a heavenly Eden on earth. As Fishbane puts it: “The building of the
tabernacle has been presented in the image of the creation of the world, and signified as
an extension of a process begun at the creation.”250 “The story indicates for us what it
means for human beings to be holy people and dwell in a holy land. The holy land is
Eden, and the holy people are Adam and Eve.”251
Finally, the sanctuary/temple semantic framework shapes Heilsgeschichte in such
a way as to echo the Eden narratives. This approach to biblical/canonical theology of Gen
249
Lichtenwalter, “The Seventh-day Sabbath,” 293-94.
250
Fishbane, Text and Texture, 12.
251
Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological
Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 29.
240
2-3 does not support the notion that the Eden narratives were designed to replicate the
preceding story of Israel.252 Gen 2-3 sets forth the canonical/biblical theology of the land
(Garden of Eden) as a central motif in Heilsgeschichte. The fact that this motif is placed
at the introduction to the Pentateuch should be given special attention because “it sets the
course for the rest of the biblical narrative. In other words, Eden paradoxically both
reflects and sets the course for the story of Israel.”253 Therefore, as Wenham rightly
states: “Simple and majestic, dignified yet unaffected, profound and yet perfectly clear,
Genesis [1-3] makes a superb introduction not only to the Book of Genesis itself but to
the whole of Scripture.”254
252
The literary and conceptual interrelatedness indicate that Gen 1-3 was conceived and composed
by one single author. The theological implications of the sanctuary/temple semantic framework compel us
to abandon the documentary hypothesis, which places the origin of the text around the sixth century BC. So
Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 41. Furthermore, the
question of literary dependence and/or influence concerning Ezek 28 is obvious enough: Gen 2-3 precedes
Ezek 28. Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 118; Madhavi Nevader, “Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine
Sovereignty and Creation in Ezekiel,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-
Shiloni (New York: Bloomsburry, 2015), 59.
253
Isaac, “From Land to Lands,” 45.
254
241
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The research reported in this dissertation endeavored to investigate whether the
sanctuary/temple motif plays a canonical/theological role in the creation account and
Eden narratives. I have dealt with the arguments, taking into consideration the exegetical
underpinnings of the association between the concepts of creation and sanctuary/temple.
The aforementioned theological task sought to elaborate an introduction to a
canonical/biblical theology of Gen 1-3.1 The findings of this study may be outlined like
this:
The first chapter provided a survey of scholarly material written on this issue and
how modern investigations substantiate and critique the sanctuary/temple motif. In
addition, this chapter projected particular implications related to the interpretation of Gen
1-3 and the theology of the sanctuary/temple. This survey of scholarly literature
demonstrated that there is a lack of agreement among biblical scholars who have
1
It is from the association between sanctuary/temple and creation that a very particular
canonical/biblical worldview arises. Since the word “creation” can denote either the act or the product of
creation, as Herman Bavinck has correctly insisted, “from one’s understanding of the act flows one’s view
of the product.” Herman Bavinck and John Bolt, In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 56. Significantly, the main contribution of a canonical/biblical theology of
Gen 1-3, as it emerges from the sanctuary/temple semantic framework, is that it opens new dimensions of
understanding the Creator God, the act of creation, and the product of it. Many aspects still await further
research. If readers of Scripture disregard the overall canonical/biblical structure that emerges from the
sanctuary/temple motif, it might cause misunderstandings. J. Richard Middleton aptly asserts that if readers
of Scripture fail to understand the initial purpose of creation, they will systematically misread the nature of
sin and redemption. See Middleton, A New Heaven, 38.
242
investigated possible evidence for allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3. The
following linguistic and conceptual aspects were distinguished as major arguments: the
Hebrew word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8; the garden as a mountain in Gen 2:10; the river of Eden in
Gen 2:10; the Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Gen 2:15; the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the
Hebrew verb ‫ ָבנָה‬in Gen 2:21-22; the Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8; the Hebrew
word ‫תנֶת‬
ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ לָ בַ ש‬in Gen 3:21; the Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen
3:24; the eastern entrance to the garden in Gen 3:24; the motif of temple building (divine
rest), and the Hebrew words ‫ מֹועֵ ד‬and ‫ מָ אֹור‬in the fourth day of creation. A synchronic
approach to biblical exegesis and intertextual theological analysis was employed to
ascertain the claims of both sides regarding this biblical evidence. This exegetical
approach contrasts with that of reading critical diachronic assumptions or ANE
mythology into the creation account and Eden narratives. Consequently, the above key
elements led to designing this dissertation to answer the question: Is there evidence for
the sanctuary/temple in the creation and Eden narratives, and if so, what are the
implications of this evidence?
The second chapter dealt with the pre-Fall narrative of Eden (Gen 2) and
reevaluated the arguments arising from the Hebrew word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8, the garden as a
mountain in Gen 2:10, the river of Eden in Gen 2:10, the Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in
Gen 2:15, and the Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ בָ נָה‬in Gen 2:21-22.
The Hebrew word ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in Gen 2:8 denotes a place of pleasure and delight (Ps
36:8; Isa 51:13; Jer 51:34). The semantic framework of ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is especially enhanced in
light of Ezek 28:11-19. The intertextual analysis of Gen 2:8 and Ezek 28:13 via vertical
typology shows that the term ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is used to describe the concept of the sanctuary/temple.
243
The ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28:13 alludes to the covering cherub, an angelic being in the heavenly
sanctuary. This text situates the historical context before the creation of the earthly ‫עֵ ֶדן‬
(Gen 2-3) and the origin of sin in the covering cherub (Ezek 28:16-17; cf. Isa 14:12-15;
Rev 12:7-9). Additionally, the interchangeable semantic nature of “heaven,” “Eden,” “the
sides of the north,” and “the temple” (cf. Pss 116:19; 135:2; 92:12, 13) further stresses
the equivalent functionality of both ‫עֵ ֶדן‬. This correlation concurs with the description of
Zion, the Temple mountain, “perfect in beauty” (Ps. 50:2; Lam. 2:15), equated with the
Garden of Eden. In view of the similar terminological scenery between Gen 2-3 and Ezek
28:11-19, it may be concluded that we are dealing in both passages with a
sanctuary/temple framework. Therefore, if the canonical biblical text portrays Zion
typologically representing the ‫עֵ ֶדן‬/dwelling place of God and his creatures in heaven
(Ezek 28:11-19), then ultimately Gen 2-3 would be the ‫עֵ ֶדן‬/dwelling place of God and
his creatures on earth. Specifically, Eden is portrayed as a royal garden, the special
preserve of the divine King.2 In short, if the vertical movement found from Ezek 28:1-10
to Ezek 28:11-19 is correctly identified, then the writer of Gen 2-3 is building upon a
historical retrojection of a preexisting (before Gen 1-3) sanctuary/temple. Thus, the
2
Block argues that although the garden is sacred, “it is not God’s house and there is no hint here
of cultic service.” Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 298-99. He further compounds this conclusion by failing to recognize the
vertical movement in Ezek 28:11-19. Consequently, Block does not place the ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬of Ezek 28 in heaven.
The garden of ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is the dwelling place of God with his creatures on earth, but it is also correct to affirm
that there is only one place in the universe that could be called God’s house: this is the ‫עֵ ֶדן‬/dwelling place
of God with his unfallen creatures in the heavenly sanctuary/temple. The earthly ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬is a copy of the
original ‫ עֵ ֶדן‬in heaven. Moreover, Adam and Eve’s cultic service should be understood, from a pre-
lapsarian perspective, as functionally equivalent to the worship in heaven. Obviously, the post-lapsarian
cultic service is developed in the later biblical narrative.
244
creation of the earth in Scripture consistently follows the pattern of heaven (Gen 1:1; cf.
Exod 25:9, 40; Ps 78:69; Heb 8:5).
The garden as a mountain is a concept that arises from the Hebrew
expression ‫ת־הגָ ָּּ֑֑ן‬

ַ ֶ‫“( וְּ נָהָ ר ֙ י ֵֹּצֶ֣א מֵ ִ֔ ֵע ֶדן ְּל ַה ְּש ָ֖קֹות א‬Now a river went out of Eden to water
the garden”) in Gen 2:10. Although the words for “mountain” or “hill” do not occur in
the Eden narratives, the phraseology suggests that the river rose in Eden and then flowed
into the garden to water it. This implies that the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was situated on uneven elevated
terrain. Furthermore, there is a pattern of “returning to the mountain” in the Hebrew
Bible.3 This pattern incorporates two places as sacred: God’s sacred mountain and the
tabernacle (Exod 15:17; Pss 15:1; 24:3; Isa 56:6, 7; cf. Ezek 28:14; Isa 14:12-14; Rev
15:2-4). The semantic framework of the Hebrew word ‫ הַ ר‬is a case to compare the
particular characterization of Jerusalem with the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫( ג‬Ps 48:1-2; cf. 78:1-2; 65:10
[65:9]). Vertical typology also presents the earthly mountain as symbolizing the heavenly
abode of God (cf. ‫ ַת ְּבנִ ית‬in Exod 25:9; Ezek 28:13-16). Just as the wilderness tabernacle
was patterned according to the model (the primordial sanctuary/temple “mountain”), the
‫ גַן־עִֵ֔ ֶדן‬was also patterned with the same architectural model.4
The river of Eden in Gen 2:10 implies that the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was situated on elevated
terrain, and the depiction of a river flowing down from a mountain corresponds to the
3
Mountains in the Bible are elements of theophanic experiences (cf. Exod 3:1; 17:6; 19:11; 18,
20, 23; 24:16; 31:19; 34:2, 4, 29, 32; Lev 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34; Num 1:1, 19; 3:1, 4, 14; 9:1, 15; 10:12;
26:64; 28:6; 33:15, 16; Deut 33:2, 16; Ps 68:8, 17; Acts 7:30, 38; Gal 4:24, 25). See Boyer, Divine
Presence, 1; Sigurd Bergmann, Religion, Space, and the Environment (New Brunswick: Transaction,
2014), 374; Harrington, “Gospel According to Mark,” 615; Viviano, “Gospel According to Matthew,” 660.
The conceptual framework of the “mountain” from the perspective of vertical typology is key for
4
understanding the climax of the great controversy depicted in the biblical narrative (cf. Dan 11:45; Rev
16:16).
245
theological role of rivers or waters in the sanctuary/temple elsewhere in Scripture (Ezek
47:1-12; Zech 14:8-11; Joel 4:18, 20-21 [Eng. 3:18, 20-21]; Rev 22:1).5 Therefore, there
is a significant theological relationship between waters (or rivers) and sacred mountains
that forms a cultic pattern as conceptual backdrop in the Hebrew Bible. The connections
between Eden, Jerusalem, Mount Zion, God’s presence, the life-giving waters of rivers
flowing from the temple (Gen 13:10; Ps 36:6-10 [Eng. 36:5-9]; cf. Isa 30:25; 32:2; Pss
46:5; 65:10), and God’s presence as the life-giving water fountain implicitly denote the
sanctuary/temple as the only place where the righteous are secure (Pss 1:3; 50:10; 92:13-
15 [Eng. 92:12-14]). Canonical biblical intertextuality provides evidence that the
connections between the flowing waters, Eden, and the sanctuary/temple form a semantic
framework that constitutes sacred space.
The Hebrew verbs ‫ עָ ַבד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬in Gen 2:15 describing Adam and Eve’s work
in the Garden of Eden parallel the priestly role of the Levites in the tabernacle (Num 3:7-
8; 8:26; 18:5-6; cf. Exod 12:25). The verb ‫ עָ בַ ד‬as infinitive construct (‫דּה‬
ָ֖ ָ ‫)לעָ ְּב‬
ְּ in the
Pentateuch and the book of Joshua indicates “to honor” YHWH and/or “to serve” at the
tent of meeting.6 Moreover, the Hebrew noun ‘ăḇôḏâʹ (‫עב ָֹּדה‬

