THE GARDEN OF EDEN: AN ARCHETYPAL SANCTUARY

___________________

A Thesis

Presented to

the Department of Old Testament Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Theology

___________________

by

Peter Beckman

May 2017

!ii
 ABSTRACT

THE GARDEN OF EDEN: AN ARCHETYPAL SANCTUARY

Peter Beckman

Readers: Dorian G. Coover-Cox, Gordon H. Johnston

An examination of the Garden of Eden event reveals multiple similarities

between the Garden and the Hebrew tabernacle sanctuary in the wilderness. This thesis
examines (a) architectural, (b) creation, and (c) priestly parallels between the Genesis
creation account and tabernacle descriptions. By identifying numerous literary markers,
the presence of a larger literary allusion can be confirmed.

The story of the Garden of Eden was framed to show its continuity with the
Hebrew tabernacle. According to the received form of the Pentateuch, creation was the
building of a sanctuary. The portrayal of Eden as a sanctuary indicates that before
mankind’s disobedience God made the whole of the cosmos with the intention of it being
set apart for him as a place of his ruling. Furthermore, mankind was created to serve as
priests in the Lord’s sanctuary by maintaining, guarding, and extending his sacred space
throughout the world. When read in continuity with the Exodus, the composing of the
creation narrative as the building of a sanctuary outlines the seriousness of what the
children of Israel were doing in the tabernacle. The wilderness tent was the establishment
of sacred space for the abiding deity for the first time since Eden.

!iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………….….1

Identification of the Topic

Area of Concern
The Form of the Text and Hermeneutics
Methodology

2. ARCHITECTURAL PARALLELS ………………………………..……11

The Cherubim
The Menorah
Precious Metals and Stones
Eastward Orientation
Cosmic Mountain
Tripartite Structure
Summary

3. CREATION PARALLELS.………………………………………….…. 33

The Number Seven

The Work of the “Spirit of God” (‫)רוּ ַח אֱֹלהִים‬
Execution and Completion Formulas
Culmination in Rest
Summary

4. PRIESTLY PARALLELS……………………………………………..…41

The Divine Presence

Priestly Duties
Priestly Garments
Sacrifice in a Sanctuary
Summary

5. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………… 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..…54


!iv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Identification of the Topic

This thesis examines (a) architectural, (b) creation, and (c) priestly parallels

between the Genesis creation account and tabernacle descriptions in the Pentateuch.

These similarities are explored and validated in order to demonstrate that sanctuary

elements are present in both accounts, evidencing there to be a literary allusion to Eden as

an archetypal sanctuary.1 This thesis emphasizes the parallels between Eden and the

tabernacle specifically; this is distinct from various studies that have compared Eden with

sanctuaries in general (including the tabernacle and temple).

The canonical form of the Pentateuch presents intertextual links that indicate

that the tabernacle and the Garden of Eden are meant to be read in light of one another.2

The scope of this paper is not to highlight the parallels that also occur between the temple

and Eden, but rather by primarily identifying parallels between the tabernacle and the

Garden of Eden, the conclusions and emphases of the received form of the Pentateuch as

a literary unit can be highlighted.

1 A literary allusion is defined in the following section “Methodology.” Sanctuary is defined

as a physical location of the divine presence.

2 A more thorough explanation of the form of the Pentateuch as well as the genre of these

accounts is detailed in the following section “The Form of the Text and Hermeneutics.”

1
 !2

The Garden of Eden is never specifically labeled as a sanctuary; nevertheless,

its creation, description, and function are strikingly similar to the wilderness tabernacle,

which is indisputably highlighted as a sanctuary of God (Ex 25:8). These similarities

indicate that Eden is portrayed as a primordial sanctuary and that paradisical

circumstances have been reestablished in the tabernacle in part. By comparing a

reoccurring theme throughout the Pentateuch, this study contributes to the motifs of

divine presence and sanctuary as they develop in both accounts.

The identification of the Garden of Eden with an archetype sanctuary is not a

new interpretation, rather it is historically attested to in Jewish literature: “The Garden of

Eden was the holy of holies and the dwelling of the Lord” (Jubilees 8:19). Similarly other

historic Jewish interpreters explained that “the tabernacle in its separate parts also

corresponded to the creation of the six days . . . man had been created in the image of

God to glorify his creator, and likewise was the high priest anointed to minister in the

tabernacle before his Lord and creator.” 3 Furthermore, interpretations of the tabernacle as

typological of creation were common in second temple Judaism (cf. Philo, On Dreams

1.215; Josephus, Antiquities 3.180-182).4 While many of the parallels outlined throughout

this study are historically attested, would they have been recognized by the original

Hebrew readers of the creation story? This study seeks to substantiate if such parallels

can be exegetically defended from the tabernacle and creation descriptions themselves.

3 Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 3, trans. Paul Radin (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1911), 151; cf. Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (New York: Harper
& Row Publishers, 1988), 96.
4 Elias Brasil de Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” Journal of the

Adventist Theological Society 24.1 (2013): 29-30.

 !3

This study systematically examines various topics that have been proposed as

thematic parallels. Each major motif is evaluated to highlight characteristics that are

comparable in both accounts. The focus of this study is primarily that of validating and

compiling parallels argued for by previous authors.5 It critically validates these assertions

and records which parallels can be safely established.

Area of Concern

Although the existence of some parallels between the tabernacle and Eden are

evident, they must be carefully evaluated in order to avoid importing preconceived

theological systems into the text. Parallelomania between the tabernacle and the Garden

of Eden does occur and can be reductionistic by highlighting only the data that fit a

certain system.6 The objective of this study is to validate and defend characteristics that

are reasonably analogous. By providing a less theologically charged observation, this

study can help to avoid hermeneutical stretches that might be used to support a

theological system, and thus more accurately highlight the true similarities that do exist

and their significances for biblical theology.

The Form of the Text and Hermeneutics

This study is founded upon the Masoretic Text (i.e. received text), which is the

foundational text of both Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and modern translations of the

5 Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied

Inscriptions from before the Flood, ed. Richard Hess (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399-405.
6 An example of this seems to occur when the similarities are exaggerated in order to argue
that the tabernacle is part of a progressive restoration of paradise on Earth, neatly fitting within a Christian
reconstructionist reading of Scripture as seen in David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Tyler: Reconstructionist
Press, 1985), 23-26.
 !4

Old Testament.7 Given that the creation and wilderness accounts lie within the

Pentateuch, consideration must be given to the authorship and penning of both narratives

and how they relate to each other. Within Christian and Jewish tradition Moses is the

traditional author of the Pentateuch (cf. Ex 24:37; Lev 27:34); nevertheless, he is not the

final editor of the text that is now received in the Masoretic Text (this is explained in the

following paragraphs).

Written documents in the ancient Near East consisted of bulky leather scrolls

and heavy clay tablets, making it unlikely that the Hebrew nomadic ancestor Abraham

carried around a large library. Furthermore there is no extrabiblical example of the

Hebrew dialect that was used in the extant Hebrew Bible before 1000 BC. Similarly the

Proto-Canaanite alphabet, from which early Hebrew ultimately developed, is not attested

to until around 1700 BC. These factors indicate that many of the early stories in Genesis

1-11 were originally transmitted orally and were later recorded in the received text in

Biblical Hebrew.8

While the narrator did not create stories, the way he told the story was shaped

by his context. For instance, in the world of the story of Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve are

pictured speaking Classical Hebrew of the Jerusalem dialect; however, the Hebrew

language probably did not develop as a distinct Northwest Semitic dialect until ca.

1200-1000 BC. While Moses is surely the authoritative figure behind the Pentateuch, the

Masoretic Text is not a word for word record of Moses’s speeches, since the language he

7Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1983).
8 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 50-52.
 !5

spoke was most likely a form of Proto-Hebrew and not the later monarchical Hebrew

dialect that is reflected in the Masoretic Text. While Moses is the authority and original

author behind the core of the Pentateuch, there have been scribal updates and revisions

that are part of the canonical process.9 These include updating the language (i.e. dialect)

and geographical names of a location as they made the text relevant and understandable

to the generation where they lived (Gen 14:14; 36:31; 12:6; Ex 16:35).10 Despite

modernization, Moses’s authority and the perseverance of the Holy Spirit stand behind

the received text, guaranteeing its function as Scripture for the people of God.11

As a historical figure who was educated in Pharaoh’s court (Ex 2:1-10),

Moses certainly was exposed to literature and learning of his time period, giving him the

ability to frame his received knowledge from God in a form understandable to the people

of Israel (Num 11:25). 12 One may assert that in the Pentateuch Moses is framed as the

authoritative figure behind the text. 13 Since the episodes of Genesis were not codified into

9 John Walton and D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2013), 33-35, 65. The gradual process of the development of the canon should not frighten
conservative views on Scripture since it is assumed that the Holy Spirit directed and utilized the scribes to
accurately preserve Scripture during that canonization process. This is not very different from the existence
of Jesus’s sayings in Aramaic in oral tradition before being recorded in Greek in the Gospels by later
writers. Although updates and additions do occur, the historical authority (i.e. Moses) behind the text
remains the same as the scribes attempt to communicate the received message understandably and
creatively to later generations. For an extensive list of scribal updates see Michael Grisanti, “Inspiration,
Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 44.4 (2001): 582-590.
10There are texts that have been shaped by a later theology. For example, Noah distinguishes
between clean and unclean animals before the Mosaic Law was given (Gen 7:2-8). This does not mean that
the account is “fiction,” but rather the author tells it in a way that emphasizes his value of clean and unclean
animals (there could have been ancient traditions about clean and unclean animals that the author was
accentuating).
11 Walton and Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, 64-65.
12 Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 21-23.
13 John Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009),
54-55.
 !6

a unified text until a later time, some might argue that its events were mere fiction, but in

reality this argument cannot be sustained because the text was rooted in older stories. The

narrative does not omit tales about the patriarchs erecting a stone pillar (Gen 28:18-22),

marrying a sister (20:12), or marrying both sisters (29:15-30). These actions were

forbidden in the Mosaic Law (Deut 16:21-22; Lev 18:9,18), signifying that if these

stories were just made up then the author of the Pentateuch would not have included

them, since they contradict the later Mosaic Law (why would he make up stories that

would challenge the law?). This indicates that the author was interested in telling the

actual ancient history even if it proved difficult to reconcile with his current

circumstances.14 Although the Pentateuch is rooted in various older sources, this study

focuses upon the emphases and shape of the text presented in the received text.