ֲ ) that appears five times in
the Old Testament with the preposition lamed (cf. Gen. 2:15; Num. 4:35, 39, 43; 1 Chr
25:1, 26:8), thus mirroring the infinitive construct of Gen 2:15, is sometimes used in
5
Wenham, Rethinking Genesis 1-11, 28.
6
Cf. Gen 2:5; 3:23; Exod 10:26; Num 3:7, 8; 4:23, 24, 30, 47; 7:5; 8:11, 15, 19, 22; 16:9; 18:6;
Deut 29:17; Josh 22:27; 24:15, 16, 19, 22.
246
cultic settings.7 When the objects of ‫ עָ בַ ד‬are put in canonical perspective, the semantic
framework formed by “to honor” YHWH, “to serve” at the tent of meeting, and to
“work” the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬shares a unifying theme in the book of Genesis and shares a
foundational belief in canonical biblical theology. Similarly, the verb ‫ שָ מַ ר‬is often
related to sacred duties: protection of the sanctuary/ark (Num 18:5-6, cf. 1 Sam 7:1),
fulfilling the work of the tabernacle (Num 3:7-8), performing the responsibilities of the
tent of meeting (Num 8:26), an attitude toward the covenant (Gen 17:9), responsibility
toward the law (Isa 56:1; cf. Deut 5:12), duties of love and justice (Hos 12:7), and
keeping the commandments, statutes, and instructions of God (Gen 26:5). The semantic
framework of ‫שָ ַמר‬, due to a considerable number of occurrences exhibiting religious
language, may be attributed to the sacred realm. Further connections between the verb
‫[ ִשים‬śîm; “set,” “place”] in Gen 2:8, which indicates that Adam and Eve were given a
kind of kingly role, and the verb ַ‫[ נּוח‬nûʹaḥ; “rest,” “settle down”] in Gen 2:15, which
indicates that God wanted them to rest in a sanctuary setting (cf. Exod 20:9; 23:12; Deut
5:14), hint at the idea of an official/cultic appointment. Thus, the function/role divinely
assigned to Adam and Eve in their pre-Fall state (a function/role that transcended that of
the post-Fall human state) should be understood in light of the ancient priestly role of
preserving sacred space. On this basis, I conclude that it is likely that the verbs ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and
‫ שָ ַמר‬in the pre-Fall Eden narrative echo and pertain to a cultic/royal semantic framework
rather than merely to landscaping and agrarian responsibilities. In short, God bestows
7
Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew word ‘ăḇôḏâʹ (‫עב ָֹּדה‬
ֲ ), sometimes used to mean
“liturgical service” (cf. 1 Chr 9:28; Num 4:25; Exod 12:25), has the same root consonants as the infinite
construct of the verb ‫עָ בַ ד‬.
247
royal authority with priestly status in order to enable Adam and Eve’s work of preserving
sacred space.
The Hebrew word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ ָבנָה‬in Gen 2:21-22 belong to the
sanctuary/temple conceptual framework. The word ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬is used in the Old Testament
approximately forty times; only in Gen 2:21-22 is it translated with reference to a part of
the human anatomy (rib), while in the rest of its occurrences ‫ צֵ לָ ע‬is often associated
architecturally with the sanctuary/temple. The author intentionally selected a word
capable of transmitting both literal and symbolic meaning. The verb ‫ בָ נָה‬more frequently
conveys the ideas of erecting (construction) and/or manufacturing.8
The reexamination of the biblical evidence has shown the sanctuary/temple motif,
as it appears in relation with Gen 2, functioning as the operational system from which the
entire framework of biblical canonical theology is derived.9 Moreover, the creation is
8
Note, for example, that in the Pentateuch the object of ‫ בָ נָה‬is most often an altar, followed by a
city, a family, a house, and a tower. Cf. Gen 2:22; 4:17; 8:20; 10:11; 11:4, 5, 8; 12:7, 8; 13:18; 16:2; 22:9;
26:25; 30:3; 33:17; 35:7; Exod 1:11; 17:15; 20:25; 24:4; 32:5; Num 13:22; 21:27; 23:1, 14, 29; 32:16, 24,
34, 37, 38; Deut 6:10; 8:12; 13:17; 20:5, 20, 22:8, 25:9; 27:5, 6; 28:30. Clearly, in the Pentateuch ‫ בָ נָה‬is
not used to refer to the construction of the wilderness tabernacle. Yet, ‫ בָ נָה‬is employed in 1 Kgs 5-9 to
refer to the construction of Solomon’s temple, “the house of the Lord” (cf. Pss 78:69; 102:17 [Eng.
102:16]; Hag 1:2, 8; Zech 1:16; 6:12-15).
9
Sean M. McDonough, Creation and New Creation: Understanding God's Creation Project
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2017), see especially the section entitled “The End Is like the Beginning: Creation
and New Creation in Scripture and Tradition,” 1-15. However, to say that the end is like the beginning does
not suffice and does not harmonize entirely with our findings. I would argue that the sanctuary/temple, as
the operational system from which the entire framework of biblical canonical theology emerges, is the
grand metanarrative of Scripture. N. T. Wright suggests that creation is the “outer narrative” that control all
inner subplots (redemption narratives) in the canon. As the biblical narrative unfolds, subplots shape the
canonical/biblical worldview. See N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2013), 1:475-85. Cf. Wright, New Testament and the People, 38-44; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of
God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 2:137-44. Borrowing Wright’s term “outer narrative,” I would suggest
that the sanctuary/temple, rather than the creation, is the “outer narrative” motif that controls the
redemptive “inner narrative” subplots. Recently, David W. Larsen, following Wright’s proposal, has
advanced the notion that the purpose of creation is to become God’s place. He writes: “The purpose of
creation was to become a certain type of ‘thing’, the terrestrial place of God. . . . Further, since the time of
Genesis 1, the place that God created, has been on a placial journey, heading teleologically toward a future
that has worldwide boundaries.” See David W. Larsen, “Two Narratives, Two Missions, One Canon”
248
predominantly associated with the sanctuary/temple as it was supposed to be, without
sin.10 Accordingly, the earthly sanctuary/temple (wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s
Temple) is not the only type of its heavenly counterpart: the narratives of Gen 1-2 also
portray a vertical typology. Just as the earthly sanctuary/temple existed in structural and
functional relationship to its heavenly ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬antitype, the first earthly ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫( ג‬the
protological model of Gen 2) also existed in structural and functional relationship to its
heavenly counterpart.11 One of the key theological implications derived from the first
earthly ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬concerns Adam and Eve’s role.12 Let J. Richard Middleton, whose words
are worth quoting in full, round out our conclusion:
In the cosmic sanctuary of God's world, humans have pride of place and supreme
responsibility, not just as royal stewards and cultural shapers of the environment, but
as priests of creation, actively mediating divine blessing to the nonhuman world
and—in a post-Fall situation—interceding on behalf of a groaning creation until the
(paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society, Denver, 2018), 3-5. Larsen’s idea aligns moderately
with the findings of this study, except that while he construes the purpose of creation as becoming God’s
place, he does not identify the sanctuary/temple motif as the pattern for God’s place.
10
Rodney Clapp, New Creation: A Primer on Living in the Time between the Times (Eugene:
Cascade, 2018), 41.
11
This approach to Gen 1-3 contradicts the common interpretation that “the biblical text nowhere
says that the serpent is the devil or that Eden is a heavenly garden where the righteous will live eternally. It
does not even present itself as describing the fall of humanity. All of this comes from later interpretation.”
See Peter Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2008), 4. The sanctuary/temple motif helps to harmonize the biblical narrative in a coherent
theological framework.
12
The sanctuary/temple motif construes the role of ‫( ָ ָֽהאָ ָדם‬Adam and Eve) as king-priests
worshiping in a garden sanctuary. Yet, when this semantic framework echoes in Scripture, particular
nuances surface. Adam and Eve’s appointment to ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬should be understood as
occurring in their pre-Fall state, since the divine command was given then. Not only did Adam and Eve
have equal ontological value (Gen 1:26-28), but their charge to ‫ עָ בַ ד‬and ‫ שָ מַ ר‬the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬
ֵ ִ֔ ‫ ג‬was analogous
(Gen 2:15). Interpreters should give priority to the pre-Fall narrative in order to establish the primal
covenantal function/role of men and women in sacred space. See William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and
Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), 35-36; Peter John Gentry
and Stephen J. Wellum, God's Kingdom through God's Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2015), 90.
249
day when heaven and earth are redemptively transformed to fulfilled God's purposes
for justice and shalom.13
Thus, this semantic macrostructure suggests that the sanctuary/temple system/framework
is the theological foundation for the created cosmos.14
The third chapter dealt with the post-Fall narrative of Eden (Gen 3) and
reevaluated the arguments arising from the Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8, the
Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬

ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ לָ בַ ש‬in Gen 3:21, the Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in
Gen 3:24, and the eastern entrance to the garden in Gen 3:24.
The Hebrew participle ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬in Gen 3:8 denotes God’s presence, as in later
sanctuaries (cf. Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14]; 2 Sam 7:6-7). The hitpa’el of ‫הָ לַ ְך‬
has the common meaning of “going to and fro,” suggesting the repeated or habitual
presence of someone. This suggests that God’s presence is known and manifested by his
walking in the ‫ַן־ע ֶדן‬

ֵ ִ֔ ‫ג‬. This walking motif is later employed in the Old Testament when
Israel acknowledged that God required holiness and obedience if he were to continue to
“walk” among his people (cf. Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15 [Eng. 23:14]; 2 Sam 7:6-7).15 Lev
13
J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids:
Brazos, 2005), 90. Cf. Morales, Who Shall Ascend, see section entitled “Longing for Eden: Genesis, the
Narrative Context of Leviticus” in 39-74.
14
Denis Carroll is correct in stating that “it would be excessive to claim that creation in the Old
Testament is swallowed up by Israel’s longing for salvation—as if there were no real grasp of creation in
pre-testamental and Old Testament times.” See Denis Carroll, Towards a Story of the Earth: Essays in the
Theology of Creation (St Saviour's: Dominican, 1987), 27. It is reasonable to say that the concept of the
sanctuary/temple as the theological foundation of creation does not support the theory that creation is
subordinated to soteriological considerations. In fact, creation and salvation are subordinated motifs of the
sanctuary/temple theological framework.
15
Note that the same motif is used to describe the patriarchs’ walk with God (cf. Gen 5:22, 24;
6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15). It is of greater significance that the hitpa’el of ‫ הָ לַ ְך‬occurs in 1 Sam 2:35 (cf. Deut
18:15; note also that the language of “walking before” YHWH is used often in connection with the Davidic
covenant in 2 Kgs 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Chr 6:14, 16; 7:17). This passage speaks about the promise of the
coming priest-king. This coming personage is characterized by the hitpa’el of ‫הָ לַ ְך‬, indicating that he
would walk (or minister) and perform the most sacred duties of the sanctuary/temple. According to the
250
26:11-12 connects the Hebrew word ‫[ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬miškān; “dwelling,” “tabernacle”] with the
walking motif.16 The parallel expressions “I will set My tabernacle” and “I will walk
among you” (note the hitpa’el of ‫ )הָ לַ ְך‬seem to imply that the walking motif is the means
by which the ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬becomes in effect God’s dwelling place. In other words, God’s
presence becomes known and manifested by his walking. There is nothing in the post-
Fall Eden narrative (or in the rest of the Old Testament) that would exclude ‫ ִמ ְתהַ לֵּ ְך‬from
the semantic framework of the holiness of the sanctuary/temple motif (Ezek 28:14).
The Hebrew word ‫תנֶת‬

ֹּ ֻּ‫ כ‬and the Hebrew verb ‫ לָ בַ ש‬in Gen 3:21 allude to “an
emblem of status.” Although the semantic analysis has shown that the combination of
‫ לָ ַבׁש‬with the noun ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬does not always have the technical meaning restricted to
priestly investiture, this combination of words tends to be used in contexts that involve
conferral of status. The pairing of these two words in Gen 3:21 and its messianic
connections with Gen 3:15 show that God’s redemptive act in v. 21 addresses more than
the bodily nakedness of the couple. The presence of the canonical/biblical concept of sin
in the context of the Messianic prophecy of v.1 5 gives substitutionary significance to the
death of one or more animals in v. 21.
It is significant that the narratives of Eden (Gen 2:4b-2:25 and 3:1-3:24) begin
and end with sanctuary/temple imagery. Gen 2:8 states that God planted the Garden of
Eden, and Gen 3:24 remarks that God placed cherubim at the east of Eden. These two
divine actions are connected through vertical typology with the sanctuary/temple imagery
New Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, the priest-king that through his “walking motif” would
minister in the heavenly sanctuary/temple (cf. Rom 1:1-6; Heb 7:1-8:2).
16
The Hebrew ‫ ִמ ְּשכָ ן‬is the technical term to refer to the tent of meeting in Exod 25-27; 35-40. Cf.
also Lev 8:10; 15:31; 17:4; Num 1-3; Josh 22:19; 1 Chr 6:17 [Eng. 6:32]; Ps 26:8; 74:7; 132:7.
251
of Ezek 28:13-14. The linkage between “Eden” and the “cherubim” constitutes a frame
that encloses the Eden narratives with a sanctuary/temple setting, indicating a
cultic/salvific interpretation of v. 21. Therefore, the vocabulary, the immediate context,
and these intertextual connections show that the pairing of ‫ כֻּ ֹּ֫תנֶת‬and ‫ לָ בַ ׁש‬in the cultic
context of the sanctuary/temple motif conceptualizes the profound redemptive purpose of
God.
The Hebrew word ‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬in Gen 3:24 is associated with Israel’s sanctuary.17 The
Old Testament shows God as enthroned between the ‫( ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2
Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16; Ps 80:1; 99:1), and God encountering Moses from between the two
‫( ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬cf. Exod 25:22; 30:6; Lev 26:2; Num 7:89). In addition, the presence of ‫ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬
represents the cloud-chariot of YHWH, on which He rides in the heavens (1 Chr 28:18;
Deut 33:26; Ps 18:11 [Eng. 18:10]; Ps 68:5, 34 [Eng. 68:4, 33]; 99:1 and Hab 3:8). In
general terms, the biblical data offers a common conception: the companionship of
‫ ְּכ ֻּר ִבים‬is a direct reference to YHWH’s presence in the sanctuary/temple (Ezek 28:14;
cf. the visions of Ezek 1:5-10 and 10:1-20).
The eastern entrance to the garden in Gen 3:24 (also appearing in Gen 2:8 as
‫)מ ֶק ֶ֙דם‬
ִ alludes to a similar eastward orientation of later sanctuaries ((Exod 27:13-16;
17
Cf. Sculptured images above the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:18-22; 26:31; 37:7-9; Num 7:8-9;
1 Chr 28:18); inside the holy of holies (1 Kgs 6:23-28; 8:6-7; 1 Chr 3:10-13); beneath the massive sea (1
Kgs 7:29, 36); decoration on the curtains of the tabernacle (Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 2 Chr 3:14); the walls
of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35; 2 Chr 3:7; Ezek 41:18, 20, 25); and the guardian cherub in the edenic
sanctuary/temple (Ezek 28:14).
252
36:20-30; 38:13-18; Ezek 47:1). The east-west alignment is one of the basic architectural
elements of sacred buildings in Israel,18 as confirmed by archeological discoveries.19
The conclusions that have been drawn affirm further that the post-Fall Eden
narrative does not exhibit an architectural structure, unlike later sanctuary/temple
buildings, but has conceptual equivalences with a preexisting heavenly sacred space.
Therefore, the post-Fall Eden narrative was not written to reflect the wilderness and later
sanctuaries/temples; rather, this narrative became the precursor of the sanctuary/temple
system as the Garden of Eden represented the preexisting heavenly sacred space.20
The fourth chapter dealt with the creation account (Gen 1:1–Gen 2:4a) and
reevaluated the arguments arising from the motif of temple building (divine rest) and the
Hebrew words ‫ מֹועֵ ד‬and ‫ ָמאֹור‬on the fourth day of creation. The allusion to the
sanctuary/temple motif is subtle and indirect. God’s rest on the seventh day (Gen 2:1-3;
cf. Exod 20:11; 31:17; Ps 132:7-8, 13-14; Isa 66:1-2) is the keystone connecting the
creation account and the temple-building motif via a sevenfold pattern.21 The theological
role of the seventh day connects the creation and sanctuary/temple narratives because it
18
Kang, “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain,” 76-77.
19
Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site,’” 27-42; Herzog, Aharoni, and Rainey, “Arad,” 16-35; Biran, “Sacred
Spaces,” 38-45, 70. Cf. Liid, “East Gate (Place),” ABD, 248.
20
According to Kyle R. Greenwood, the general consensus among biblical scholars is that the
author of Gen 2-3 drew on temple architecture from Israel and the ANE intentionally to demonstrate
Eden’s status as sacred space. Kyle R. Greenwood, “Old Testament Reverberations of Gen 1-2,” in Since
the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages, ed. Kyle R. Greenwood (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2018), 18. However, it is the heavenly realm that provided the design for the Garden of Eden and
the later earthly sanctuary/temple system, as the biblical vertical typology indicates (cf. Gen 1:1; Exod
25:9, 40; Ps 78:69; Ezek 28:11-19; Heb 8:5).
21
The text contains a framework of seven speeches (Exod 25-31); the first six speeches (Exod
25:1-31:11) contain the instructions to build the wilderness sanctuary, and the seventh speech a command
to observe the Sabbath (Exod 31:12-17). See also in 1 Kgs 6:38 the seven years to build Solomon’s
Temple.
253
conveys an equivalence of functionality: “rest.” On the one hand, God’s rest (‫ שָ בַ ת‬in
Gen 2 and ‫נּוח‬