Similar terminology and circumstances indicate that the readers of Genesis

were familiar with the function and contents of the tabernacle as they heard the stories

about the Garden of Eden in the form seen in the MT. This study assumes that the stories

in Genesis and Exodus were compiled with the intention that its original readers would

understand the symbols and allusions in them (why would the narrator tell a story that his

readers would not understand?). With Genesis and Exodus recorded and intended to be

read as a literary unit, the allusions to the Garden of Eden as a sanctuary must have been

14 Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 27-30. The process of outlining various sources and
each one’s differing theology is dubious because it is impossible (in the author’s opinion) to have any level
of certainty concerning the shape and theology of each layer of redaction. The reality is that because there
are no concrete examples of different sources, there can only be optimistic conjectures about their contents
or their ideologies. One cannot confidently peer behind the received text; therefore all one can do is
understand the text that has been “canonized” in the final form of the Pentateuch according to its final
authorial intent. For a thorough discussion of the disagreements within source criticism and its ultimate
dubiousness, see T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the
Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 42-61, 80.
 !7

recognizable because the early readers were already familiar with typological similarities

in the physical tabernacle. The narrator expounded the creation story and the Garden of

Eden in a way that emphasized and detailed their status as a sanctuary. If the original

readers were not already familiar with the tabernacle, they could not have noticed the

many clues in the telling of the creation story that indicate it involves a sanctuary.

Genesis 1-11 is best understood as a genealogy that has been expanded with ancient

stories that explain the origin and narrative of humanity from creation to Abraham. These

stories, including the Garden of Eden, while speaking of actual occurrences, were shaped

to illustrate theological and sociological truths.15 The creation story was told in a way that

focused on how it related to the Hebrews’ situation in the wilderness. The details with

which the narrator formed the Garden story were carefully chosen so as to show its

continuity with the tabernacle sanctuary.16 This signifies that Moses desired for the

readers to understand their present tabernacle and its practices to be a continuation of

what was experienced in Eden. The explicitly similar attributes signal that what had

happened in the tabernacle was pictured as having already occurred in Eden.

Methodology

This paper identifies and discusses a literary allusion between Eden and the

tabernacle and vice versa. Klingler provides a helpful definition:

15 Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory,” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?,

ed. Charles Halton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 85.

16 Allowing the narrator to tell the creation story in a way that shapes Eden as a sanctuary

does not signify that he invented the story or that it did not happen. When the story was codified in the
Pentateuch, it was told in a way that revealed the belief that the garden was a sanctuary like that of the
tabernacle. According to the text, the Garden of Eden was portrayed as an actual event that most likely even
in its oral tradition contained many sanctuary elements (the reality is that nobody knows the original oral
tradition and how similar or different it is to the story in the received Masoretic Text).
 !8

[An allusion is] a literary device utilized by an author whereby textual

markers are placed into the alluding text (i.e. developing textual meaning)
in order to activate meaning in a prior alluded text (i.e. stable textual
meaning of a previous text) so that the rhetorical relationship between the
two contexts can be determined and the meaning created by the allusion
can then be imported into the author’s developing textual meaning.17

This project is in essence an identification of various textual markers that

indicate the presence of an intertextual relationship between the tabernacle and the

Garden of Eden. Since the creation account was written in light of the tabernacle and its

contents, it is very probable that both accounts were intended to be recognized as parallel

and styled after one another. The verb “to parallel” can be defined as “to be similar or

corresponding to,” while the noun “parallel” denotes “a similarity or comparison.”18 The

criteria that are used to determine a parallel are (a) availability (was the echo available to

the readers?), (b) volume (explicit repetition of words, syntactical patterns, or themes),

(c) repetition (allusions elsewhere made to the same passage), (d) thematic coherence

(does the allusion fit well within the narrative?), (e) historical plausibility (would the

original readers and author have understood the allusion?), and (f) satisfaction (does the

allusion make sense, illuminating the surrounding discourse?).19 The criteria of (a)

availability and (e) historical plausibility are not extensively developed in each example,

since it has already been established that the accounts were meant to be read together as

mutually informing.

17 David Klingler, “Validity in the Identification and Interpretation of a Literary Allusion in

the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010), 98.
18 “Parallel,” Oxford Dictionaries, accessed May 24, 2016, http://

www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/parallel.
19 Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1989), 29-31.

 !9

The ancient Hebrew first read the Garden of Eden account and most likely

initially concluded that it was styled after the physical tabernacle that he or she was

familiar with. This inference became explicit as one continued on to read the tabernacle

narrative and realized that it was highlighted with textual markers explicitly linking it to

the primeval creation account. As one explored the motif as developed throughout the

combined narrative one would have concluded that Eden was a primordial sanctuary like

the tabernacle, and that the tabernacle was a continuation of the experience in Eden (i.e.

the stories mutually inform each other). Because the creation account is sequentially read

before the tabernacle narrative, its significance is only fully appreciated by one already

familiar with the physical wilderness structure or once one had read the tabernacle

narrative. 20 This study primarily identifies and validates the aforementioned textual

markers of (b) volume, (c) repetition, and (d) thematic coherence seen in the Garden of

Eden and the tabernacle accounts in order to determine if a literary allusion occurs.

In this scenario a concrete literary allusion can only be confirmed if its various

working parts can be explained: (a) the developing textual meaning of the text (what is

the author arguing?), (b) the identification of literary markers (the various criteria for

determining a parallel), and (c) the imported meaning (the meaning imported into the

alluding text).21 When these components of the literary allusion are adequately explained,

20 Parallels are normally examined from the tabernacle looking backward to Eden, since that

is the chronology presented in the text (i.e. the tabernacle was the sequentially later account); nevertheless,
this does not signify that the Edenic account is not written to anticipate the tabernacle (i.e. looking
forward). Looking backwards from the tabernacle, the creation account’s value was in its status as a
typological phenomenon that confirmed and encouraged the Hebrew people’s experience of God in the
tabernacle.
21 Klingler, “Validity in the Identification and Interpretation of a Literary Allusion,” 169-70,
193.
 !10

Eden can be demonstrated to be an archetypal sanctuary in light of the tabernacle

sanctuary.

The similarities between the tabernacle and the Garden of Eden are

demonstrated to not be merely coincidental. The divine desire for self-communication

with the children of Israel signified that God showed himself to them in a form that they

understood. There were recognizable patterns of the Lord’s holy dwelling that emerged in

the creation narrative itself, highlighting the primeval Edenic sanctuary as a prefiguration

of the Hebrews’ experience of God in the wilderness desert (Ex 25:40). The identifiable

phenomenon of the Lord’s presence in the wilderness testified to both the reality of divine

presence within the microcosmic tabernacle as well as his desire to restore the lost

conditions of Eden in part by allowing himself to dwell with mankind. 


 CHAPTER 2

ARCHITECTURAL PARALLELS

Various physical contents and attributes of the Garden of Eden are reflected in

the wilderness tabernacle. These include (a) the cherubim, (b) the tree of life, (c) precious

metals and stones, (d) eastward orientation, (e) cosmic mountain, and (f) tripartite

structure. The very positioning and structural makeup of the Garden echo the tabernacle

sanctuary layout.

The Cherubim

At the east of the Garden of Eden God placed (‫שׁכֵּן‬

ְ ַ ‫ ) ַויּ‬the cherubim to guard

the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24; cf. Ezek 28:14, 18). The guarding role of the

cherubim was likely one of keeping out the sinful and unclean, protecting the sacred

space.1 Adam was originally charged with guarding and keeping the Garden (Gen 2:15;

‫ ;)שׁמר‬however, as a result of his disobedience his task was transferred to cherubim, who

were commanded to guard the Garden (Gen 3:24; ‫)שׁמר‬. The cherubim were supernatural

creatures who normally functioned as guardians of the Lord’s presence.2 Slight verbal

connections between the tabernacle and the Garden are evidenced when the Lord caused

1 G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling

Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 70.
2 John Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2001), 230.