ַ in Exod 20:11) alludes to God’s original plan to rule the heavens and
earth, and the later promise of humankind’s rest (or Israel’s) reflects and derives from it.
God’s resting place (‫נּוחה‬

ָ ‫)מ‬ ְּ is associated with his sovereignty from Zion (Isa 66:1-2) and
with the ark or throne (Ps 132:7-8, 13-14). While God’s activity of rest is to rule creation
and to maintain the created order, the vocabulary describing God’s rest conveys the idea
that it is a sanctuary/temple activity. On the other hand, humankind’s rest (or Israel’s;
related to the verb ‫נּוח‬

ַ and the noun ‫)מנּוחָ ה‬
ְּ alludes to the promised freedom and
prosperity under God’s kingship (Num 10:33; Deut 3:20; 12: 9-10; 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15;
1 Kgs 5:18; 8:56; 1 Chr 22:9; 28:2). Divine rest in Gen 2:1-3 and Israel’s rest in the
remainder of the Old Testament pertain to the dominion and restoration of sacred time
and space. God’s intervention in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt was intended to confer
on the redeemed people a ‫נּוחה‬

ָ ‫( ְּמ‬Deut 12:9; cf. Ps 95:11). In memory of this redemptive
event, Israel was commanded in Deut 5:15 to rest on (to observe) the Sabbath day.
YHWH’s act of releasing Israel from Egypt’s bondage and bringing the nation to its
‫נּוחה‬
ָ ‫ ְּמ‬fulfilled the Sabbath rest. For God’s people, ‫ ְּמנּוחָ ה‬is the Promised Land, the
mountain of his inheritance, God’s sanctuary (Exod 15:17). God’s place of rest becomes
the place of Israel’s promised rest (1 Kgs 8:56; cf. Deut 12:5, 9-11). Just as when divine
rest was accomplished in Zion and national and political security was obtained in Israel,
this redemptive scheme prefigures the end-time redemption when the redeemed will be in
God’s holy city (cf. Heb 4:1-9; 12:22; 13:14; Rev 14:1-3; 15:2; 21-22). Therefore, the
Sabbath rest at creation is God’s creation pattern for humankind, not just for Israel (Gen
2:1-3; cf. Exod 20:8-11). In sum, the creation account concludes with God resting on the
254
seventh day, indicating that just as God rules from the sanctuary/temple (in the heavens),
he governs the newly created earth; divine rest reminds humankind of the cosmic
dimension of God’s kingship. This macro-motif is developed in Gen 2-3’s portrayal of
Adam and Eve with God-given royal authority and priestly status to preserve the sacred
space of the Garden of Eden. In this way, the sabbatical rest is understood within the
sanctuary/temple conceptual framework.
The syntactic and literary characteristics of the fourth day of creation (Gen 1:14-
16) suggest the presence of sanctuary/temple language, prompting the reader to consider
a symbolic/theological understanding as a backdrop to the historical narrative. The
Hebrew word ‫ ָמאֹור‬alludes to a superior reality beyond the “greater light” (sun) and the
“lesser light” (moon) because this word is used only for the light of the menorah (Exod
25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:27; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16). The Hebrew word ‫מֹועֵ ד‬, in
addition to describing one of the functions of the lights in the firmament of the heavens
(‫רת ֙ ִב ְּר ִ ֶ֣קיעַ ַהשָ ִ֔ ַמיִ ם‬

ֹּ ‫ ְּמ ֹּא‬in Gen 1:14), denotes sanctuary/temple activities, specifically
cultic festivals (Lev 23:2, 4, 37, 44; cf. Num 15:3; 29:39; 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:4; 8:13;
30:22; 31:3; Ezra 3:5; Neh 10:33; Isa 1:14; 14:31; 33:20; Lam 1:4; Ezek 36:38; 44:24;
Hos 2:13; Zech 8:19). This biblical evidence does not substantiate the idea of a cosmos-
sized temple. However, it hints at the writer’s intent to imbed the historical narrative
within a semantic or conceptual framework.
In short, Gen 1:1-2:4a advances the canonical/biblical concept that ‫האָ ָדם‬
ָֽ ָ is not
the only reality/creation with the divine-given image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:1; Ps 78:69);
since there was a greater archetypal pattern in God’s plan when creating the heavens and
255
earth, and indeed the entire cosmos.22 Consequently, just as the creation narrative (Gen
1:1-2:4a) and the pre-Fall Eden narrative (Gen 2:4b-25) share the same composition
intent, the post-Fall Eden narrative (Gen 3:1-24) also embraces and advances this literary
purpose: namely, showing the connections between the historical event of creation and
the conceptual world of the sanctuary/temple. The writer of the creation account very
likely wanted his readers to visualize God’s creation as patterned in the likeness of the
divine realm23—to be precise, sacred space/time on earth as it is in heaven.
In the fifth chapter, major theological implications arising from the reevaluation
of the biblical evidence were discussed. During this dissertation’s reevaluation, it was
found that the biblical evidence for allusions to the sanctuary/temple in Gen 1-3 is better
called a motif, thereby framing its meaning as a conceptual approach to the
canonical/biblical text. In this chapter a criterion (or a semantic framework approach)
was proposed as the hermeneutical control in order to ascertain the extent of the
canonical/theological implications of the sanctuary/temple motif in Gen 1-3.24
22
There is a widely known connection between human building projects and the cosmos in ANE
literature. See Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Cosmos, Temple and House Building and Wisdom in
Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, ed. Richard J. Clifford
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 67-90. Cf. Middleton, A New Heaven, 46-49. This
connection admittedly pervades the canonical/biblical narrative; since the Bible is an ANE text, it shares
common elements with other ANE texts. However, the nature of this connection underscores its anti-
mythical and polemical purpose. See Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ
46.2 (1974): 81-102. Cf. Roberto Ouro, “Similarities and Differences between the Old Testament and the
Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” AUSS 49.1 (2011): 5-32; Klein, “Reading Genesis 1,” 32-33.
23
It is significant to highlight that the seventh-day Sabbath rest following a heavenly pattern is a
compelling rationale for human rest. Roy Gane affirms that “when he [God] was setting up patterns for all
human life, including cyclical time (Gen 1:14), indicates that he intended for all humans, made in his image
(vv. 26-27) to follow his example by enjoying Sabbath rest to celebrate his creation.” Roy E. Gane, Old
Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017),
250. This cyclical time is the sanctuary/temple pattern after which the eschatological re-creation is fulfilled.
24
The linguistic and conceptual correspondences between the sanctuary/temple and the creation,
substantiated by numerous canonical uses of this motif, comprise an interpretative network. Gary E.
Schnittjer explains that “networks represent a significant example of scriptural interpretation already built
256
The canonical biblical theology of the creation narrative (Gen 1:1-2:4a) and the
Eden narratives (Gen 2-3), in view of sanctuary/temple (cultic) terminology, develops the
sanctuary/temple motif as an overarching worldview/shaping narrative/story that
functions as the hermeneutical control key to the Bible.25 The sanctuary/temple imagery
of Gen 1-3 is not to be taken as metaphorical or figurative; rather, in addition to
describing the actual origins of the cosmos, it signals a greater reality: God’s heavenly
abode as it was portrayed on earth by sacred space and time. The cosmos is not a temple,
because the Bible contains a vertical typology hermeneutical perspective showing plainly
that heaven is not the sanctuary, but there is a sanctuary in heaven (Isa 66:1-2; cf. Ps
11:4; Heb 8:1-2; Rev 5:11). The cosmological description should be understood as the
historical and continuous interaction between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary/temple
(1 Kgs 8:30-35, 41-50; 2 Chr 30:27; Isa 6:1-7).
into the scripture.” See Gary E. Schnittjer, “The Blessing of Judah as a Breeding Ground for Scriptural
Expectations” (paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society, Denver, 2018), 19. This approach to
canonical/biblical theology proposes the rethinking of narrative contexts and their literary purpose, which is
the case with Gen 1-3. At this point, our conclusions support Beale’s claim that “NT writers and early
Jewish interpreters patterned their interpretation of the OT after the model of the way later OT writers
interpreted earlier OT passages.” G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament:
Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 47. Therefore, the semantic framework approach
to the sanctuary/temple motif is profitable in identifying the dynamic undercurrents of interpretative
networks.
25
This approach is particularly important to understand soteriology. Matthew Levering expounds
on the relationship between creation and atonement in Christian thought. Although I cannot agree with all
his conclusions, he is correct in affirming that “we can only understand the cross when we recognize that
the Redeemer is none other than the Creator, who from eternity knows and wills the whole of creation in
relation to his own goodness.” See Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of Creation: Cosmos,
Creatures, and the Wise and Good Creator (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 276. In the same vein, it may be
argued that when the cross is observed from the perspective of the sanctuary/temple theological framework,
protology and eschatology (creation and re-creation/salvation) provide a rewarding and comprehensive
understanding of the Creator and Redeemer.
257
It is fitting to conclude that the sanctuary/temple motif is the unifying rationale
between protology and eschatology.26 “This means that the image of the sanctuary from
Genesis 2-3, from which humans are exiled and to which they need to return—a return
that God provides purely by his grace—is a controlling image for the entire Bible
story.”27 In actual fact, as Westermann explains, it is impossible to understand the end of
the world without assuming that there was a beginning. He declares that “the primal
events and the final events in the Bible correspond to each other in that they both are
universal in scope and lie beyond history.”28 Daniel W. Hardy seems to discern the same
fundamental insight that the beginning anticipates the end:
Taken in their interrelation, creation and eschatology therefore integrate space and
time and the elements and processes by which they are mediated. As elements and
processes, creation tells us the preconditions which are “shaped” or “completed” in
the other; and eschatology tells us the range of possibilities—and then some—which
are latent or manifested in the first, and in the beginning, but appear through the
complexities and contingencies of history and its eventual transcendence. So, viewed
ontologically, eschatology is the unfolding of what is enfolded in protology, but
understood as a novum which appears at each point in the unfolding, even at the
end.29
26
One key element that unifies the sanctuary/temple motif framing the canonical/biblical narrative
is God’s judgment. This is especially noticeable in the book of Revelation. James M. Hamilton has
comprehensively and meticulously established the judgment motif in Scripture, and in short, Hamilton puts
it like this: “The story of the Bible is the story of God’s glory in salvation through judgment.” See James
M. Hamilton, God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway,
2010), especially 67-107, 541-51. I would agree with Hamilton, though the best or maybe the only way to
understand the purpose of judgment is via the sanctuary/temple motif, particularly as it regards
eschatological events. This perspective is not completely explored in Hamilton’s analysis.
27
Collins, Did Adam and Eve, 69.
28
See Westermann, Beginning and End, 21. This statement would indicate that in the biblical
canonical narrative, protology and eschatology are not confined to salvation history. At this point, our
conclusions concur with Westermann’s exposition. He concludes that “the combination of language of
God’s saving activity and the language of the beginning and the end has its basis in the fact that the deeds
by which God saved his people were so powerful that they had to take in all mankind.” Westermann,
Beginning and End, 36. The soteriological narrative of the Bible corresponds significantly and in similar
language with the beginning and end of the theological/canonical semantic framework.
Daniel W. Hardy, “Creation and Eschatology,” in The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in
29
Dogmatics, History and Philosophy, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 115-16.
258
In other words, the canonical framework for the sanctuary/temple motif in Scripture30
comprises the structures and dynamics of protology and eschatology.31 In this framework,
the theological function of divine rest is to establish God’s sovereignty. Divine rest is
found in the Bible exclusively within the sanctuary/temple framework. God’s rest,
accordingly, is God’s kingship/rulership securing sacred space and time. The history of
the biblical narrative moves toward its consummation, which is the fundamental climactic
and eschatological event of God’s sanctuary/temple rest; the Sabbath rest is a symbol of
salvation, a return to Eden (cf. Exod 31:13; Ezek 20:12; Rev 22:1-5).
The canonical biblical theology of the creation narrative (Gen 1:1-2:4a) and the
Eden narratives (Gen 2-3) develops a cosmological framework of the sanctuary/temple
motif portraying the reality on earth as it is in heaven (Exod 25:9, 40). The creation of the
earth and its eschatological re-creation are modeled, via vertical typology, after the
heavenly realm. The heavens and earth are two distinct entities that do not overlap each
other; rather, the heavenly reality is the system that predetermines the earthly one, the
latter being the reflection of the former. For this reason, the redemptive events are
30
Consider, for example, Ben P. Skipper, “Echoes of Eden: An Intertextual Analysis of Edenic
Language in Romans 1:18-32” (PhD diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2017), especially
148-213.
31
One aspect that serves as an impetus to further research in wisdom thinking is considering that
protology and eschatology actualize the essence of canonical/biblical theology. Zimmerli affirms that
“wisdom thinks resolutely within the framework of a theology of creation.” Walther Zimmerli, “Place and
Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite
Wisdom, ed. James L. Crenshaw (New York: Ktav, 1976), 316. Zimmerli is right, but taking creation
theology as the exclusive basis of wisdom thinking overlooks the fact that wisdom thinking also considers
judgment. An alternative approach to ponder wisdom thinking is to observe the relationship between
creation and judgment via a sanctuary/temple semantic framework. See also Tremper Longman, The Fear
of the Lord Is Wisdom: A Theological Introduction to Wisdom in Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 130.
259
prefigured in the earthly sanctuary/temple services and accomplished by Christ in the
heavenly sanctuary/temple.
The archetypal framework of protology and eschatology focuses on the concept of
Eden. It has been observed that the canonical biblical narrative commences with Eden in
heaven (Ezek 28), continues with Eden on earth (Gen 2-3), and ends with a heavenly
Eden on earth (Rev 22). This means that the function of Eden, representing the original
paradigmatic worship setting in the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian historical phases of
humankind, defines the biblical concept of the sanctuary/temple. The sanctuary/temple
system/framework, as the theological/canonical foundation for the created cosmos, is the
pattern for God’s archetypal cosmic order and dealings with sin.
In short, the sanctuary/temple (garden-like) semantic framework is a coherent and
consistent pattern all through Scripture, centered on the idea that God intended his
creation to be inhabited by a ‫כה ֲִנָ֖ים‬