11
 !12

the cherubim “to dwell” (‫ )שׁכן‬in the Garden;3 the tabernacle itself was designated as the

“dwelling place” (‫שׁכָּן‬

ְ ‫ ) ִמ‬of the Lord. 4 The word roots themselves allude to a relation

between the cherubim and the abode of the Lord. The placement of the cherubim at the

east of the Garden to prevent Adam from reentering the Garden indicates that at the east

were both the Garden’s entrance and exit. 5 As a result of the Lord’s presence within the

holy of holies of the tabernacle, the Lord commanded Moses to create statues of

cherubim (Ex 25:18-22). The cherubim were placed above and on either side of the ark,

forming a throne from which God spoke to the Israelites. The Lord was elsewhere

depicted as enthroned between the cherubim (cf. 2 Sam 6:2; Kings 19:15).6 Their role of

protecting the Lord’s immediate presence in the “holy of holies” was further

demonstrated by the veil hanging between the “holy place” and the “holy of holies” that

was “made with cherubim” (Ex 26:31). 7

Supernatural cherubim are also mentioned in the Sumerian religion, where

they were charged with the task of being door-keepers who admitted the just and kept out

the wicked.8 Numerous depictions of monarchs from the ancient Near Eastern context

3Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. and
ed. M. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999), 1498.
4
L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis
and Exodus, Biblical Tools and Studies 15, ed. B. Doyle (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 107.
5 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, trans. Israel Abrahams

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), 174.

6 Sandra Richter, The Epic of Eden (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 123-24.
7 Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied

Inscriptions from before the Flood, ed. Richard Hess (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 401; John
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 303.
8 Arvid Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” in Journal of the

American Oriental Society 70 (1950): 153.

 !13

show them enthroned upon guarding cherubim. Mettinger provides a sketch from an

ivory plaque found at Megiddo and dated 1350-1150 BC.9

The Hebrew people would immediately have recognized the cherubim in the

Garden and the tabernacle because they were symbols of the divine presence and throne

in the ancient Near East. 10 In nearby nations the cherubim guarded the king who ruled

over them. In contrast to a human ruler, the Hebrews had a divine monarch who sat

enthroned above the cherubim of the ark in the tabernacle.11 Their presence in the

tabernacle testified to the Lord’s presence and also his rule over Israel.

The role of cherubim as doorkeepers is confirmed in the Hebrew Bible by

their placement at the entrance of the Lord’s presence. They physically protected the road

9 Tryggve Mettinger, In Search of God, trans. Frederick Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988), 128.
10 Walton notes that the ancient Hebrews did not live in a cultural bubble isolated from the
surrounding nations; instead they shared some common cultural ideas and symbols (i.e. cognitive
environment). It should not be surprising that the author incorporated aspects of the larger ancient Near
Eastern culture, since he was interacting with the thoughts and ideas of his time. Ancient Hebrew culture
also differed at times with the surrounding nations, indicating their distinctive beliefs and customs; see John
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 22,
26-27.
11 Mettinger, In Search of God, 135; Tryggve Mettinger, “Cherubim,” in Dictionary of

Demons and Deities in the Bible, 2nd ed, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
190-91.
 !14

to Eden (Gen 2:24), were woven into the veil separating the holy of holies in the

tabernacle (Ex 26:31), and were carved into the doorposts of the holy of holies of the

temple (1 Kgs 6:29-35; 2 Chr 3:7). The veil was understood to embody agricultural

features reminiscent of Eden by early interpreters such as Josephus who said that the

“veil was very ornamental, and embroidered with all sorts of flowers which the earth

produces; and there were interwoven into it all sorts of variety” (Josephus, Antiquities

3.126). The Lord’s very presence within the tabernacle and even the temple sanctuaries

was regulated and protected by the cherubim. Their role of guarding the way to the

Garden demonstrated that they guarded the symbolic gate of the sanctuary paradise. 12

The cherubim motif is a parallel of volume (i.e. repetition of words or themes)

in that the same noun (cherubim) and actions (guarding) are performed in both

circumstances. Their identical roles of guarding and policing the entrance to the Garden

of Eden indicate that it is likewise a sanctuary of the Lord’s presence. Furthermore, the

ancient Near Eastern background indicates that both locations were understood as the

throne, the location of the Lord’s ruling.

The Menorah

The golden lampstand that stood in the holy place in the tabernacle was

curiously agricultural; it was described as having seven branches that were covered with

almond blossoms, bulbs, and flowers (Ex 25:31-40). Josephus used herbal imagery to

12 Edmund Clowney, “Final Temple,” Westminster Theological Journal 35.2 (1973): 160;
Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew
Literature, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25, ed. Tj. Baarda, et at. (Leuven: Peeters,
2000), 294.
 !15

describe the lampstand: “It was made with its knots, and lilies, and pomegranates, and

bowls” (Josephus, Antiquities 3.145).13 The various botanical characteristics provide the

impression of a tree-shaped object. It appeared to be a sort of tree of life that symbolized

fertility and the sustenance of life.14

The use of almond flowers to adorn the menorah is significant because the

almond tree was conceived of as a tree of life, most likely pointing to the paradisical tree

in the Garden itself. Aaron’s master scepter, named a “rod of God” (Ex 4:20), is also

identified as a branch of almond (Num 17:8). Almonds’ association with the divine

presence is seen in Jeremiah’s vision of a rod of an almond tree that indicated the Lord’s

watching over him (Jer 1:11-12). Furthermore, almond trees are the first to bloom in the

spring in the ancient Near East, making them suitable to be symbols of life and fertility.15

Almond flowers do not conclusively validate the menorah as the tree of life because the

tree of life is never explicitly labeled so; nevertheless, almond imagery throughout the

Old Testament primarily occurs in descriptions of locations of divine presence or power,

revealing that almond trees and flowers most likely reflect the beautiful and pristine

conditions of the primordial Garden.

The tree of life motif, using the same arrangement of pairs of three branches,

was common throughout the ancient biblical world and was associated with pagan

13 Josephus compared the seven branches of the lampstand to the seven planets (Josephus,

Antiquities 3.145-6).
14 Carol Meyers, “Lampstand,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by David Freedman, vol. 4

(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 142.

15 Leon Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1971), 40-41.
 !16

fertility practices. 16 In the ancient Near East a holy tree was often in the center of a royal

garden in the palace courtyard.17 The presence of a sacred tree is indicative of the Garden

of Eden being portrayed as an extension of the Lord’s palace or temple, displaying him as

its presiding king. Using images that were familiar to the ancient Hebrews, the menorah

and the tree of life represented both the life and the presence of God within the Garden

itself as well as the microcosm of the tabernacle. 18

It is further probable that the lampstand was a stylized tree of life because of

the guarding cherubs on the veil and over the ark of the covenant. In the ancient Near

Eastern context it was common to see cherubim protecting sacred trees, as even seen in

the fall from Eden (Gen 3:24).19 A holy tree or a tree of life was often planted in a

sanctuary to symbolize the presence of a deity.20 If the menorah was symbolizing a tree

linked to the divine presence, there was no other tree that would better suit this role than

the tree of life from the Garden; what other tree would the menorah symbolize? The

menorah is in the inner court between the holy of holies and the outer court; likewise the

tree of life is in the garden between Eden and the outer world. With the menorah

16 Carol Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah, American Schools of Oriental Research

Dissertation Series 2, ed. David Freedman (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 120.
17 Jeffery Bradshaw and Ronan Head, “The Investiture Panel at Mari and Rituals of Divine
Kingship in the Ancient Near East,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 16-20.
18 Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah, 180.
19
Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Who Is the King of Glory? Solomon’s Temple and Its
Symbolism,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts, ed. Michael Coogan et al. (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1994), 24.
20 Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: A-B

Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1951), 9; Widengren surveys various primary sources of the tree of life motif
in the ancient Near East and proposes that most temples contained a tree of life (see pp. 5-11).
 !17

positioned in the inner court before the holy of holies, the trees in both contexts are

similarly located.21

Within the context of the Hebrew Bible it is probable that the menorah was an

image of the tree of life that was in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:9).22 Within the tabernacle

the lampstand acted as a symbol of the Lord’s presence as well as his ability to restore

life even in the wilderness.23 Parallels of volume (i.e. repetition of words or themes) are

manifested in the menorah’s visual imagery as well as its location. Because the Garden

and the tabernacle were described with similar imagery, it appears that the tabernacle

project was understood as a miniature Eden, looking back to this paradise as the perfect

model that it emulated.

Precious Metals and Stones

Descriptions of the creation include the existence of good gold, bdellium

(‫)בְּדֹלַח‬, and onyx stones (‫( )שֹׁהַם‬Gen 2:11-12). These materials were seen in the land of

“Havilah” directly outside the Garden itself; this land was considered part of the

sanctuary because it corresponded to the “outer-court” of the three part structure of

primeval creation (i.e. Eden, the Garden, the outer-land; see “Tripartite Structure”). At

best the existence of these precious elements, while not conclusively authenticating Eden

21 Walton and Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, 125. If creation is divisible into a tripartite
structure of Eden, the Garden, and the outer land (see “Tripartite Structure”), then the Garden where the
tree of life was planted matches the inner court of the tabernacle next to the holy of holies (i.e. Eden).
22 Gregory Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary,

ed. I. Marshall et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 235-36; Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place
(Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001), 57.
23 Thomas Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, ed. David

Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 619.

 !18

as a sanctuary, show Eden to possess materials associated with later holy structures,

utilizing widely recognizable patterns. In the ancient Near East the dwelling places of

gods, whether the shrine of an Asherah or the mountain of Baal, were often adorned with

precious metals and stones such as gold and silver.24 The precious metals and stones

represented the deity.25 Within that worldview the presence of precious metals and stones

indicated a deity’s presence. If Eden was the ideal sanctuary, these references were hardly

coincidental. 26 The various instruments and ornaments within the tabernacle were

adorned and covered with pure gold (‫( )זָהָב טָהוֹר‬Ex 25:11, 17, 24, 29, 36); the association

of gold with sacred places was later evidenced in its usage in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs

6:20-22).

Bdellium resin is used in the Old Testament as a comparison to manna (Num

11:7). Manna is elsewhere described as “bread from heaven” (Ex 16:4) and was even

stored in the ark of the covenant (Ex 16:33).27 Manna’s association with the divine

presence indicates that bdellium, which is highlighted as a metaphor for manna, could

likewise be understood as associated with the sacred. While the association of bdellium

with divine dwelling places is tenuous because of the sparse evidence, onyx stones can be

24 Richard Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Harvard Semitic
Monographs 4, ed. Frank Cross et al. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 112, 128, 144-145;
Clifford has accessibly translated the relevant texts from Ugaritic to English, but the original sources are
catalogued as 4.5.60-81, 4.2.20-44, and 3.3.34-4.48 in Andrée Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en
Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963).
25Stephanie Dalley, “Temple Building in the Ancient Near East: A Synthesis and Reflection,”
in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and
Hebrew Bible, Alter Orient und altes Testament 366, ed. Mark Boda and Jamie Novotny (Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2010) 241-242, 244.
26 Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, 119-20.
27 Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” 402; Ed Noort, “Gan-Eden

in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew Bible,” in Paradise Interpreted, ed. Gerard Luttikhuizen,
Themes in Biblical Narrative 2, ed. P. Alexander and G. Luttikhuizen (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 30-31.
 !19

demonstrated to be consistently used to adorn sanctuaries. They are used to decorate both

the tabernacle and the later temple (Ex 25:7; 28:9; 1 Chr 29:2). The combination of onyx

stones and gold is seen on the priest’s robes as well as the structure of the later temple

(Ex 28:6-27; 1 Chr 29:2). The onyx stone appears only eleven times in the Hebrew Bible,

and with one exception, where it is used as a comparison to wisdom (Job 28:16), it is

used in either the sanctuary context of (a) the Solomonic temple, (b) the tabernacle, or (c)

the Garden of Eden. 28

This is a parallel of volume because the same ornaments are mentioned in

both locations, though, these similarities are not exclusive to descriptions of sanctuaries.

The ancient Near Eastern background of precious metals stored at the mountain or shrine

where a deity dwells, however, supports a sanctuary interpretation that the ancient

Hebrews would have recognized. The common features of gold, bdellium, and onyx,

while not necessarily proving the Garden to be a sanctuary, surely demonstrate its

continuity with the later holy places of the tabernacle and the temple.29

Eastward Orientation

Temples and other sanctuaries in the ancient Near East were specifically

spatially and architecturally oriented, often toward the east.30 The Mosaic tabernacle and

28 Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1424; (a) temple (1

Chr 29:2), (b) the tabernacle (Ex 25:7; 28:9, 20; 35:9; 35:27; 39:6, 13), (c) Eden (Gen 2:12; Ezek 28:13).
29 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 73.
30 Donald Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed.

Donald Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 131.

 !20

later temple reflect this tendency (Ex 27:13-16; Ezek 47:1-12). 31 The Garden of Eden,

functioning as an ideological prototype for later Jewish sanctuaries, likewise possessed an

eastern entrance. 32

First, the Garden was placed in the east section of Eden (Gen 2:8), perhaps

indicating a primacy for this direction. Second, one river flowed from the Garden and

then separated into four separate rivers (v. 10). The Garden was stated to be the source of

the waters, and while the direction of the flow of the rivers is stated only once, it was

described as flowing eastward (v. 14). Assuming that the Garden had only one exit for the

river to flow from, it is likely that the River Tigris that flowed eastward had not changed

its trajectory since it stemmed from the Garden itself; the river flowed eastward because

it exited from the Garden’s east entrance. Third, the most transparent proof for the

Garden having an east entrance like a sanctuary was in the placement of cherubim at the

east side of the Garden to prevent the man and woman from returning to it. The cherubim

were stationed to “to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24), acting as sentries. If no

entrance existed in the east side, then why was a blockade of cherubim necessary? If

there were other entrances to the Garden, why did God not establish guards at other gates

in the Garden? 33 The eastward orientation, the flowing of the waters, and the placement

of the cherubim all indicate that the entry point of the Garden was at its east side.

31David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Tyler: Reconstructionist Press, 1985), 29-30; Wenham,
“Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” 400.
32 Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, 134.
33 Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” 132-133.
 !21

Much of the land in Mesopotamia and also the geography where the Hebrews

made their wilderness trek was dry and devoid of greenery. In this scorched landscape a

flourishing garden was viewed as the ideal terrain, symbolizing peace and fertility.34

Contemporary Western gardens do not normally possess a formal entrance, but ancient

Mesopotamian kings often constructed royal gardens within their palace courtyards (cf. 1

Kgs 21:1; Song 5:1, 6:2; Esth 1:5, 7:7).35 Unlike most modern gardens, these gardens

were walled or hedged to keep out pesky animal or human invaders, often having only

one entrance (cf. Neh 3:15; Jer 39:4; 52:7).36 They were planted with various trees from

conquered countries, reflecting the king’s rule over all those territories.37 Often temples

in the form of a mountain-like ziggurat were surrounded by a garden at the bottom (see

“Cosmic Mountain”).38 The plentiful water (Gen 2:10), the abundant trees (2:9), and the

guarded entrance (3:24) show that the Lord was the royal gardener within the garden

34 Mirko Novák, “The Artificial Paradise: Programme and Ideology of Royal Gardens,” Sex
and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
47.2 (2002): 443.
35 Stephanie Dalley, “Gardens,” in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. Piotr Bienkowski

and Alan Millard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 124; Dexter Callender, Adam in
Myth and History, Harvard Semitic Studies 48, ed. Lawrence Stager (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000),
59-65; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 97; Jeremy Smoak, “Building Houses and Planting Vineyards: The
Inner-Biblical Discourse of an Ancient Israelite Wartime Curse” (PhD diss., University of California Los
Angeles, 2007), 56-57. For examples of cultic gardens attached to palaces, see Walter Andrae, “Der
kultische Garten,” Die Welt des Orients 1.6 (1952): 488-94. Numerous reliefs that highlight Assyrian kings
in their palace gardens are complied in Allison Thomason, “Representations of the North Syrian Landscape
in Neo-Assyrian Art,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323 (2001): 63-96; Examples
of palace gardens in Ugarit are noted by K. Starodoub-Scharr, “The Royal Garden in the Great Royal
Palace of Ugarit,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. Ron Margolin
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), 254-55.
36 Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture, Studies in Biblical Literature 138, ed. Hemchand Gossai (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 5.
37 Novák, “The Artificial Paradise: Programme and Ideology of Royal Gardens,” 452;

Stephanie Dalley, “Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens and the Identification of the Hanging Gardens of
Babylon Resolved,” Garden History 21.1 (1993): 2, 4; D. Wiseman, “Mesopotamian Gardens,” Anatolian
Studies 33 (1983): 141-42.
38 Dalley, “Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens,” 6.
 !22

adjoined to his earthly palace and temple (i.e. Eden).39 Sanctuaries in the ancient Near

East were understood to be the source of water that nourished the surrounding world

(Gen 2:10; cf. Ezek 47:1).40 The attributes of a garden with only one entrance, a source of

water, and a royal gardener (i.e. the Lord) constituted a recognizable pattern. The ancient

Hebrews realized that Eden was the Lord’s temple and palace.

The eastward orientation of the Garden with only one entrance was identical

to the later tabernacle in the Hebrew Bible. This is a parallel of volume where a similar

theme was repeated in both accounts, demonstrating that the Garden itself was

architecturally oriented like the later sanctuary. The Mesopotamian worldview of a king

presiding in his garden signified that the Garden was understood as conjoined to the

Lord’s temple and palace.

Cosmic Mountain

Temples and sanctuaries in the ancient Near East were constructed on cosmic

mountains.41 In the myths of Mesopotamia, after Marduk established his rule over the

39 Diana Edelman, “City Gardens and Parks in Biblical Social Memory,” in Memory and the

City in Ancient Israel, ed. Diana Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 147-148;
Nicolas Wyatt, “A Royal Garden: The Ideology of Eden,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 28.1
(2014): 24-26.
40 Callender, Adam in Myth and History, 47-49; John Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A

Preliminary Typology,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
2004), 87-88; John Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 104-105.
An example of a Sumerian myth that highlights waters flowing from a deity’s temple is located in Enki and
Ninhursaga 1.1.1 40-43: “When Utu steps up into heaven, fresh waters shall run out of the ground for you
from the standing vessels (?) on Ezen’s (?) shore, from Nanna’s radiant high temple, from the mouth of the
waters running underground,” in Jeremy Black et al., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature,
last modified October 2006, accessed June 15, 2016, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk.
41 Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” 84.
 !23

forces of chaos he constructed a temple on the top of a ziggurat, an artificial mountain.42

Similarly Baal lived in his temple on Mount Zaphon, and El abided on the far northern

mountain hrsn.43 The idea of the Lord’s temple presiding over a cosmic mountain was

prevalent also in Israelite thought, which viewed the temple of Jerusalem as constructed

over a cosmic mountain (cf. Ex 15:17; Isa 2:2; Ps 48:2). The most visible example of

cosmic mountain ideology surfaced in Moses’s ascent of Mount Sinai (Ex 24). In the

ancient Near East mankind met God by ascending to earthly locations where God abided;

the top of a cosmic mountain was where man encountered God. 44 Within this context

cosmic mountains were understood to be situated above deep waters, since they were the

first locations to emerge from the watery primordial depths (cf. Ps 104:5-8; Prov

8:24-26). The first descriptions of the dry land in the creation account were those of

Eden, which if consistent with the surrounding culture was upon a mountain (Gen 1:2, 9;

2:8).45 Mountains were the location where heaven and earth physically intersected; 46

many Mesopotamian sanctuaries and temples were built on and styled after mountains to

demonstrate that likewise in them heaven and earth met.

42Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in
Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991), 63-64; cf. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,”
84-90.
43 Ronald Clements, God and Temple (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 4-10. Primary sources

are located at 1.10 and II, 23 in Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, Analecta Orientalia 35 (Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1955).
44 Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, 3, 6.
45 John Lundquist, “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in Cult and

Cosmos, Biblical Studies and Tools 18, ed. L. Michael Morales (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 56-60; Lawrence
Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden,” Biblical Archaeology Review 26.3 (2000): 37.
46 Barker, The Gate of Heaven, 63.
 !24

The Garden itself appears to have been constructed on a mountain. Waters

flowed out of the Garden and divided into four separate rivers (Gen 2:10). Since the

waters were sourced in the Garden, a gravitational force must have propelled them out in

order to cause the flow of four rivers out of the Garden, suggesting that Eden was located

at a higher altitude (i.e. possibly a mountain) than the surrounding territories.47 The

mountain tradition is explicit in Ezekiel’s metaphorical comparison of the king of Tyre to

Adam, where Eden is portrayed as located on a mountain (Ezek 28:16).48 This lament

was typological in that the king of Tyre was a jewel-covered resident of Eden who was

charged to guard the Garden yet was expelled because of his sin (28:13-16). Like Adam,

the king of Tyre experienced glory yet would be cast out because of iniquity.49 Ezekiel’s

lament, while historically focused upon the king of Tyre, framed him within Edenic

imagery and thus in the process revealed an ancient tradition of Eden being built upon a

mountain.

The tabernacle, while not constructed on a mountain, was built to function as

a miniature Sinai, a portable sanctuary. The dwelling of the Lord on Sinai (Ex 24:16;

‫ ) ַויִּשְׁכּ ֹן‬was continued in the tabernacle (25:9; ‫שׁכָּן‬

ְ ‫) ִמּ‬. The sanctity of Mount Sinai was

demonstrated by increasing levels of holiness that divided the mountain into three levels

that were comparable to the tripartite structure of the tabernacle. 50 At the foot of the

47 Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” 133.

48 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 73.
49 Martha Himmelfarb, “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the

Watchers, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Between Temple and Torah, Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism 151, ed. Peter Schäfer et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 14.
50 Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum Sarna (Philadelphia: The

Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 105.

 !25

mountain the young men of Israel were able to build an altar and sacrifice, corresponding

to the outer court where lay people could enter (24:3-4). Seventy elders and other leaders

were able to approach even further and worship from a distance (24:1), loosely

corresponding to the holy place, where only the priesthood could enter. Moses alone was

able to go into the holiest place where the Lord’s very presence resided, corresponding to

the one priest who was able to enter the holy of holies (24:15-16).51 The increasing levels

of holiness on the mountain were similar to the separation between the outer court, holy

place, and holy of holies of the tabernacle (26:33; 27:9), indicating that the tabernacle is

styled after (not identical to) the cosmic mountain at Sinai.52 The tabernacle was further

revealed to be a movable Sinai by the almost identical pattern of divine glory and

revelation given at Sinai and at the tabernacle.53

The similarities between their structures were unmistakable (parallels are underlined):

The glory of the Lord rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it .
. . Moses entered the midst of the cloud . . . Then the Lord spoke to Moses,
saying, Tell the sons of Israel (Ex 24:15 - 25:2).

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord
filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting . . .
Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting,
saying, Speak to the sons of Israel (Ex 40:34 - Lev 1:2).

51 Angel Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” Andrews University

Seminary Studies 24.2 (1986): 132.

52 Peter Enns, Exodus, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 391.

53 Richard Averbeck, “Tabernacle,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T.

Desmond Alexander et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 823-824.

 !26

Rodriguez’s illustration demonstrates the continuity between the mountain sanctuary and

the tabernacle.54

If the tabernacle is styled after the Sinai account and presents itself as a

portable mountain sanctuary, then it embodies the common motif that roots sanctuaries in

cosmic mountains. The Garden of Eden is likewise understood to have been built upon a

cosmic mountain, functioning as the foreshadowing ideal prototype for the sanctuaries

that were to follow. The cosmic mountain motif is consistent within Israelite sanctuaries

and the ancient Near Eastern milieu. It further evidences the parallel between Eden and

the tabernacle as the wilderness tent images the paradisical conditions of the Garden;

however, it should be noted that while this parallel is probable, it remains somewhat

tenuous because Eden is never directly designated as a mountain within the creation

54 Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” 133.

 !27

narrative itself; it is labeled as such by later interpreters such as Ezekiel. Once again this

is a parallel of volume where the same theme is displayed in both accounts. The cosmic

mountain motif parallel is arguably present because of the other more explicit literary

markers such as the tree of life, cherubim, and eastward orientation, that together indicate

the presence of a literary allusion.

Tripartite Structure

Temples in the ancient Near East were often constructed with a three-part

structure that is seen in the tabernacle and the temple (Ex 26:33, 27:9; 1 Kgs 8:6; 2 Kgs

21:5). The outer court represented the habitable world where people lived, the inner court

symbolized the visible heavens, and the holy of holies signified the dwelling and

presence of God. The ornaments that decorated Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Israelite

sanctuaries were meant to portray the world that they imaged. 55 The construction of

tripartite structures was not unique to the ancient Hebrews. In spite of temporal and

regional differences, almost without exception Mesopotamian temples from 2000-500 BC

manifested the organizing structure of an inner sanctuary, outer sanctuary, and

vestibule.56

55 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 54; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology,

106. Descriptions of Egyptian temples as microcosms of the world are detailed by Bryon Shafer, “Temples,
Priests, and Rituals: An Overview,” in Temples of Ancient Egypt, ed. Bryon Shafer (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1997), 5, 8. Izak Cornelius argues that Egyptian temple-gardens were depictions of an
ideal and perfectly ordered cosmos between the elements of nature and humanity in “The Garden in the
Iconography of the Ancient Near East,” Journal for Semitics 1 (1989): 226.
56 Michael Hundley, God in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near

East, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Supplement 3, ed. Amelie Kuhrt (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2013), 51.
 !28

Hundley has compiled diagrams of a Mesopotamian temple that outline its three-part

structure (the inner sanctuary is in the north-west corner).57

Builders of Mesopotamian temples linked them to creation itself by

constructing a pedestal in the outer courtyard that represented creation emerging from the

primeval waters as well as by housing the creator within the inner sanctuary.58 This

imagery perhaps manifested itself in the tabernacle with the bronze washing basin in the

outer courtyard (Ex 30:18, 35:16; cf. 2 Chr 6:13). The primary function of Mesopotamian

temples was to build a location geographically so close to heaven (i.e. a physical

mountain) that heaven could come to earth, resulting in a mixture of human and divine

worlds.59

57 Ibid., 56.
58 Ibid., 80.
59 Ibid., 83-84.
 !29

Egyptian temples were similarly divided into sections where each section

represented a zone of the earth, understanding the temple to be a microcosm of the world

itself.60 The adornment of each section of the temple with images of the cosmos

throughout its daily cycle signified that “heaven, earth, and the netherworld met in the

temple, where the divine brushed up against the earth in its daily tour of the cosmos.”61

Egyptian temples were loosely tripartite in that they contained an outer court, hypostyle

hall (inner court), and bark room connected to the most inner sanctuary where the deity

dwelt.62 In Egyptian temples “the temple was more than a replica of the world; it was an

ideal world in itself. In the reliefs, the relationship between the king and the gods was

perfect.” 63 In this way God communicated to the children of Israel through symbols and

signs that they understood, conveying to them that in the sanctuary of the tabernacle the

ideal world was recreated as he dwelt among them. Eden was styled after the tabernacle,

signifying that the primeval conditions of the ideal world were recreated in the

wilderness. In contrast to the corrupted world around them, the tabernacle acted as a

portal to the perfect environment experienced by Adam and Eve with God through the

construction of a location where the deity could dwell with them.

It can be demonstrated that like the later tripartite sanctuary of the tabernacle,

Eden also was divided into three sections. A division is seen between Eden and the

60 Shafer, “Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview,” 5, 8.

61 Hundley, God in Dwellings, 46; cf. 32.
62 Ibid., 37.
63 Ibid., 47.
 !30

Garden: “now a river flowed out of Eden to water the Garden” (Gen 2:10). 64 The land

and seas outside the Garden that Adam was commanded to subdue were understood to

represent the outer court. The divisions within Eden, the Garden, and the outer land were

not as evident as in the later tabernacle; nevertheless, there existed a sphere of divine

presence that was absent elsewhere.65 Symbolic articles in the tabernacle were likewise

placed within relatively appropriate divisions. The menorah, which stood for the tree of

life, was placed in the inner court just like the tree of life was placed in the Garden but

not in Eden (Gen 2:9). Likewise the bronze laver, which stood for the seas, was placed in

the outer court of the tabernacle and later temples just like the seas and land were outside

the Garden (Ex 30:18; 1 Kgs 7:23). 66 It should be noted, however, that the articles in the

tabernacle only loosely symbolized those in the Garden.67 The holiness and sanctity of

the tabernacle increased as one passed from the outer court to the very presence of God in

the holy of holies.68 With a similar trajectory the Garden structure became more and more

hallowed as one passed from the greater land through to the Garden and Eden where the

Lord abided.