ֹּ ‫( מַ ְּמ ֶל֥כֶ ת‬Exod 19:6; cf. Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Creation eagerly awaits when the ancient promise may be fulfilled in the eschatological
re-creative exclamation: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell
with them, and they shall be his people. God himself will be with them and be their
God.”32
32
Rev 21:3; cf. Isa 61:6. Protology and eschatology are consolidated when Jesus himself (Luke
23:42-43; cf. Matt 25:34; Rev 2:7) characterizes God’s kingdom (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) as Eden (ὁ
παράδεισος τοῦ θεοῦ).
260
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitken, J. K. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Supplement 23. Louvain: Peeters, 2007.
Albright, William F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University, 1956.
———. “The Babylonian Temple-Tower and the Altar of Burnt-Offering.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 39.3-4 (1920): 137-42.
———. “The Location of the Garden of Eden.” The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 39 (1922): 15-31.
———. “The Mouth of the Rivers.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures 35.4 (1919): 161-95.
———. “What Were the Cherubim?” The Biblical Archaeologist 1.1 (1938): 1-3.
Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel.” Pages 735-996 in vol. 6 of The Expositor's Bible

Commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible. Edited by
Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical

Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009.
———. “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis.” Tyndale

Bulletin 44.2 (November 1993): 255-70.
Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word Books,
1990.
———. Psalms 101-150. Word Biblical Commentary 21. Dallas: Word Books, 1983.
Allen, Ronald Barclay, Beverly Allen, and Rodney L. Morris. Liberated Traditionalism:
Men and Women in Balance. Portland: Multnomah, 1985.
Amit, Yairah. “Biblical Utopianism: A Mapmaker's Guide to Eden.” Union Seminary

Quarterly Review 44.1-2 (1990): 11-17.
Anderson, Bernhard W. From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives.

Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
———. “Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith.” Pages 1-

24 in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
261
Anderson, Bernhard W., and Steven Bishop. Contours of Old Testament Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Anderson, Gary A. “Celibacy or Consummation in the Garden: Reflections on Early

Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Garden of Eden.” Harvard Theological
Review 82.2 (1989): 121-148.
———. “The Cosmic Mountain: Eden and Its Early Interpreters in Syriac Christianity,”
Pages 187-224 in Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden.
Edited by Gregory A. Robbins. Lewiston: E. Mellen, 1988.
———. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Anderson, Roy Allan. Unfolding Daniel's Prophecies. Mountain View: Pacific Press,
1975.
Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. “Festival and Freedom: A Study of an Old Testament Theme.”
Interpretation 28.3 (1974): 281-97.
———. “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament.” Pages 63-79 in The Sanctuary
and the Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Studies. Edited by
Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf, W. Richard Lesher, and Frank B. Holbrook. Silver
Spring: Biblical Research Institute, 1989.
———. The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation. Missoula:

SBL, 1972.
———. “Recent Studies of the Old Testament Sabbath.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86.4 (1974): 453-69.
———. Rest and Redemption: A Study of the Biblical Sabbath. Berrien Springs:
Andrews University, 1978.
Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. “καταπαύω.” In A Greek-

English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.
Assis, Eliyahu. The Book of Joel: A Prophet between Calamity and Hope. Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 581. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Athas, George. “The Creation of Israel: The Cosmic Proportions of the Exodus Event.”
Pages 130-160 in Exploring Exodus: Literary, Theological and Contemporary
Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner and Paul R. Williamson. Nottingham:
Apollos, 2008.
August, Jared M. “The Messianic Hope of Genesis: The Protoevangelium and Patriarchal
Promises.” Themelios 42.1 (April 2017): 46-62.
Averbeck, Richard E. “The Cylinders of Gudea.” Pages 417-33 in Context of Scripture:

Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from
the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. Boston:
Brill, 2003.
262
Averbeck, Richard E., Todd S. Beall, C. John Collins, and Tremper Longman. “Four
Responses to Chapter Five.” Pages 170-83 in Reading Genesis 1-2: An
Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody: Hendrickson,
2013.
Azevedo, Joaquim. “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4.7.”
Biblische Notizen 100 (1999): 45-59.
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Divine Rest for Human Restlessness: A Theological Study of the
Good News of the Sabbath for Today. Berrien Springs: Samuele Bacchiocchi,
1980.
Bacchiocchi, Samuele, Rosalie Haffner Lee, and William A. Fagal. Women in the
Church: A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the Church. Berrien Springs:
Biblical Perspectives, 1987.
Baez, Enrique. “Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in the Book of Daniel: An Exegetical and
Intertextual Study.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2013.
Bähr, Karl Christian W. F. Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Heidelberg:
Mohr, 1837.
Baker, Eric W. “The Eschatological Role of the Jerusalem Temple: An Examination of

Jewish Writings Dating from 586 BCE to 70 CE.” PhD diss., Andrews University,
2014.
Bakon, Shimon. “Creation, Tabernacle and Sabbath.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 25.2
(1997): 79-85.
Baldwin, John T. “Revelation 14:7: An Angel's Worldview.” Pages 19-39 in Creation,

Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine of
Atonement. Edited by John T. Baldwin. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000.
Balentine, Samuel E. The Torah's Vision of Worship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Barcellos, Richard C. Better than the Beginning: Creation in Biblical Perspective.

Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Acamedic, 2013.
Barker, Margaret. Creation: A Biblical Vision for the Environment. London: T & T
Clark, 2010.
———. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008.
———. On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament.

Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995.
———. Temple Theology: An Introduction. London: SPCK, 2004.
Barker, P. A. “Rest, Peace.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by

T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.
Barnes, W. Emery. “Ezekiel's Denunciation of Tyre.” Journal of Theological Studies 35
(1934): 50-54.
263
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University, 1961.
Barrois, Georges. “Women and the Priestly Office According to the Scriptures.” Pages
52-60 in Women and the Priesthood. Edited by Kallistos and Thomas Hopko.
Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1983.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Translated by J. W. Edwards and Harold Knight. Vol. 3.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.
Bartholomew, Craig G. Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

2006.
Bartholomew, Craig G., and Michael W. Goheen. The Drama of Scripture: Finding our
Place in the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville:
Westminster, 1992.
Bavinck, Herman, and John Bolt. In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Beale, Gregory K. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48.1 (2005): 5-31.
———. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and
Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012.
———. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling
Place of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Beale, Gregory K., and D. A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Beale, Gregory K., and Mitchell Kim. God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the
Ends of the Earth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014.
Beall, Todd S. “Reading Genesis 1-2: A Literal Approach.” Pages 45-72 in Reading
Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2013.
Berg, Werner. “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heiles im Alten
Testament.” Biblische Zeitschrift 32.1 (1988): 35-51.
Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary 7. Nashville: Broadman

& Holman, 1996.
Bergmann, Sigurd. Religion, Space, and the Environment. New Brunswick: Transaction,
2014.
Berman, Joshua. The Temple: Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now. Northvale:
Aronson, 1995.
Bertholet, Alfred. Das Buch Hesekiel. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament V.
Leipzig: Mohr, 1897.
264
Bertoluci, Jose Maria. “The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context
of the Controversy between Good and Evil.” ThD diss., Andrews University,
1985.
Bevan, A. A. “The King of Tyre in Ezekiel XVIII.” The Journal of Biblical Studies 4
(1903): 500-505.
Bilezikian, Gilbert G. Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the
Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.
Biran, Avraham. “Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at
Tel Dan.” Biblical Archaeology Review 24.5 (1998): 38-45, 70.
Bird, Phyllis A. “Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh.” Theology Today 50.4
(1994): 521-34.
———. “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus.” Pages 397-419 in Ancient
Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D.
Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Blackwood, Andrew W. Commentary on Jeremiah: The Word, the Words, and the World.
Waco: Word Books, 1977.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible 19b. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
———. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel.
Louisville: Westminster, 1995.
———. “The Structure of P.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38.3 (1976): 275-92.
Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Solomon's Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space.” Pages 83-94
in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by
Barry M. Gittlen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Translated by David
G. Preston. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1984.
Block, Daniel I. ed. Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in
the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene: Cascade, 2013.
———. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
———. “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of Biblical Evidence.” Pages 3-29 in From

Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Daniel M.
Gurtner. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013.
———. For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2014.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. The New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1992.
265
Bolger, Eric W. “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch.” PhD
diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

New York: Macmillan, 1959.
Booth, Walter M. “Days of Genesis 1: Literal or Nonliteral?” Journal of the Adventist

Theological Society 14.1 (2003): 101-20.
Bouteneff, Peter. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation

Narratives. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Boyd, Gregory A. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1997.
Boyer, Mark G. Divine Presence: Elements of Biblical Theophanies. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2017.
Bray, Gerald L. “The Significance of God’s Image in Man.” Tyndale Bulletin 42.2
(1991): 195-225.
Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of
Wonder. New York: Oxford University, 2010.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
———. Isaiah 40-66. Vol. 2. Louisville: Westminster, 1998.
———. Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
———. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1997.
———. “Walk Humbly with Your God: Micah 6:8.” Journal for Preachers 33.4 (2010):
14-19.
Brueggemann, Walter, and Tod Linafelt. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The
Canon and Christian Imagination. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster, 2012.
Burrows, Eric. “Some Cosmological Patterns.” Pages 43-70 in The Labyrinth: Further
Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by
Samuel H. Hooke. London: SPCK, 1935.
Butterworth, Robert. The Theology of Creation. Notre Dame: Fides, 1969.
Calaway, Jared. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the
Hebrews and its Priestly Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Canale, Fernando L. Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing

Tradition. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2005.
266
———. “Philosophical Foundations and the Biblical Sanctuary.” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 36.2 (1998): 183-206.
Carena, Omar. History of the Near Eastern Historiography and its Problems: 1852-1985;
Part One 1852-1945. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 218/1. Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker, 1989.
Carroll, Denis. Towards a Story of the Earth: Essays in the Theology of Creation. St
Saviour’s: Dominican, 1987.
Cassuto, Umberto. “Biblical and Canaanite Literature.” Tarbiz 13 (1942): 197-212.
———. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Vol. 1.

Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961.
———. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967.

Cefalu, Rita F. “Royal Priestly Heirs to the Restoration Promise of Genesis 3:15: A
Biblical Theological Perspective on the Sons of God in Genesis 6.” The
Westminster Theological Journal 76.2 (Fall 2014): 351-70.
Chafer, L. Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-
1948.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old

Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.
———. “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature.” Pages 41-49 in Interpreting
the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987.
———. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster, 2001.
———. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology. London:
SCM, 1960.
———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Chilton, David. Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion. Tyler:
Reconstruction, 1985.
Choi, Suk Peter. “The Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, 2005.
Chou, Abner. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture
from the Prophets and the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. Word Biblical Commentary 6b.

Dallas: Word Books, 2002.
Clapp, Rodney. New Creation: A Primer on Living in the Time between the Times.
Eugene: Cascade, 2018.
267
Clark, Gordon R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 157. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.
Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965.
———. Jeremiah. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.
———. Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978.
Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge:
Harvard University, 1972.
Clifford, Richard J. “The Temple and the Holy Mountain.” Pages 107-24 in The Temple
in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives. Edited by Truman G.
Madsen. Provo: Religious Studies Center of Brigham Young University, 1984.
Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978.
Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. Chico: Scholars,
1981.
Cole, H. Ross. “Genesis 1:14: Translation Notes.” Andrews University Seminary Studies
45.1 (2007): 63-67.
———. “The Sabbath and Genesis 2:1-3.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 41.1
(2003): 5-12.
Collins, C. John. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should
Care. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
———. Genesis 1-4 A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg:

P & R, 2006.
———. “The Lost World of Genesis One: A Book Review.” Reformed Academic, 26
November 2009. Available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/143005290/Review-
of-John-Walton-The-Lost-World-Of-Genesis-One-by-C-John-Collins.
———. “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or
Plural?” Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (May 1997): 139-48.
———. “The Theology of the Old Testament.” Pages 29-31 in The Holy Bible: English
Standard Version Study Bible. Edited by Lane T. Dennis. Wheaton: Crossway
Bibles, 2008.
———. “What Happened to Adam and Eve?: A Literary-Theological Approach to

Genesis 3.” Presbyterion 27.1 (2001): 12-44.
Conklin, Edward. Getting Back into the Garden of Eden. Lanham: University Press of
America, 1998.
Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments 21. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936.
268
Cooper, Lamar E. Ezekiel. The New American Commentary 17. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1994.
Cortez, Felix H. “Creation in Hebrews.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53.2

(2015): 279-320.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Craigie, Peter C., and Marvin E. Tate. Psalms 1-50. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary
19. Waco: Word Books, 2004.
Creach, Jerome F. D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the
Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.1 (1999): 34-46.
Criswell, W. A. Expository Sermons on the Book of Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1987.
Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms I. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966.
———. Psalms III. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970.
Dalley, Stephanie. The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World
Wonder Traced. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013.
Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “Eve a Priest in Eden?” Pages 123-28 in Prove All Things: A
Response to Women in Ministry. Edited by Mercedes H. Dyer. Berrien Springs:
Adventists Affirm, 2000.
Dauphinais, Michael, and Matthew Levering. Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological
Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005.
Davidson, A. B. Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: With Notes and Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1892.
Davidson, Richard M. “Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1-3 and the Theological Center
of Scripture.” Pages 5-29 in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor
of Hans K. LaRondelle. Edited by Daniel Heinz, Jiří Moskala, and Peter M. Van
Bemmelen. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2009.
———. “The Biblical Account of Origins.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
14.1 (2003): 4-43.
———. “Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood.” Pages 79-92 in
Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine
of Atonement. Edited by John T. Baldwin. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000.
———. “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 71-93 in To
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David
Merling. Berrien Springs: Institute of Archaeology Siegfried H. Horn
Archaeological Museum of Andrews University, 1997.
269
———. “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium.” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 11.1-2 (2000): 102-119.
———. “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Gen 1-3 and Parallel Creation Accounts.” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 53.1 (2015): 65-89.
———. Ezekiel 28:11-19 and the Rise of the Cosmic Conflict. Edited by Gerhard Pfandl.
The Great Controversy and the End of Evil. Silver Spring: Review and Herald,
2015.
———. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007.
———. “The Genesis Account of Creation.” Pages 59-129 in The Genesis Creation
Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament. Edited by Gerald A.
Klingbeil. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2015.
———. “The Good News of Yom Kippur.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
2.2 (1991): 4-27.
———. “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” Pages 259-294 in Women in

Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Nancy J. Vyhmeister.
Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1998.
———. “The Holy Spirit in the Pentateuch.” Paper presented at IX Biblical-Theological

Symposium. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, May 2011.
———. A Love Song for the Sabbath. Washington: Review and Herald, 1988.
———. “The Nature of the Human Beings from the Beginning: Genesis 1-11.” Pages 11-
42 in “What Are Human Beings That You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the
Third International Bible Conference, Nof Ginosar and Jerusalem, June 11-21,
2012. Edited by Clinton Wahlen. Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015.
———. “Sabbath, Spirituality and Mission: Torah’s Seven Dimensions of Sabbath Rest.”
Pages 3-19 in Encountering God in Life and Mission: A Festschrift Honoring Jon
Dybdahl. Edited by Maier Rudi. Berrien Springs: Department of Workd Mission,
———. “The Sabbatic Chiastic Structure of Psalm 92.” Paper presented at Society of
Biblical Literature. Chicago, November 1988.
———. “Satan's Celestial Slander.” Perspective Digest 1.1 (1996): 31-34.
———. “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return to Eden.” Andrews

———. “Transformed in Christ by Entering God’s Rest.” Adventist Review 3 (2005): 9-

11.
———. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical τύπος Structures. Andrews

University Seminary Doctoral Dissertations Series 2. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University, 1981.
270
Davidson, Robert. Genesis 1-11. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge:
University Press, 1973.
Davies, John A. A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image

of Israel in Exodus 19:6. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 395. New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Davila, James R. “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice.” Dead Sea Discoveries 9.1 (2002): 1-19.
De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961.
———. “Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance: Les sphynx gardiens et les trônes divins
dans l’Ancien Orient.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 37 (1961): 93-124.
De Vries, Simon J. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2003.
Dederen, Raoul. “Reflections on a Theology of the Sabbath.” Pages 295-306 in The

Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand and Daniel
Augsburger. Washington: Review and Herald, 1982.
———. “The Priesthood of All Believers.” Pages 9-27 in Women in Ministry: Biblical
and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Nancy J. Vyhmeister. Berrien Springs:
Deenick, Karl. “Priest and King or Priest-King in 1 Samuel 2:35.” The Westminster
Theological Journal 73.2 (2011): 325-39.
Dell, Katharine J., and William L. Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. New York:
Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013.
Dempster, Stephen. “An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the
Hebrew Canon.” Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (1997): 23-56.
Detlef, Jericke. “Königsgarten und Gottes Garten: Aspekte der Königsideologie in

Genesis 2 und 3.” Pages 161-76 in Exegese vor Ort: Festschrift für Peter Welten.
Edited by Christl M. Maier. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001.
Dhorme, E. “Le Nom des Cherubins.” Pages 671-83 in Recueil Édouard Dhorme: Etudes
Bibliques et Orientales. Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1951.
Dibelius, Martin. Lade Jahves: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Norderstedt:

Vero Verlag, 1906. Repr. 2014.
Dietrich, Manfred. “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten:

Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden.” Pages 281-323 in Das biblische
Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski, Beate
Ego, and Annette Krüger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Doukhan, Jacques B. Daniel: The Vision of the End. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University, 1987.
271
———. Genesis. Edited by Jacques B. Doukhan. Seventh Day Adventist International
Bible Commentary 1. Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2016.
———. “The Genesis Creation Story: Text, Issues, and Truth.” Origins 55 (2004): 12-
33.
———. Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in
Relation to Hebrew Thinking. Lanham: University Press of America, 1993.
———. “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 1978.
———. “Loving the Sabbath as a Christian: A Seventh Day Adventist Perspective.”

Pages 149-68 in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by
Tamara C. Eskenazi, Daniel J. Harrington, and William H. Shea. New York:
Crossroad, 1991.
———. “A Response to John H. Walton’s Lost World of Genesis One.” Andrews
———. “Review of John H. Walton's Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.” Andrews

———. Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile. Hagerstown:
Review and Herald, 2000.
———. Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse through Hebrew Eyes. Hagerstown:

———. “The Seventy Weeks of Dan 9: An Exegetical Study.” Andrews University

Seminary Studies 17.1 (1979): 1-22.
———. “‘When Death Was Not Yet’: The Testimony of Biblical Creation.” Pages 329-
342 in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old
Testament. Edited by Gerald A. Klingbeil. Berrien Springs: Andrews University,
2015.
———. “Where Did Death Come From? A Study of the Genesis Creation Story.”
Adventist Perspectives 4.1 (1990).
———. “Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence.” Pages 29-43 in Women in
Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Nancy J. Vyhmeister.
Dressler, H. P. “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” Pages 21-41 in From Sabbath to
Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D.
A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Drinkard, Joel F. Jr. “East.” Page 248 of The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. 1992.
Driver, Samuel R. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen, 1904.
272
Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants.
Nashville: Nelson, 1984.
———. The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament. Homebush
West: Lancer Books, 1985.
———. “Genesis 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation.” Pages 53-65 in

Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.
———. The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1994.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco: Word Books, 1987.
Dye, Dinah. The Temple Revealed in Creation: A Portrait of the Family. Rio Rancho:
Foundation in Torah Publishing, 2016.
———. The Temple Revealed in the Garden: Priests and Kings. Rio Rancho: Foundation
in Torah Publishing, 2018.
Eichler, Raanan. “Cherub: A History of Interpretation.” Biblica 96.1 (2015): 26-38.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. The Old Testament Library 1.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.
Eisenberg, Evan. The Ecology of Eden. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Cleveland: World, 1963.
———. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New York: Harcourt,
1959.
Ellul, Jacques. The Meaning of the City. Translated by D. Pardee. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970.
Elnes, Eric E. “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism.’”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 16.2 (1994): 144-55.
Eng, Milton. The Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in
Biblical Israel. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. New York:
T & T Clark, 2011.
Enns, Paul P. Ezekiel: Bible Study Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Evans, Mary J. Woman in the Bible: An Overview of All the Crucial Passages on
Women’s Roles. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983.
Fairbairn, Patrick. Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1876.
Faulkner, Danny R., and Lee Anderson. Created Cosmos: What the Bible Reveals about
Astronomy. Green Forest: Master, 2016.
273
Fausset, A. R. “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah.” Pages 366-767 in A Commentary on the
Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.
Feinberg, Charles Lee. The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord. Chicago: Moody,
1969.
Feinman, Peter D. “Where Is Eden?: An Analysis of Some of the Mesopotamian Motifs

in Primeval J.” Pages 172-89 in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of
Hermann Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis. Edited by Richard Henry Beal and
Jo Ann Scurlock. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Fillmore, Charles J. “Frame Semantics.” Pages 373-400 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic

Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.
———. “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language.” Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences: Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech 280 (1976):
20-32.
Fillmore, Charles J., and D. Terence Langendoen. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
———. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oxford:
Oneworld, 1998.
———. “The Sacred Center.” Pages 6-27 in Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to
Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday by his Students.
Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer and Paul R. Mendes-Flohr. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
———. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York:
Schocken Books, 1979.
Fisher, Eugene J. “Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East: A Reassessment.”

Biblical Theology Bulletin 6.2-3 (1976): 225-36.
Fisher, Loren R. “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 15
(1965): 313-24.
———. “The Temple Quarter.” Journal of Semitic Studies 8 (1963): 34-41.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “God's Image, His Cosmic Temple and the High Priest:
Towards a Historical and Theological Account of the Incarnation.” Pages 81-99 in
Heaven on Earth. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Simon J. Gathercole.
Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004.
Foh, Susan T. “What Is the Woman's Desire.” The Westminster Theological Journal 37.3
(1975): 376-83.
———. Women and the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979.
Ford, Elaine. “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Semeia
12 (1978): 179-99.
274
Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. 1948. Repr., New York: Harper and Row,
1961.
———. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the
Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948.
Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Freedman, David R. “Woman, a Power Equal to Man.” Biblical Archaeology Review 9.1
(1983): 56-58.
Fretheim, Terence E. “‘Because the Whole Earth is Mine’: Theme and Narrative in
Exodus.” Interpretation 50.3 (1996): 229-39.
———. Creation, Fall, and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1-11. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1969.
———. Exodus. Edited by James Luther Mays. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.
———. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.
———. “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus.” Interpretation

45.4 (1991): 354-365.
———. “Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long? Yes.” Page 250 in The
Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood. Edited by
Ronald F. Youngblood. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Fretheim, Terence E., Walter Brueggemann, and Walter C. Kaiser. The New Interpreters
Bible: General and Old Testament Articles, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. 12 vols.
Vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.
Frey, Mathilde. “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch: An Exegetical and Theological Study.”
PhD diss., Andrews University, 2011.
Gadamer, Hans Georg. Truth and Method. Edited by G. Barden and J. Cumming. New
York: Seabury, 1975.
Gage, Warren A. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Winona
Lake: Carpenter, 1984.
Gallos, Erhard H. “Katapausis and Sabbatismos in Hebrews 4.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2011.
Gane, Roy E. Altar Call. Berrien Springs: Diadem, 1999.
———. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy.
Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2005.
———. Leviticus, Numbers. The New International Version Application Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
275
———. “The Nature of the Human Being in Leviticus.” Pages 43-57 in “What Are
Human Beings that You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the Third
International Bible Conference, Nof Ginosar and Jerusalem, June 11-21, 2012.
Edited by Clinton Wahlen. Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015.
———. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application.
———. “Sabbath and the New Covenant.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
10.1-2 (1999): 311-32.
———. “Sabbath and Sanctification.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 22.1
(2011): 3-15.
Gane, Roy E., and Constance Gane. “Cosmic Conflict and Divine Kingship in
Babylonian Religion and Biblical Apocalypses.” Pages 279-305 in Meeting with
God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson. Edited by Jiří
Moskala. Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016.
Garr, John D. God's Lamp, Man's Light: Mysteries of the Menorah. Atlanta: Restoration
Foundation, 2001.
Garrett, Duane A. Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of
the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Gaster, Theodor Herzl, and James George Frazer. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old
Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's
Folklore in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Gentry, Peter John, and Stephen J. Wellum. God's Kingdom through God's Covenants: A
Concise Biblical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.
———. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the

Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Giere, S. D. A New Glimpse of Day One: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and

Genesis 1.1-5. New York: W. de Gruyter, 2009.
Goldingay, John. Isaiah. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2012.
Gordis, Robert. “The Heptad as an Element of Biblical and Rabbinic Style.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 62.1 (1943): 17-26.
Gordon, Cyrus H. “The Seventh Day.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979): 299-301.
Gordon, Robert P. “The Week That Made the World: Reflections on the First Pages of
the Bible.” Pages 228-41 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J.
Wenham. Edited by J. G. McConville and Karl Moeller. London: T & T Clark,
2007.
Görg, M. “Gihon (Place).” Pages 1018-19 of The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited
by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
276
Gorman, Frank H. The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly
Theology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 91.
Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.
———. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space and Status.” Pages 47-64 in History
and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by Matt Patrick
Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 173. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.
Gosse, Bernard. “L’ inclusion de l’ensemble Genèse-II Rois, entre la perte du jardin
d’Eden et celle de Jérusalem.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
114.2 (2002): 189-211.
Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Greenwood, Kyle R. “Old Testament Reverberations of Gen 1-2.” Pages 1-22 in Since
the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages. Edited by Kyle R.
Greenwood. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018.
Gregor, Paul. “Creation Revisited: Echoes of Genesis 1 and 2 in the Pentateuch.” Pages
131-48 in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old
Testament. Edited by Gerald A. Klingbeil. Berrien Springs: Andrews University,
2015.
Grudem, Wayne A. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than
One Hundred Disputed Questions. Sisters: Multnomah, 2004.
Gulley, Norman R. Satan's Trojan Horse: God's End-time Victory. Hagerstown: Review
and Herald, 2004.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University,

1997.
Haag, E. “‫שָ בַ ת‬.” Pages 381-86 in vol. 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. 15 vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 2004.
Habel, Norman C. “Ezekiel 28 and the Fall of the First Man.” Concordia Theological
Monthly 38.8 (1967): 516-24.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. Word Biblical Commentary 33a. Dallas: Word Books,
1998.
Hamilton, James M. God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology.

Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
———. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Haran, Menahem. “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical
Ritual.” Israel Exploration Journal 9.1 (1959): 30-38.
277
———. “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle.” Hebrew Union College Annual 36
(1965): 191-226.
———. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1985.
Hardy, Daniel W. “Creation and Eschatology.” Pages 105-33 in The Doctrine of

Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy. Edited by Colin E.
Gunton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997.
Harrington, Daniel J. “The Gospel According to Mark.” Pages 596-629 in The New
Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of
the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980.
Hart, Ian. “Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis.” Tyndale Bulletin 46.2
(1995): 315-36.
Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word Books, 1992.
Hasel, Gerhard F. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
———. “The Polemic Nature of Genesis Cosmology.” The Evangelical Quarterly 46.2
(1974): 81-102.
———. “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch.” Pages 21-43 in The Sabbath in Scripture and
History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand and Daniel Augsburger. Washington:
Hauser, Alan J. “Linguistic and Thematic Links between Genesis 4:1-16 and Genesis 2-
3.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23.4 (1980): 297-305.
Hays, J. Daniel. The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God's Dwelling Places from
Genesis to Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016.
Hayward, Robert. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge,
1996.
Hebel, Udo J. Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of

Critical Studies. New York: Greenwood, 1989.
Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago,
1951.
Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the
Bible. Bellingham: Lexham, 2015.
Hendel, Ronald. “John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 58.1 (2013): 221-22.
278
Henze, Matthias. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern
Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Herzog, Zeʼev, Miriam Aharoni, and Anson F. Rainey. “Arad: An Ancient Israelite
Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh.” Biblical Archaeology Review 13.2 (1987):
16-35.
Heschel, Abraham J. The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: Farrar
Straus and Young, 1951.
———. The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: The Noonday, 1994.
Hess, Richard S. “Equality with and without Innocence: Genesis 1-3.” Pages 79-95 in
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. Edited by
Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
———. “Genesis 1-2 in Its Literary Context.” Tyndale Bulletin 41.1 (May 1990): 143-
53.
———. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids:

Baker, 2007.
Hilber, J. W. “Liturgy and Cult.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2012.
Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the
Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira.” Pages 63-79 in Sacred Places and
Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Edited by Jamie S. Scott and Paul Simpson-Housley. New York: Greenwood,
1991.
Hodge, Bryan C. Revisiting the Days of Genesis: A Study of the Use of Time in Genesis
1-11 in Light of its Ancient Near Eastern and Literary Context. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2011.
House, H. Wayne. “Creation and Redemption: A Study of Kingdom Interplay.” Journal

of the Evangelical Theological Society 35.1 (1992): 3-17.
Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul's Letters and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 2002.
Huey, F. B. Jeremiah, Lamentations. The New American Commentary 16. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman, 1993.
Hughes, Philip E. “Rest.” In vol. 2 of Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Walter
A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981.
Hurowitz, Victor A. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in
Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.
279
———. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 105.1 (1985): 21-30.
———. “YHWH’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon's
Temple.” Pages 63-110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John
Day. Vol. 422. New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. Berlin: Gruyter, 2005.
Ibn Ezra, Abraham. The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah. Translated by Michael
Friedllander. London: Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873.
———. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Creation. Translated by Michael
Linetsky. Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1998.
Ironside, H. A. Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah. New Jersey: Loiseaux Brothers,
1952.
Isaac, Munther B. I. “From Land to Lands, from Eden to the Renewed Earth: A Christ-
Centred Biblical Theology of the Promised Land.” PhD diss., Middlesex
University (United Kingdom), 2014.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary Critical and

Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 2 vols. Vol. 1. New York: George H. Doran,
1921.
Janowski, Bernd. “Tempel und Schöpfung.” Pages 37-69 in Jahrbuch für biblische
Theologie. Edited by Luis Alonso Schökel and Ingo Baldermann. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990.
Janzen, J. Gerald. Exodus. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox, 1997.
Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3
vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
Johnston, Robert M. “Soul Rest and the Seventh Day Rest.” Pages 367-80 in Meeting
with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson. Edited by
Jiří Moskala. Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016.
Jones, Douglas R. Jeremiah: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Jordan, James F. “Frame Semantics: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Researching

Concepts in the Bible.” Paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature. Boston,
2017.
Jouon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Gregorian and
Biblical, 2006.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
280
———. “Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest.” Bibliotheca Sacra 130.518 (1973):
135-50.
Kalimi, Isaac. Jewish Bible Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Kang, Seung Il. “Creation, Eden, Temple and Mountain: Textual Presentations of Sacred
Space in the Hebrew Bible.” PhD diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 2008.
Kapelrud, Arvid S. “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise.” Journal of
the American Oriental Society 70.3 (1950): 151-56.
Kass, Leon. The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis. New York: Free, 2003.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian
Exile. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960.
Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40.” Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375-87.
Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography
and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.
Vol. 9. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,

1975.
Kim, Jung H. The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 268. London: T&T Clark
International, 2004.
Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in
the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University, 2006.
Klein, George L. “Reading Genesis 1.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 44.1 (2001):
22-38.
Kline, Meredith G. “Because It Had Not Rained." The Westminster Theological Journal
20 (1958): 146-57.
———. God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos.
Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
———. Images of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
———. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene:

Wipf & Stock, 2000.
———. “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony.” Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith 48.1 (1996): 2-15.
281
Klingbeil, Martin G. “Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An
Intertextual Approach.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 20.1-2
(2009): 19-54.
———. “Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An Intertextual

Approach.” Pages 257-89 in The Genesis Creation Account and its
Reverberations in the Old Testament. Edited by Gerald A. Klingbeil. Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 2015.
Klouda, S. L. “Zion.” Pages 936-41 of Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry
and Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman and Peter Enns. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity. 2008.
Knowles, Melody D. Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud

and the Diaspora during the Persian Period. Archaeology and Biblical Studies
16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Kraeling, E. G. “The Present Status of the Sabbath Question.” The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures 49.3 (1933): 218-28.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1966.
Kubo, Sakae. God Meets Man: A Theology of the Sabbath and Second Advent. Nashville:
Southern, 1978.
Kunin, Seth D. God's Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism.
Cassell Religious Studies. London: Cassell, 1998.
Kuruvilla, Abraham. Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers. Eugene:

Resource, 2014.
Kutsch, E. “Sabbath.” In vol. 5 of Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart:

Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Edited by Kurt
Galling and Hans von Campenhausen. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr. 1957.
Laansma, John. “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with
Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Lafont, Bertrand. “The Ordeal.” Pages 199-210 in Everyday Life in Ancient

Mesopotamia. Edited by Jean Bottéro and André Finet. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University, 2001.
Lambden, Stephen N. “From Fig Leaves to Fingernails: Some Notes on the Garments of
Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible and Select Early Postbiblical Jewish
Writings.” Pages 74-90 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and
Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Deborah Sawyer and Paul Morris. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 136. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.
Lambert, W. G. “New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.” Journal of
Theological Studies 16.2 (1965): 287-300.
282
Lane, William L. Hebrews. Word Biblical Commentary 47b. Dallas: Word Books, 1998.
Lange, Johann P., and Philip Schaff. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Bellingham:
Logos Bible Software, 2008.
LaRocca-Pitts, Elizabeth C. Of Wood and Stone: The Significance of Israelite Cultic

Items in the Bible and its Early Interpreters. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
LaRondelle, Hans K. Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant

Theology. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2005.
Larsen, David W. “Two Narratives, Two Missions, One Canon.” Paper presented at
Evangelical Theological Society. Denver, 2018.
Launderville, Dale. “Ezekiel's Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?” The

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65.2 (2003): 165-83.
Law, Henry. The Gospel in Genesis. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.
Lewis, Jack P. “The Woman’s Seed (Gen 3:15).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 34.3 (September 1991): 299-319.
Leene, Henk. Newness in Old Testament Prophecy: An Intertextual Study. Edited by B.

Becking. Old Testament Studies 64. Boston: Brill, 2014.
Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in
Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis: Chapter 1-19. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1956.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
———. “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8.” Pages 143-66 in Traditions in

Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern, Jon
D. Levenson, and Frank M. Cross. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
———. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of
Life. New Haven: Yale University, 2006.
———. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985.
———. “The Temple and the World.” Journal of Religion 64 (1984): 283-98.
———. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48. Harvard Semitic

Monographs 10. Missoula: Scholars, 1976.
Levering, Matthew. Engaging the Doctrine of Creation: Cosmos, Creatures, and the
Wise and Good Creator. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.
Levin, Christoph. Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old
Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
283
Lichtenwalter, Larry L. “The Seventh-day Sabbath and Sabbath Theology in the Book of
Revelation: Creation, Covenant, Sign.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49.2
(2011): 285-320.
Liid, Dale C. “East Gate (Place).” Pages 248-49 of The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. 1992.
Lincoln, A. T. “From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological

Investigation.” Pages 343-412 in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical,
Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982.
———. “Sabbath Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament.” Pages 199-220 in From
Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation.
Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Lioy, Dan. Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture. Edited by Hemchand Gossai. Studies in Biblical Literature 138. New
York: Peter Lang, 2010.
———. The Search for Ultimate Reality: Intertextuality between the Genesis and
Johannine Prologues. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.
Lockyer, Herbert. All Doctrines of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964.
Longman, Tremper. The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom: A Theological Introduction to

Wisdom in Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017.
———. “What Genesis 1-2 Teaches (And What It Doesn't).” Pages 102-39 in Reading
Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2013.
Longman, Tremper, and John H. Walton. The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology,
Theology, and the Deluge Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2018.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Lundquist, John M. “The Common Temple Ideology in the Ancient Near East.” Pages
53-76 in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives.
Edited by Truman G. Madsen. Religious Studies Monograph Series 9. Provo:
Brigham Young University, 1984.
———. “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology.” Pages 205-219 in The Quest for
the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall. Edited by
George E. Mendenhall. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Luz, Ulrich. “Intertexts in the Gospel of Matthew.” Harvard Theological Review 97.2
(2004): 119-37.
Luzzatto, Samuel D. The Book of Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by Daniel A.

Klein. Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1998.
284
MacCann, J. C. “Sabbath.” Page 247 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Edited by Geoffrey William Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999.
Mackay, Cameron. “The King of Tyre.” The Church Quarterly Review 117 (1934): 239-
58.
Mackay, John L. Jeremiah 1-20: An Introduction and Commentary. Fearn: Mentor, 2004.
MacLeod, M. A. “Footstool.” Page 380 of New Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. R. W.

Wood and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.
Magonet, Jonathan. “The Themes of Genesis 2-3.” Pages 39-46 in A Walk in the Garden:
Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Deborah Sawyer
and Paul Morris. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
136. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.
Maly, Eugene H. “Israel: God’s Liturgical People.” Pages 10-20 in Liturgy for the
People. Edited by William J. Leonard. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963.
Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in
the Context of the Ancient Near East. Old Testament Studies 49. Boston: Brill,
2003.
Martens, Peter W. “A Fitting Portrait of God: Origen's Interpretations of the ‘Garments of

Skins’ (Gen 3:21).” Pages 55-84 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings
of Genesis 1-3. Edited by Susanne Scholz and Caroline V. Stichele. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.
Mathews, K. A. Genesis 1-11:26. The New American Commentary 1a. Nashville:

———. Genesis 11:27-50:26. The New American Commentary 1b. Nashville:

Matthews, I. G. Ezekiel. Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1939.

May, Herbert G. “King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel 28:12-19.” Pages 166-
76 in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Harper,
1962.
Mazar, Amihai. “The ‘Bull Site’: An Iron Age I Open Cult Place.” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 247 (1982): 27-42.
Mazor, Lea. “The Correlation between the Garden of Eden and the Temple” [in Hebrew].
Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 13 (2002): 5-
42.
McBride, S. Dean. “Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Prologue to the Pentateuch.”

Pages 3-41 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by
W. Sibley Towner, William P. Brown, and S. Dean McBride. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000.
285
McCabe, Robert V. “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week.” Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 5 (2000): 97-123.
McCann, J. Clinton, and Nancy Rowland McCann. A Theological Introduction to the

Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.
McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. “River Ordeal in Israelite Literature.” Harvard Theological Review
66.4 (1973): 403-12.
McConville, J. Gordon. “Messianic Interpretation of the Old Testament in Modern

Context.” Pages 1-18 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament
Messianic Texts. Edited by Phillip F. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon
J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
McDonough, Sean M. Creation and New Creation: Understanding God's Creation

Project. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2017.
McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25. Edited by J.
A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and Graham Stanton. 2 vols. The International
Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.
McKenzie, John L. “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2-3.” Theological Studies

15.4 (1954): 541-72.
———. “Myth and the Old Testament.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21.3 (1959):
265-82.
———. “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18.” Journal of Biblical Literature

75.4 (1956): 322-27.
———. Myths and Realities: Studies in Biblical Theology. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963.
———. A Theology of the Old Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974.
McKeown, James, Genesis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Meek, Theophile J. “The Sabbath in the Old Testament: Its Origin and Development.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 33.3 (1914): 201-12.
Melvin, David. “Making All Things New (Again): Zephaniah’s Eschatological Vision of
a Return to Primeval Time.” Pages 269-81 in Creation and Chaos: A
Reconsideration of Hermann Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis. Edited by
Richard Henry Beal and Jo Ann Scurlock. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. The New American Commentary 4. Nashville:

Broadman and Holman, 1994.
———. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2008.
———. “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif." Bibliotheca Sacra

150.597 (1993): 50-61.
286
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of
Genesis 2-3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Meyers, Carol L. The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the
Biblical Cult. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 2.
Missoula: Continuum International, 1976.
———. “Temple, Jerusalem.” Pages 350-69 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand
Rapids: Brazos, 2005.
———. A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2014.
———. “The Role of Human Beings in the Cosmic Temple: The Intersection of
Worldviews in Psalms 8 and 104.” Canadian Theological Review 2.1 (2013): 44-
58.
Millard, A. R. “The Etymology of Eden.” Vetus Testamentum 34.1 (1984): 103-6.
Miller, James E. “Aetiology of the Tabernacle/Temple in Genesis.” Proceedings 6

(1986): 151-60.
———. “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28, 11-19).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 105.3 (1993): 497-501.
Miller, Jared L., and Mauro Giorgieri. Royal Hittite Instructions and Related
Administrative Texts. Society of Biblical Literature 31. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2013.
Miller, Nicholas P. “A Scholarly Review of John H. Walton's Lectures at Andrews

University on the Lost World of Genesis One.” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 49.1 (2011): 191-95.
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary 18. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1994.
Miscall, Peter D. Isaiah. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2006.
Mitchell, Christopher Wright. The Song of Songs. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis:
Concordia, 2003.
Mollenkott, Virginia R. The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female.
New York: Crossroad, 1984.
Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. Translated by

Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1985.
Montgomery, James A. “The Holy City and Gehenna.” Journal of Biblical Literature
27.1 (1908): 24-47.
287
Morales, L. Michael. “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical
Fossil in Genesis 4.7.” The Bible Translator 63.4 (2012): 185-91.
———, ed. Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-Centered Theology. Leuven:
Peeters, 2014.
———. The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and

Exodus. Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
———. Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of
Leviticus. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology 37.
Nottingham: Apollos, 2015.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University,
1988.
Morris, Henry M. Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970.
———. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of
Beginnings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.
Morris, Paul. “A Walk in the Garden: Images of Eden.” Pages 22-38 in A Walk in the
Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by
Deborah Sawyer and Paul Morris. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 136. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.
Morrow, Jeff. “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3.”

Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 2.1
(2009): 1-13.
Mortenson, Terry. “Jesus’ View of the Age of the Earth.” Pages 315-346 in Coming to
Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry
Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest: Master, 2008.
Moskala, Jiří. “Does Isa 65:17-25 Describe the Eschatological New Heavens and the
New Earth?” Pages 187-210 in Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in
Honor of Richard M. Davidson. Edited by Jiří Moskala. Berrien Springs: Old
Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews
University, 2016.
———. “A Fresh Look at Two Genesis Creation Accounts: Contradictions?” Andrews

———. “Notes on the Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 102-10 in
Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson.
Edited by Jiří Moskala. Berrien Springs: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016.
———. “The President’s Page: Creation—The Sine Qua Non of Adventism.” Journal of
the Adventist Theological Society 15.2 (2004): 1-4.
———. “Reflections on the Concept of Shame and Honor in the Biblical Creation and
Fall Narratives.” Pages 23-28 in Shame and Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes
288
in Shame and Honor Contexts. Edited by Bruce Bauer. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Department of World Missions, 2014.
———. “The Sabbath in the First Creation Account.” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 13.1 (2002): 55-66.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel's Worship. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004.
———. Psalm Studies. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Society of Biblical Literature

History of Biblical Studies 2. Atlanta: SBL, 2014.
Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and

Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters, 2002.
Musser, Sarah Stokes. “Sacrifice, Sabbath, and the Restoration of Creation.” PhD diss.,
Duke University, 2015.
Nakhai, B. A. “What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Spaces Functioned in Ancient Israel.”
Biblical Archaeology Review 20.3 (1994): 18-29.
Nam, Daegeuk. “The Throne of God Motif in the Hebrew Bible.” ThD diss., Andrews
University, 1989.
Negretti, Nicola. Il Settimo Giorno: Indagine Critico-Teologica delle Tradizioni

Presacerdotali e Sacerdotali circa il Sabato Biblico. Roma: Biblical Institute,
1973.
Neiman, David. “Gihon and Pishon: Mythological Antecedents of the Two Enigmatic
Rivers of Eden.” In vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish
Studies, held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 13-19 August, 1973.
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977.
Nevader, Madhavi. “Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine Sovereignty and Creation in
Ezekiel.” Pages 55-70 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by Paul M. Joyce and
Dalit Rom-Shiloni. New York: Bloomsburry, 2015.
Nichol, Francis D., Raymond F. Cottrell, and Don F. Neufeld. “Genesis.” In vol. 1 of The
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: The Holy Bible with Exegetical and
Expository Comment. Washington: Review and Herald. 1978.
North, Robert. “The Derivation of Sabbath.” Biblica 36 (1955): 182-201.
O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Ochsenschlager, Edward L. Iraq’s Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden. Philadelphia:

University Museum Publications, 2005.
Oden, Robert A. The Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and
Alternatives to It. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.
Oeming, Manfred. “To Be Adam or Not to Be Adam: The Hidden Fundamental
Anthropological Discourse Revealed in a Intertextual Reading of ‫ אדם‬in Job and
289
Genesis.” Pages 19-29 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by Katharine J. Dell
and William L. Kynes. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013.
Ojewole, Afolarin O. “The Seed in Genesis 3:15: An Exegetical and Intertextual Study.”
PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002.
Olafsson, Gudmundur. “Immanuel: God with Us.” Pages 119-26 in The Great
Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of
Angel Manuel Rodriguez in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by
Gerhard Pfandl. Silver Spring: Review and Herald, 2015.
Ortlund, Raymond C., and R. Kent Hughes. Isaiah: God Saves Sinners. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2005.
Osborn, Noel D., and Howard Hatton. A Handbook on Exodus. UBS Handbook Series.
New York: United Bible Societies, 1999.
Osborn, Ronald E. Death Before the Fall: On Literalism and Animal Suffering. Downers
Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah. The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Ottosson, Magnus. “Eden and the Land of Promise.” Pages 177-88 in Congress Volume:
Jerusalem, 1986. International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 40. Edited by J. A. Emerton. New York:
Brill, 1986.
Otwell, John H. And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Woman in the Old Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
Ouro, Roberto. “The Garden of Eden Account: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 2-3.”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 40.2 (2002): 219-43.
———. Old Testament Theology: The Canonical Key. Zaragoza: R. Ouro, 2008.
———. “Similarities and Differences between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near
Eastern Texts.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49.1 (2011): 5-32.
Paas, Stefan. “‘He Who Builds His Stairs into Heaven ...’ (Amos 9:6a).” Ugarit-
Forschungen 25 (1993): 319-25.
Page, Hugh R. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and
Biblical Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Palmer, James. “Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle.” Pages 11-22 in
Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond
Alexander. Waynesboro: Paternoster, 2004.
Papaioannou, Kim, and Ioannis Giantzaklidis, eds. Earthly Shadows, Heavenly Realities:
Temple-Sanctuary Cosmology in Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early
Jewish Literature. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2016.
Papini, Giovani. The Devil. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1954.

290
Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic, Usages,
Syntactic Structures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989.
Parrott, Shannon. “Garments of Glory: An Investigation of Yahweh's Act of Investiture

of Clothing in Ezekiel 16:1–14.” Paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature.
Denver, 2018.
Parry, Donald W. “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary.” Pages 126-51 in Temples of

the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism. Edited by Donald W. Parry. Salt Lake
City: Deseret, 1994.
Patmore, Hector M. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel
28:11-19 in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 20. Leiden:
Brill, 2012.
Patte, Daniel. “Universal Narrative Structures and Semantic Frameworks.” Semeia 10

(1978): 123-35.
Patte, Daniel, and Judson Parker. “A Structural Exegesis of Genesis 2 and 3.” Semeia 18
(1980): 55-75.
Paulien, Jon. The Deep Things of God. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2004.
Payne, D. F. Genesis One Reconsidered. London: Tyndale, 1964.
Peckham, John. Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and
Theological Method. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
———. “Divine Passibility, Analogical Temporality and Theo-Ontology: Implications

on a Canonical Approach.” Pages 32-53 in Scripture and Philosophy: Essays
Honoring the Work and Vision of Fernando Luis Canale. Edited by Tiago Arrais,
Kenneth Bergland, and Michael F. Younker. Berrien Springs: Adventist
Theological Society, 2016.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the
Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East. Missoula: Scholars, 1977.
Peterson, Eugene H. Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying
Imagination. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
Pettazzoni, Raffaele. Essays on the History of Religions. Translated by H. T. Rose.

Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. “Cherubim.” Journal of Biblical Literature 41.3-4 (1922): 249-50.
Polhill, John B. Acts. The New American Commentary 26. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1992.
Polkinghorne, John. The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven: Yale
University, 2002.
Porter, Ray. “Where Was the Garden of Eden?” Origins 1.3 (1987): 3-4.
291
Postell, Seth D. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and
Tanakh. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011.
Poythress, Vern S. “Genesis 1:1 Is the First Event, Not a Summary.” The Westminster
Price, John Randall. “The Desecration and Restoration of the Temple as an

Eschatological Motif in the Tanach, Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and the New
Testament.” PhD diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1993.
Propp, William Henry. Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 2. New York: Doubleday,
1999.
———. Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The
Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 2. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
Pulley, Steven R. “The Qinah Concerning the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11-19.” MDiv
diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1982.
Rankin, John. “Power and Gender at the Divinity School.” Pages 199-204 in Finding God
at Harvard: Spiritual Journeys of Christian Thinkers. Edited by Kelly Monroe.
Reinhold, Gotthard G. G. “Die Zahl Sieben und der biblische Text.” Pages 145-51 in
Zahl Sieben im Alten Orient. Edited by Viktor Golinets. New York: Peter Lang,
2008.
Rendtorff, Rolf. “What We Miss by Taking the Bible Apart.” Bible Review 14.1 (1998):
42-44.
Rennaker, Jacob. “Temple Voices in Conflict and Chorus: A Comparative Approach to

Temple Imagery in Genesis 1-3 and the Enuma Elish.” Paper presented at Society
of Biblical Literature. San Diego, 2014.
Reuling, Hanneke. After Eden: Church Fathers and Rabbis on Genesis 3:16-21. Jewish
and Christian Perspectives Series 3. Boston: Brill, 2006.
Reventlow, Henning. Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century.
Reyburn, William D., and Euan M. Fry. A Handbook on Genesis. UBS Handbook Series.
New York: United Bible Societies, 1998.
Reymond, E. A. E. The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple. New York: Barnes &
Noble, 1969.
Ricks, Stephen David, and John J. Sroka. “King, Coronation, and Temple: Enthronoment
Ceremonies in History.” Pages 236-71 in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual
and Symbolism. Edited by Donald W. Parry. Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1994.
Ringgren, Helmer. Israelite Religion. Translated by D. E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1966.
292
Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973.
Roberts, L. G. A. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. London: Covenant,

1931.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg:
P&R, 2000.
Robinson, Gnana. The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A
Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. New York: Peter Lang, 1988.
Rodriguez, Angel M. “Genesis 1 and the Building of the Israelite Sanctuary.” Ministry 75
(February 2002): 9-11.
———. “Eden and the Israelite Sanctuary.” Ministry 75 (April 2002): 11-13, 30.
———. “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus.” Andrews University Seminary

Studies 24.2 (1986): 127-45.
Roh, Se Young. “Creation and Redemption in Priestly Theology.” PhD diss., Drew
University, 1991.
Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary 3a. Nashville: Broadman
and Holman, 2000.
Rordorf, Willy. Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest
Centuries of the Christian Church. Translated by A Graham. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1968.
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis.
———. Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New
Creation. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006.
Ross, Mark. “The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1.2::3.” Pages

113-30 in Did God Create in Six Days? Edited by Joseph A. Pipa and David W.
Hall. Taylors: Southern Presbyterian, 2005.
Rudolph, David J. “Festivals in Genesis 1:14.” Tyndale Bulletin 54.2 (2003): 23-40.
Ryou, Daniel H. Zephaniah's Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic
Study of Zephaniah 2:1-3:8. New York: Brill, 1995.
Sailer, William S. “Footstool.” In vol. 1 of Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1988.
Sailhamer, John H. “The Canonical Approach to the OT: Its Effect on Understanding
Prophecy.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30.3 (1987): 307-315.
———. “Creation, Genesis 1-11, and the Canon.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.1
(2000): 89-106.
293
———. “Genesis.” Pages 1-284 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank
E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
———. “Genesis.” Pages 1-284 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: With the New
International Version. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, J. D. Douglas, and Dick
Polcyn. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
———. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. Sisters:
Multnomah Books, 1996.
———. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation.

———. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Library of

Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation.
The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
———. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken Books,
1986.
———. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1989.
Sawyer, Deborah F. God, Gender, and the Bible. London: Routledge, 2002.
Sawyer, John F. A. Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew

Words for Salvation. Studies in Biblical Theology. Naperville: A. R. Allenson,
1972.
Schachter, Lifsa B. “The Garden of Eden as God's First Sanctuary.” Jewish Bible
Quarterly 41.2 (2013): 73-77.
Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History. Downers
Schifferdecker, Kathryn M. “Sabbath and Creation.” Word & World 36.3 (2016): 209-18.
Schmid, Hans H. “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation.” Pages 102-17 in Creation in

the Old Testament: Issues in Religion and Theology. Edited by Bernhard W.
Anderson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Schnittjer, Gary E. “The Blessing of Judah as a Breeding Ground for Scriptural

Expectations.” Paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society. Denver, 2018.
Schultz, Richard. “What is ‘Canonical’ about Canonical Biblical Theology?: Genesis as a

Case Study of Recent Old Testament Proposals.” Pages 83-99 in Biblical
Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers
294
Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Scullion, John. Genesis: A Commentary for Students, Teachers, and Preachers. Old
Testament Studies 6. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992.
Seegert, Jay. Creation and Evolution: Compatible or in Conflict? Green Forest: Master,
2014.
Seely, Paul H. “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10.” The
Westminster Theological Journal 59.2 (1997): 231-55.
Shafer, Byron E. “Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview.” Pages 1-30 in Temples of
Ancient Egypt. Edited by Byron E. Shafer and Arnold Dieter. Ithaca: Cornell
University, 1997.
Shea, William H. “Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1 and 2.” Origins 69.2
(1989): 49-68.
Shead, Stephen L. Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical
Semantics. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Silva, Moises. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.
Simkins, Ronald A. “Gender Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth.” Pages 32-51
in Genesis: The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Edited by Athalya Brenner.
Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) 1. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1998.
Simpson, C. A. “Inquiry into the Biblical Theology of History.” The Journal of

Theological Studies 12.1 (1961): 1-13.
Skinner, John. The Book of Ezekiel. The Expositor's Bible 13. New York: Armstrong and
Son, 1908.
———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. New York: Scribner, 1910.
Skipper, Ben P. “Echoes of Eden: An Intertextual Analysis of Edenic Language in
Romans 1:18-32.” PhD diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2017.
Skipwith, G. H. “The Burning Bush and the Garden of Eden: A Study in Comparative
Mythology.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 10.3 (1898): 489-502.
Smith, A. “The Fifth Gospel.” Pages 77-91 in Eyes to See, Ears to Hear: Essays in
Memory of J. Alan Groves. Edited by P. Enns, D. Green, and M. Kelly. New
Jersey: P&R, 2010.
Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 40-66. The New American Commentary 15b. Nashville:
Smith, Jonathan Z. “The Garments of Shame.” History of Religions 5.2 (1966): 217-38.
295
Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago Studies in the
History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.
Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010.
Smith, Mark S., and Simon B. Parker. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: Scholars,
1997.
Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. First Series: The
Fundamental Institutions. London: A. and C. Black, 1901.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford:

Stanford University, 1998.
Sosa Siliezar, Carlos Raul. Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John. London:
Bloomsbury, 2015.
Souza, Elias Brasil de. “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible:
Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts.” PhD diss., Andrews,
University, 2005.
Souza, Elias Brasil de. “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation.” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 24.1 (2013): 25-41.
Speiser, E. A. “The Durative Hithpael: A Tan Form.” Pages 506-14 in Oriental and
Biblical Studies. Edited by J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 1967.
———. Genesis. Edited by William F. Albright and David N. Freedman. The Anchor
Yale Bible Commentaries. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.
———. Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 3rd ed. Garden City: Doubleday,
1981.
Sprinkle, Joe M. Biblical Law and its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical
Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations. Lanham: University Press of
America, 2006.
Stackert, Jeffrey. “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12-17 and
35:1-3.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11.15 (2011): 1-20.
Stager, Lawrence E. “Jerusalem as Eden.” Biblical Archaeology Review 26.3 (2000): 38-
47.
Stefanovic, Ranko. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation.

Stefanovic, Zdravko. “The Great Reversal: Thematic Links Between Genesis 2 and 3.”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 32 (1994): 47-56.
Steinmann, Andrew. “Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American

Evangelicals and Creation.” Lutheran Education (2012): 1-8.
296
Steinmann, Andrew E., and Michael A. Eschelbach. “Walk this Way: A Theme from
Proverbs Reflected and Extended in Paul's Letters.” Concordia Theological
Quarterly 70.1 (2006): 43-62.
Stek, J. “What Says the Scripture?” Pages 203-65 in Portraits of Creation: Biblical and
Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation. Edited by Howard J. Van Till.
Stern, Menahem. “Priestly Vestments.” Pages 511-13 in vol. 16 of Encyclopedia Judaica.