64 Walton, Genesis, 183; Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 186.

65 The Garden is elsewhere described as existing in the East part of Eden: “The Lord God
planted a Garden toward the East, in Eden” (Gen 2:8). There seem to be different levels of sanctity within
Eden itself as evidenced in the Lord’s presence in Eden and the Garden but not in the outer land (v. 10). It
appears that Eden had loosely similar sections of increasing holiness like the tabernacle, but it did not have
as strictly defined borders as the later tent. For instance, the Lord walked in the Garden which corresponds
to the inner court (2:10), whereas in the tabernacle the divine presence is particularly associated with the
holy of holies.
66Richard Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1-3 and Parallel Creation Accounts,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 53.1 (2015): 83; Victor Hurowitz, “Tenth Century BCE to 586 BCE:
The House of the Lord,” in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, ed. Oleg Grabar
and B. Kedar (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), 21-24.
67For instance, there was no exact parallel to the altar of incense in the Garden of Eden; this
could have a parallel in the sweet smelling bdellium, but it cannot be known for sure.
68 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 74-75.
 !31

The architectural similarities between the Garden and the tabernacle are well illustrated

and summarized by Donald Parry. 69

The tripartite structure reveals the presence of a parallel of volume. The

similarity demonstrates that Eden was the ideal and perfect image of the Lord’s presence

on earth. In like manner the tabernacle attempted to image and repeat the environment

and circumstances that had been experienced in Eden.

Summary

Architectural parallels of volume evidenced in the cherubim, the tree of life,

precious metals, eastward orientation, cosmic mountain, and tripartite structure indicate

the existence of a literary allusion between the tabernacle and Garden. As the accounts

are read together, the Garden of Eden is framed as a divine sanctuary just as the

wilderness tabernacle is depicted as a restoration of the Garden. The framing of the

creation story as the building of a sanctuary indicates that the entire cosmos was

originally intended to be a temple, a location of mingling between the human and

69 Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” 134-35.

 !32

divine.70 The tabernacle was a smaller representation of what the universe in its pre-fall

state signified and prefigured.71 This harmony was lost due to human disobedience, but

when read as a narrative, the tabernacle was framed as a rebuilding of that sacred sphere

once again, perhaps with the intention of its extension throughout the whole world.

70 Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 190.

71 Lioy, Axis of Glory, 6.
 CHAPTER 3

CREATION PARALLELS

There exist similarities in wording between the construction of the tabernacle

and the creation of the Garden. These similarities include (a) the seven speeches, (b) the

work of the Spirit, (c) execution formulas, and (d) the culmination in rest. Together they

show that the creation account images the pattern of the tabernacle’s construction (and

vice versa).

The Number Seven

The Lord’s creation of the cosmos is divided into seven days that are each

introduced with the expression “and God said” (‫( )וַיּ ֹאמֶר אֱֹלהִים‬cf. Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20,

24, 26, 28, 29). The instructions for constructing the tabernacle are divided into seven

speeches that each are introduced by “and the Lord spoke” (‫( ) ַוי ְדַ בֵּר יהוה‬cf. Ex 25:1;

30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12). 1 The instruction process highlights the tabernacle as created

according to a similar seven-segment pattern as Eden, validated by similar but not

identical vocabulary in their construction.2 Some argue that each speech in Exodus 25-31

corresponds to a matching day of creation in Genesis 1-2; however, the creation of

analogous objects in each speech and day is difficult to substantiate without

1 Gregory Beale and Mitchell Kim, God Dwells among Us (Downers Grove: IVP Books,
2014), 61.
2 Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (New York: Harper & Row Publishers,

1988), 83; Robert Coote and David Ord, In the Beginning: Creation and Priestly History (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), 95-96; Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), 12.

33
 !34

hermeneutical gymnastics.3 Without the support of other parallels, the similarities of

creation language are not convincing, since they are only thematically alike and do not

utilize the same verbs (i.e. ‫ אמר‬vs. ‫)דבר‬.4 A parallel cannot be substantiated by the

linguistic formula “and the Lord spoke”; rather, if a parallel exists it is seen in a similarity

between seven movements of days or speeches that both culminate in rest. The tabernacle

and its contents are described by seven speeches that climax in sabbath (Ex 31:12-18).

Likewise the creation of the cosmos and mankind in the Garden includes seven days,

concluding with God resting on the Sabbath (Gen 1:26; 2:2).

The heptad sequence, while not conclusively proving a sanctuary, is consistent

with and conforms to a sanctuary theme.5 A parallel of volume is seen in seven sequences

that culminate in rest (not in the linguistic formula). The usage of the number seven is

symbolic in that it shows both the perfection of the construction process as well as its

3Peter Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40,” in Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89.3 (1977): 375. It is difficult to show how the fourth speech about making
holy oils (Ex 30:22-33) is comparable with the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day (Gen
1:16) because they deal with such different thematic topics.
4 Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38.1 (1976): 280. In

the creation account the expression “the Lord spoke” actually occurs 10 times while speaking about the
seven days. This signifies that if a parallel exists it is not evident in the linguistic formulae but in the seven
movements that culminate in rest.
5 Seven appears in the tabernacle narrative in the Sinai ascent where Moses first waits on the
mountain six days before he receives the instructions for the pattern of the tabernacle on the seventh day on
the peak (Ex 24:17); see Richard Averbeck, “Tabernacle,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch,
ed. T. Desmond Alexander, et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 817. The use of seven with
sanctuaries is further evidenced by Solomon’s construction of the temple that was completed in seven years
(1 Kings 6:38). The tabernacle itself was interpreted by some as being completed in seven months (cf.
Josephus, Antiquities 3.3.201), indicating that a basic seven-day pattern was interpreted by many as part
and parcel of sanctuary building; see Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building
in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 115, ed. David Clines and Philip Davies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1992), 227; cf. Victor Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 105.1 (1985): 24.
 !35

completeness. Just as in the ideal sanctuary of Eden Adam experienced God’s presence,

so also in the tabernacle is there a complete and whole presence of God.6

The Work of the “Spirit of God” (‫)רוּ ַח אֱ ֹלהִים‬

The construction of the tabernacle could not be completed by human hands

alone, but required the intervention of the divine Spirit. The Lord filled Bezalel the

craftsman with the “Spirit of God” (‫)רוּ ַח אֱֹלהִים‬, bestowing him with the ability to properly

construct the tabernacle and its internal components (Ex 31:3; 35:31). Similarly in the

Genesis account the ‫ רוּ ַח אֱֹלהִים‬is involved with the creation of the cosmos (Gen 1:2).7

While it is possible to translate ‫ רוּ ַח אֱֹלהִים‬as “mighty wind,” if a larger literary allusion is

intended by the author between the creation and tabernacle, then perhaps it can be

granted as identifying the Spirit of God. The work of the Spirit of God, while not

conclusively demonstrating a linguistic volume parallel (in Genesis the Spirit does not fill

the creator while in Exodus he fills the builder Bezalel), nevertheless highlights a

consistency between the tabernacle and creation accounts. Both creation events take place

with God’s Spirit integrally involved.

Execution and Completion Formulas

The execution and completion of the creation of the world and the

construction of the tabernacle use comparable terminology. The similarities between the

expressions and words chosen seem hardly coincidental within such a small section of

6 Daniel Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath, Forschung zur Religion und Literatur
des altes und neuen Testamentes 227 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 143.
7 Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” 282; Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 84.
 !36

text (Gen 1:31-2:3; Ex 39:32-40:9). While it is possible to understand the similar

completion and execution formulas to be accidental, the existence of various other

parallels and the high amount of similarity within short blocks of text indicate that they

are styled after each other.8

Creation of the World Construction of the Sanctuary

“God saw [‫ ] ַויּ ְַרא‬all that He had made [‫]כָּל־ ֲאשֶׁר ָעשָׂה‬, “And Moses saw [‫ ] ַויּ ְַרא מֹשֶׁה‬all the work, and
and behold [‫] ְו ִהנֵּה‬, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). behold, they had done it [‫( ”] ְו ִהנֵּה עָשׂוּ‬Ex 39:43).

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished “Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of
[‫( ”] ַויְכֻלּוּ‬Gen 2:1). meeting was finished [‫( ”]וַתֵּ כֶל‬Ex 39:32).

“And on the seventh day God finished [‫] ַויְכַל אֱֹלהִים‬ “So Moses finished the work
his work that he had done [‫( ”] ְמלַאכְתּוֹ ֲאשֶׁר ָעשָׂה‬Gen [‫( ”] ַויְכַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת־ ַה ְמּלָאכָה‬Ex 40:33).
2:2).

“So God blessed [‫ ] ַויְב ֶָרְך‬the seventh day and made it “Then Moses blessed [‫ ] ַויְב ֶָרְך‬them” (Ex 39:43).
holy, because on it God rested” (Gen 2:3).

“and made it holy [‫( ”] ַויְקַדֵּ שׁ‬Gen 2:3). “and shall consecrate it [ ָ‫ ] ְוקִדַּ שְׁתּ‬and all its
furnishings” (Ex 40:9).

The actions and phrases used to describe Moses at the end of the construction

of the tabernacle are the same as those used to describe God at the completion of

creation. 9 The similarities indicate that creation building is bound to sanctuary building.10

In the ancient Near East gods and kings built their palaces and filled them with good

things, a theme emerging in the creation narrative, identifying creation as the Lord’s

8
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 85; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the
Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), 477; Fishbane, Text and Texture,
12; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 218.
9 Thomas Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, ed. David

Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 761; Peter Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung: Komposition und
Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte,” Revue Biblique 95.3 (1988): 364-367.
10 L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis

and Exodus, Biblical Tools and Studies 15, ed. B. Doyle (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 77.
 !37

palace and temple. 11 The forming of creation was the forming of a sanctuary. The actions

of “seeing and blessing” (Ex 39:43) had not been repeated since the primeval creation

(Gen 1:31-2:2), signifying that the tabernacle among the children of Israel was the

location of divine blessing.12 The construction of the wilderness structure in the same

sequence of creation has been argued to be the fulfillment of the original creation because

sacred space had been lost in Eden and was rebuilt in the tabernacle; in essence, creation

was not complete until the Lord dwelt in a physical sanctuary.13 The series of similar

formulas constitutes various parallels of volume, which together with other more certain

parallels form a literary allusion. While creating the tabernacle, the people of Israel

understood themselves as creating a sanctuary, fulfilling the cosmos’s creation.

Culmination in Rest

After the six days of creation, the Lord climaxed his work with rest on the

sabbath (Gen 2:3). In comparable fashion, the seventh speech that the Lord provided to

Moses within the tabernacle narrative instructed Israel to honor and keep the sabbath (Ex

31:12-17). Both accounts speak of God’s bringing about an environment that provided

rest. The description of the construction of the tabernacle was punctuated by the

command to observe the sabbath in imitation of God (Ex 31:12-17; 35:1-3). The sabbath

11 Raymond Van Leeuwen, “Cosmos, Temple, House,” in From the Foundations to the

Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, Alter Orient und
altes Testament 366, ed. Mark Boda and Jamie Novotny (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 404-408.
12 Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath, 143.
13 Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung,” 368-69.
 !38

and sanctuary represented the same moment of exaltation and rest, both proceeding from

the same event of creation (cf. Lev 19:30).14

Moses was required to wait six days on Mount Sinai before he was able to

receive the instructions for constructing the tabernacle (Ex 24:15-16; 25:9, 40), in like

manner to the six days required to bring the work of creation to completion.15 The

celebration of the sabbath was understood by the ancient Hebrews as a dramatization, or

a “living out,” of the conclusion of creation. 16 There was a culmination in divine rest after

construction of the cosmos and of the tabernacle. The motif of God resting after a seven-

segment construction of a sanctuary is visible in Solomon’s erection of the temple

sanctuary in seven years (1 Kg 6:38) and its dedication in the seventh month during the

seven-day festival of the Feast of Booths (1 Kgs 8:2). 17 As the tabernacle’s construction

culminated in rest, so also the Lord took up rest when the temple was completed: “Let us

go into His dwelling place; Let us worship at His footstool. Arise, O Lord, to your resting

place, You and the ark of Your strength” (Ps 132:7-8; cf. vv. 13-14). The temple sanctuary

was elsewhere indicated to be a place for the Lord’s rest: “Where then is a house you

could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?” (Is 66:1; cf. 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr

6:41). The building of the physical sanctuaries of the temple and the tabernacle in seven

14 Jon Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” The Journal of Religion 64.3 (1984): 288.
15 Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,” in Mélanges
bibliques et orientaux en l’Honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1981), 506.
16 Ibid., 501.
17 G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling

Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 60-62.
 !39

sequences both culminated in the Lord’s rest.18 The creation of the cosmos also occurred

in seven days and culminated in the Lord’s rest, echoing the sanctuary building pattern of

culmination in sabbath.19

The four references to the “seventh day” in Genesis 2:2-3 indicate that divine

rest was the central motif at the apex of the narrative of primeval creation. The

observance of the sabbath at the pinnacle of the tabernacle construction functioned for the

Israelites as a covenant between them and the Lord, and its observance signified their

recognition of the Lord as the creator (Ex 31:16-17). Just as the tabernacle physically

proclaimed the Lord’s dwelling, so also the Hebrews’ observance of the sabbath hailed

the Lord as the creator.20 Sanctuary building could not be separated from sabbath

observance, since both witnessed to the Lord as the creator and true God; a sanctuary

could not be built apart from the practice of the sabbath! The centrality of sacred time in

both the creation and tabernacle accounts indicates that both narratives were highlighting

sacred space.

This is a parallel of volume where in both accounts construction projects

culminated in sabbath. Original creation, including Eden, was constructed to function as a

sanctuary of rest for the Lord, prefiguring the sabbatical pattern that Israel would

practice. The tabernacle’s mirroring of the creation account indicates that the construction

of the tabernacle was a continuation of the founding of the cosmos, the construction of a

18 John Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2001), 148-149; John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), 309.
19 Gordon Wenham, Rethinking Genesis 1-11 (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), 16.
20 Howard Wallace, “Gen 2:1-3 Creation and Sabbath,” Pacifica 1.3 (1988), 236, 244-247.
 !40

sacred space, where humans encountered the divine.21 The later sanctuaries of the

tabernacle and temple imaged the original cosmological sanctuary depicted in the

creation account. The tabernacle’s reflecting of creation communicated to the Hebrews

that their worship, liturgy, and rituals were rooted in the work of the creator.22

Summary

The correspondences between (a) the seven movements ending in rest, (b) the

work of the Spirit, (c) the execution formulas, and (d) the culmination in the sabbath

collectively form a literary allusion that depicted the tabernacle as a miniature world of

the initial creation.23 The tabernacle was an ordered and obedient environment that was

set apart for God as it imaged the sanctuary of creation. While in many senses the

tabernacle functioned continually as an image and recapitulation of primordial creation. It

was nevertheless discontinuous in that it embodied a redemptive scheme of dealing with

guilt via purification that was not enacted until after the primeval sin. 24 The parallels

between definite characteristics of the Garden of Eden itself and later sanctuaries indicate

that Eden was the tangible example of the primeval sanctuary.

21 Frank Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History and

Interpretation, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 173, ed. M. Patrick Graham et
al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 58-59.
22 Craig Koester, The Dwelling of God, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22

(Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989), 10-11.

23 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 86
24 Elias Brasil de Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation,” Journal of the

Adventist Theological Society 24.1 (2013), 40.

 CHAPTER 4

PRIESTLY PARALLELS

Various circumstances and actions performed within the Garden of Eden find

similar counterparts in the rites and experiences of priests in the tabernacle accounts. The

actions of Adam and Eve within the sanctuary of Eden are reminiscent of the rites and

duties of those who enter and serve in the sanctuary of the temple. While many of the

actions are reserved for the Levitical priesthood, some involve conditions experienced by

any human who enters the sanctuary. The parallels between (a) the divine presence, (b)

priestly duties, (c) priestly garments, and (d) the sacrifice in a sanctuary are examined.

The Divine Presence

In the desert wilderness the holy of holies acted as the place of the Lord’s

palpable presence among his people (Ex 25:9). The three parts of the tabernacle were not

to separate man from God, but allowed mankind to safely approach God’s holy presence

through an atonement sacrifice (Lev 16).1 Likewise in Eden, the inner sanctuary of

primeval creation, the Lord was approachable by Adam and Eve. In the Garden mankind

did not need a sacrifice in order to enjoy the Lord’s presence because guilt had not

corrupted their relationship. Similarities between the Lord’s presence in Eden and the

1 John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 298.

41
 !42

tabernacle are evidenced in similar verbal actions in both locations.2 The mention of the

Lord’s “walking about” (‫ )מִתְ ַהלְֵּך‬in the Garden uses the same verb (either a hithpael

participle or perfect verb) to describe the Lord’s “walking about” in the tabernacle (Lev

26:12; Deut 23:14; 2 Sam 7:6-7). When the subject of “walking about” (a hithpael verb)

is the Lord, the action’s context is always either in the tabernacle or in the Garden.

It is not probable that the identical verb forms were the result of coincidence,

rather the Lord’s abiding presence that mankind enjoyed in Eden was restored in the

tabernacle sanctuary.3 The link (a parallel of volume) in explicit nomenclature denoting

the Lord’s presence indicates that the later tabernacle worshipers viewed Eden as the

ideal location of the Lord’s presence. The tabernacle was the first stable establishment of

the Lord’s abiding and “walking” since Eden.

Priestly Duties

In the creation account Adam is assigned two functions as a caretaker of the

Garden: “The Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate

(‫ )עבד‬it and keep (‫ )שׁמר‬it” (Gen 2:15). The verbs by themselves can be thought to include

only the agricultural duties of “cultivating” and “keeping” the land of the Garden; 4

2 Lifsa Schachter, “The Garden of Eden as God’s First Sanctuary,” Jewish Bible Quarterly
41.2 (2013), 74; Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied
Inscriptions from before the Flood, ed. Richard Hess (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 401; Donald
Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald Parry (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 2004), 144; Sergio Silva, “Creation and Sanctuary,” in The Book and Student:
Theological Education as Mission, ed. Wagner Kuhn (Berrien Springs: Seventh-Day Adventist Theological
Seminary, 2012), 160.
3 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, Anchor Bible 3B, ed. David Freedman (New York:

Doubleday, 2001), 2301-02.

4 Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. and

ed. M. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999), 773, 1581.

 !43

however, when the verbs or their nominal cognates are mentioned together elsewhere in

the Old Testament within a fifteen-word range they refer to either (a) the Israelites

“serving” God and “guarding” his word or (b) to priests “serving” God and “guarding or

keeping service” of the tabernacle.5 The juxtaposed verbs used to denote the tasks

assigned to Adam are the same verbs used to describe priestly duties elsewhere in the Old

Testament, specifically in tabernacle environments (cf. Num 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1

Chr 23:32).6

They [the Levites] shall perform [‫שׁמְרוּ‬

ָ ‫ ] ְו‬the duties for him and for the
whole congregation before the tent of meeting, to do the service [‫ ] ַלעֲב ֹד‬of
the tabernacle (Num 3:7).

When used in priestly contexts the verb “to serve” (‫ )עבד‬describes the

tabernacle duties of Levites (cf. Num 3:7-8; 4:23-24, 26). Within sacerdotal contexts the

verb “to keep” or “to guard” (‫ )שׁמר‬signifies either the keeping of divine laws and

obligations (Lev 18:5) or the priestly role of guarding the tabernacle or temple from

intruders (Num 1:53; 3:8; 8:26; 31:30; 1 Sam 7:1; 2 Kgs 12:9): “The Levites who keep

ְ ‫ ]שֹׁמ ְֵרי ִמ‬of the tabernacle of the Lord” (Num 31:30).7 The verb ‫ שׁמר‬does not
guard [‫שׁמ ֶֶרת‬

necessarily exclusively signify “to keep guard” of the tabernacle or “to keep charge” of

5G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling
Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 67.
6 Jeff Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3,” Orthodox

Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 2.1 (2009): 12; Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype
Sanctuary,” 153; Schachter, “The Garden of Eden as God’s First Sanctuary,” 75; Daniel Lioy, “The Garden
of Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for Humankind,” Conspectus 10 (2010), 37; Meredith
Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2006), 85-87.
7 Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary 1, ed. David Hubbard (Waco:

Word Books, 1987), 67; Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1978), 181-184.
 !44

the tabernacle, since guarding could be understood as part of the duties of maintaining the

sanctuary. In the Garden of Eden it is likely that Adam had the role of guarding the

Garden (Gen 2:15); this is demonstrated when his job as protector is transferred to the

cherubim who in a role-reversal are charged to protect (‫ )שׁמר‬the Garden from its original

warden (Gen 3:24). 8 It is unlikely for the same verb to have different meanings in a

context where both are used to designate the same task.9 Neither verbal idea necessarily

excludes the other. Regardless of the exact nuance of the verb, the descriptions of Adam’s

tasks are paradigmatically so similar to later priestly roles that Adam appears to embody

Levitical functions as an ideal priest. Adam was entrusted with the priestly tasks of

serving in, organizing, and guarding the perfect sanctuary. His cultivation of the land, an

agricultural duty, was an essential part of his care of the first sanctuary as he presided as

its priest.10

A parallel of volume is seen in the identical wording for the actions of both

parties in each account. Adam and Eve’s work in the ideal sanctuary of Eden is described

in a way that highlights them as typological priests. This signifies that the duties of the

tabernacle priests were rooted in the responsibilities of Adam as they recreated in part the

sanctuary experienced in Eden.

8 Walton, Genesis, 230.

9 Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 85.
10 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 68.
 !45

Priestly Garments

After Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience they became aware of their nakedness

and were provided with vestments (Gen 3:7, 21). Certain parallels can be seen in the

garments provided for Adam and those provided for the Levitical priesthood by identical

usage of the noun “tunic” (‫ֻתּנֶת‬

ֹּ ‫ )כּ‬and the verb “to clothe” [hiphil stem of ‫( ]לבשׁ‬Ex 28:4,

39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27).11

The Lord God made tunics [‫ ]כָּתְ נוֹת‬of skin for Adam and his wife, and
clothed them [‫( ] ַויּ ַ ְל ִבּשֵׁם‬Gen 2:21).

Moses had Aaron’s sons come near and clothed them [‫ ] ַויּ ַ ְל ִבּשֵׁם‬with
tunics [‫( ]כֻּתֳּ נ ֹת‬Lev 8:13).

When the verb “to clothe” (‫ )לבשׁ‬is utilized in the hiphil stem it normally

describes either when kings clothe honored subjects (cf. Gen 41:42; 1 Sam 17:38) or

when priests are dressed with sacred garments (cf. Ex 28:41; 29:8; 40:14). In the Hebrew

Bible clothing is a common means of indicating status (cf. Gen 37:3; 2 Sam 13:18-19; Isa

22:15-23).12 Unlike the priests of the Mesopotamian nation of Sumer who officiated

nude, Israelite priests were instructed to be covered with clothing while serving in the

tabernacle (Ex 20:26; 28:42). After Adam and Eve had sinned, they could no longer be

naked, so God clothed them. Prior to their state of sinfulness their nudity did not concern

God or themselves (Gen 2:25; 3:11). Therefore God’s act of providing clothes once they

had fallen into sin was a reminder of their sinfulness, demonstrating that corrupted man

11 L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis

and Exodus, Biblical Tools and Studies 15, ed. B. Doyle (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 99; Wenham, “Sanctuary
Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” 401-402; Parry, “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary,” 145.
12 Robert Oden, The Bible without Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers,

1987), 100-101.
 !46

could not approach God unclothed.13 Primeval disobedience caused the defilement of

human skin; that uncleanliness meant that clothing was necessary in order to approach

God.14

The slaughter of an animal was necessary to clothe Adam and Eve, similar to

the later priesthood, who received the skins of the offering, which were specifically set

aside for the officiating Levitical priests (Gen 3:21; Lev 7:8).15 The linguistic parallels

between the verb “to clothe” and the noun “tunic” on both Adam and Eve indicate that in

the creation account Eve was implicitly recognized as a priest alongside Adam.16 Early

Hebrew tradition likewise identifies Adam as a high priest. In the Septuagint version of

Ezekiel 28:13, the list of jewels covering the king of Tyre (who is typological for Adam)

exactly matches the list of precious stones commanded for the high priest’s outfit (Ex

28:17-20 LXX).17 Via an intertextual literary marker of volume where the jewels in both

13 Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 84-85.

14 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 337. Sailhamer notes that human skin was the

focus of guilt and shame in the beginning, explaining why in the tabernacle society skin diseases had to be
cleansed, often resulting in expulsion from the camp just as Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden
(Gen 3:23-24; Lev 13:46).
15
Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, New American Commentary 1A, ed. E. Ray
Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 255.
16 Jacques Doukhan, “Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence,” in Women in
History, ed. Nancy Vyhmeister (Berrien Springs: Andrew University Press, 1998), 36-37. If a parallel is
intended here, it is curious why the author outlined Eve also as a priest when the Hebrew audience in the
wilderness was only familiar with male priests in the tabernacle. Even after their disobedience Eve was still
clothed as a priest, perhaps before the corruption of the world increased women were likewise viewed as
priests. It is also possible that this is typological for the priesthood of all the people of Israel (Ex 19:6);
however, it appears that Eve is highlighted as a Levitical priest since she received the skin of the animal. In
either case, she was clearly part of sacred space (the inner court), which was later prohibited for women in
the tabernacle, see John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015),
112.
17Terje Stordalen, “Heaven on Earth - Or Not?,” in Beyond Eden, Forschungen zum alten
Testament 2, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 32-33, 38;
William Dumbrell, “Gen 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect
and Prospect, ed. Scott Hafemann (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 61.
 !47

accounts are made to match, the transmitter of the LXX Ezekiel connects the oracle

against the king of Tyre to the Levitical priesthood. The pagan background of the king of

Tyre indicates that he is probably not literally identified as a Levitical priest; rather his

condition and punishment are understood to be typologically similar to that of Adam’s in

Eden who embodies priestly qualities.

These various linguistic parallels of volume reveal that Adam and Eve were

depicted as Levitical priests in the Pentateuch and by later interpreters. They were

implicitly portrayed as the primeval priests who served in the sanctuary of Eden as they

guarded and laboured in it. Their covering with priestly garments even after their

disobedience demonstrates that their Levitical function of caring for the Lord’s sanctuary

was to continue even after their expulsion from the Garden. Likewise Levitical priests

root their identity in creation events as they imitate the conditions of Eden while making

allowance for their corrupted condition through a covering.

Sacrifice in a Sanctuary

As a result of their disobedience Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden

and were prevented from reentrance by cherubim who guarded its entrance (Gen 3:24).

Their expulsion from the Garden of Eden where the Lord resided signified that they were

now located in the outer world. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the divine presence

because of their sin was a paradigm that was remedied through the later sanctuary cult

throughout the Pentateuch that focused on a way of approaching God’s holy presence

through worship at the tabernacle. 18 The act of disobedience signified that God could not

18 Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 109-110.

 !48

dwell with humanity apart from the resolution of sin