Edited by Fred Skolnik. 22 vols. Jerusalem: Macmillan, 2007.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama
of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1987.
Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel

40-48. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.
Stitzinger, Michael F. “Genesis 1-3 and the Male Female Role Relationship.” Grace
Stone, Nira. “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden.” Pages 227–50 in Beyond Eden:
The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2-3) and Its Reception History. Edited by
Christoph Riedweg and Konrad Schmid. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in
Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
———. “Genesis 2:4: Restudying a Locus Classicus.” Zeitschrift für die

———. “Heaven on Earth—Or Not?: Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature.” Pages

28-57 in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2-3) and Its
Reception History. Edited by Christoph Riedweg and Konrad Schmid. Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Strand, Kenneth A. “The Sabbath.” In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.

Edited by Raoul Dederen. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000.
Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. The New American Commentary 2. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2006.
Swann, John T. The Imago Dei: A Priestly Calling for Humankind. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2017.
Swoboda, A. J. Subversive Sabbath: The Surprising Power of Rest in a Nonstop World.

Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2018.
Talstra, Eep. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings
8, 14-61. Translated by Gebed Van Salomo. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.
Taylor, John B. Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1969.
297
Teram, Jonathan. You Are Israel: How Isaiah Uses Genesis as a Means of Identity
Formation. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2018.
Terreros, Marco T. “Death before the Sin of Adam: A Fundamental Concept in Theistic
Evolution and its Implications for Evangelical Theology.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 1994.
Terrien, Samuel L. The Elusive Presence: The Heart of Biblical Theology. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1983.
Thiessen, Simon. Back to Eden: A Biblical Perspective on Wealth and Poverty. Victoria:
Friesen, 2016.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Thornton, Timothy C. G. “Stephen’s Use of Isaiah 66:1.” The Journal of Theological

Studies 25.2 (1974): 432-34.
Timmer, Daniel C. Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus
31:12-17; 35:1-3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
Timmer, John. “The Bible and the City: From Eden to the New Jerusalem.” Reformed
Journal 23.8 (1973): 21-25.
Toepel, Alexander. “When Did Adam Wear the Garments of Light?” Journal of Jewish
Studies 61.1 (2010): 62-71.
Tonstad, Sigve. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University, 2009.
Toy, Crawford H. “The Babylonian Element in Ezekiel.” Journal of the Society of

Biblical Literature and Exegesis 1 (1881): 59-66.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath.” Zeitschrift für die
Tsumura, David T. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory

in the Old Testament. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
———. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 83. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1989.
———. The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old
Tuell, Steven Shawn. “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Genesis 2:10-14.”
Pages 171-89 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited
by W. Sibley Towner, William P. Brown, and S. Dean McBride. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000.
Turner, Laurence A. Announcements of Plot in Genesis. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 96. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.
298
Turner, Laurence A. Back to the Present: Encountering Genesis in the 21st Century.
Grantham: Autumn House, 2004.
———. Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
———. “A Theological Reading of Genesis 1.” Pages 66-80 in In the Beginning: Science
and Scripture Confirm Creation. Edited by B. W. Ball. Nampa: Pacific Press,
2012.
Unger, Merril F. Biblical Demonology. Weathon: Van Kampen, 1953.
Van Dijk, H. J. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre: A New Approach. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1968.
VanGemeren, Willem, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Cosmos, Temple and House Building and Wisdom in
Mesopotamia and Israel.” Pages 67-90 in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and
Israel. Edited by Richard J. Clifford. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
Van Wolde, E. J. “The Text as an Eloquent Guide: Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary
Features in Genesis 1.” Pages 134-51 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical
Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J. P.
Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996.
———. “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives.” Biblical Interpretation 5.1 (1997): 1-28.
———. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11. New York: Brill,
1994.
VanderKam, James C. “Adam’s Incense Offering (Jubilees 3:27).” Pages 141-56 in

Meghillot. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V-VI: A Festschrift for Devorah
Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Bialik
Institute, 2007.
Vervenne, Marc. “Genesis 1:1-2:4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture
to the Pentateuch.” Pages 35-80 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature,
Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Leuven: Leuven University,
2001.
Vine, W. E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.
Edited by Merrill F. Unger and William White. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1996.
Viviano, Benedict T. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” Pages 630-74 in The New
Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Vogel, Winfried. “The Cultic Motif in Space and Time in the Book of Daniel.” PhD diss.,
Vogels, Walter. “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation.”
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11.2 (1997): 163-80.
299
Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1961.
———. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. 2nd ed. London: SCM,
1972.
———. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1966.
———. “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation.” Pages
53-64 in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson.
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Pious King: Royal Patronage of Temples.” Pages 725-51 in
The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Edited by Karen Radner and
Eleanor Robson. Oxford: Oxford University, 2011.
Wagenfuhr, Gregory P. “Problems with the Cosmic Temple.” 5 April 2016.
https://www.academia.edu/24070814/Problems_with_the_Cosmic_Temple.
———. “Toward a Palatial Biblical Theology (Conference Title: Reconsidering the

Cosmic Temple: Palaces and the Priesthood of All Believers).” Paper presented at
Evangelical Theological Society. Providence, Rhode Island, 2017.
Wakeman, Mary K. God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Wallace, Howard N. “Eden, Garden of.” Pages 281-83 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. 1992.
———. The Eden Narrative. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985.
———. “Genesis 2:1-3: Creation and Sabbath.” Pacifica 1.3 (1988): 235-50.
———. “Rest for the Earth.” Pages 49-72 in The Earth Story in Genesis. Edited by
Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Waltke, Bruce K. “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?” Crux 28.1 (1992): 22.
———. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
———. “Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order out of Disorder
after Chaoskampf.” Calvin Theological Journal 43.1 (2008): 48-63.
300
———. “Garden of Eden.” Pages 202-207 of Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity. 2003.
———. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
———. Genesis: From Biblical Text to Contemporary Life. The New International
Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
———. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
———. “Reading Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.” Pages 141-69 in Reading Genesis

1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2013.
———. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate.
Walton, John H., Victor Harold Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible
Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Ward, William A. “Temples and Sanctuaries: Egypt.” Pages 369-72 in vol. 6 of The
Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday. 1992.
Waterman, G. H. “Sabbath.” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited

by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.
Watson, Timothy. “Is Heschel's Sabbath Biblical?” Andrews University Seminary Studies
40.2 (2002): 265-72.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 170. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1994.
Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34-66. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 25. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2005.
Watts, Rikk. “Making Sense of Genesis 1.” The New Zealand Journal of Christian
Thought and Practice (Stimulus) 12.4 (2004): 2-12.
Webb, William J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of

Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
Weeks, Noel. “The Ambiguity of Biblical ‘Background.’” The Westminster Theological

Journal 72.2 (2010): 219-36.
———. “The Bible and the ‘Universal’ Ancient World: A Critique of John Walton.” The
Westminster Theological Journal 78.1 (2016): 1-28.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Creator God in Genesis 1 and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah”
[in Hebrew]. Tarbiz 37.2 (1968): 105-32.
301
———. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of Sitz im
Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3.” Pages 501-12 in Mélanges Bibliques et Orientaux en
l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by André Caquot and M. Delcor.
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981.
Welch, John W. The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple. England: Ashgate,
2009.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian,
1957.
Wenham, Gordon J. “The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sacrifice.” Pages 93-102 in

Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern
Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by Jacob
Milgrom, David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
———. The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old
———. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco: Word Books, 1998.
———. Genesis 16-50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Waco: Word Books, 1998.
———. Rethinking Genesis 1-11: Gateway to the Bible. Eugene: Cascade, 2015.
———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 19-25 in

Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Moshe H.
Goshen-Gottstein and David Assaf. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986.
———. “Were David’s Sons Priests?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
87.1 (1975): 79-82.
Westermann, Claus. Beginning and End in the Bible. Facet Books Biblical Series 31.
———. Creation. London: SPCK, 1974.

———. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John Scullion. London: SPCK,
1984.
———. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
———. A Thousand Years and a Day: Our Time in the Old Testament. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1962.
Wiercinski, Andrzej. “Pyramids and Ziggurats as the Architectonic Representations of

the Archetype of the Cosmic Mountain.” Katunob 10 (1977): 69-113.
Wifall, Walter R. “Gen 3:15: A Protevangelium?” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36.3
(July 1974): 361-65.
Wildberger, Hans. “Das Abbild Gottes: Gen 1:26-30.” Theologische Zeitschrift 21.4
(1965): 245-59.
302
Wilder, William N. “Illumination and Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of
Wisdom in Genesis 3.” The Westminster Theological Journal 68.1 (2006): 51-69.
Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames &
Hudson, 2000.
Williams, Michael D. Far as the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption.
Phillipsburg: P & R, 2005.
Williamson, H. G. M. Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah, and Servant in the Book of

Isaiah. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998.
Wilson, Gnanamutham W. “A Descriptive Analysis of Creation Concepts and Themes in

the Book of Psalms.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995.
Winkle, Ross E. “Clothes Make the (One like a Son of) Man: Dress Imagery in
Revelation 1 as an Indicator of High Priestly Status.” PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2012.
———. “Creation and Tabernacle, Sabbath and Glory.” Paper presented at Society of
Biblical Literature. Boston, MA, November 2008.
Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Wolf, Herbert M. Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah. Grand
Rapids: Academie, 1985.
Wolff, Hans W. “Day of Rest in the Old Testament.” Lexington Theological Quarterly
7.3 (1972): 65-76.
Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.

2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Wood, Alice. Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Woudstra, M. H. “The Tabernacle in Biblical-Theological Perspective.” Pages 88-103 in

New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco: Word
Books, 1970.
Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.
Wright, David P. “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden.” Biblica 77.3 (1996):
305-29.
Wright, George Ernest. “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East: Part
III The Temple in Palestine-Syria.” The Biblical Archaeologist 7.4 (1944): 65-77.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God.
303
———. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question
of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God.
Wyatt, Nicolas. “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal
Ideology.” Ugarit-Forschungen 18 (1986): 421-36.
———. “Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3.” Zeitschrift für die
———. “A Royal Garden: The Ideology of Eden.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 28.1 (2014): 1-35.
———. There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on
Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. Society for Old
Testament Study. London: Ashgate, 2005.
Yaron, Kalmon. The Dirge over the King of Tyre. Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Yates, Gary E. “The ‘Weeping Prophet’ and the ‘Pouting Prophet’ in Dialogue:
Intertextual Connections Between Jeremiah and Jonah.” Paper presented at
Evangelical Theological Society. San Diego, CA, 2014.
Yob, Iris M. “Coming to Know God through Women’s Experience.” Pages 3-21 in
Women and the Church : The Feminine Perspective. Edited by Lourdes Morales-
Gudmundsson. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1995.
Younker, Randall W. “Genesis 2: A Second Creation Account?” Page 219 in Creation,

Catastrophe, and Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine of
Atonement. Edited by John T. Baldwin. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000.
———. “A Look at Biblical and Ancient Extra-Biblical Perspectives on Death." Journal

of the Adventist Theological Society 16.1-2 (2005): 30-42.
Zakovitch, Yair. “A Garden of Eden in the Squares of Jerusalem: Zechariah VIII,4-6.”

Gregorianum 87.2 (2006): 301-11.
———. “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections/Inversions of Genesis Stories in the

Bible.” Biblical Interpretation 1.2 (1993): 139-52.
Zanella, Francesco. The Lexical Field of the Substantives of “Gift” in Ancient Hebrew.
Studia Semitica Neerlandica 54. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Edited by
Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
———. “Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament
Theology.” Pages 314-26 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by James
L. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976.
304
Zinke, E. Edward. “A Theology of the Sabbath.” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 2.2 (1991): 145-59.
Zucker, David J. Matriarchs of Genesis: Seven Women, Five Views. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 2015.
305
306

PEÑUELA-PINEDA, Jahisber (2019) - Sanctuary-Temple in Genesis 1-3, A Reevaluation of The Biblical Evidence. Tesis Doctoral. Andrews University PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEÑUELA-PINEDA, Jahisber (2019) - Sanctuary-Temple in Genesis 1-3, A Reevaluation of The Biblical Evidence. Tesis Doctoral. Andrews University PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Sanctuary/temple in Genesis 1-3: a reevaluation of

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION

OF THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

Adviser: Jacques B. Doukhan

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

Title: SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION OF THE

Name of the researcher: Jahisber Peñuela-Pineda

Date completed: June 2019

implications involved in the debate over possible vocabulary pertaining to a

and if so, what are the implications of this evidence?

Chapter I introduces the background to the problem by summarizing the most

theology of the sanctuary/temple in the biblical canon.

Accordingly, the earthly sanctuary/temple (the wilderness tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple)

vertical typology an equivalence of functionality (Ezek 28).

intentionality to embed the historical narrative within a semantic or conceptual

Chapter V discusses the theological implications of the sanctuary/temple motif in

sanctuary/temple. This conclusion is reached when considering the equivalence of

prevalent in Scripture. Accordingly, this vertical typology approach establishes the

to the end of it, and even beyond Heilsgeschichte into eternity.

linguistically and conceptually in Gen 1-3. The protological and eschatological

intertextual relationship comprehends a correlational semantical framework: the

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

SANCTUARY/TEMPLE IN GENESIS 1-3: A REEVALUATION

OF THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

My brothers Gherson and Anderson

My beautiful and loving wife Marcelita

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. xii

Background of the Problem ........................................................................ 1

II. THE PRE-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN .......................................................20

III. THE POST-FALL NARRATIVE OF EDEN ....................................................89

IV. THE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS 1:1-2:4a....................................128

Introduction ............................................................................................. 128

V. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................168

Introduction ............................................................................................. 168

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................242

AB The Anchor Bible

AJSLL The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

ASV America Standard Version

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

AYBC The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries

BA The Biblical Archaeologist

BAR Biblical Archeology Review

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDAG A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

BEB Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible

BibInt Biblical Interpretation

BLE The Bible in Living English

BRev Bible Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

CanTR Canadian Theological Review

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CEB Common English Bible

CEV Contemporary English Version

CJB Complete Jewish Bible

CQR Church Quarterly Review

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly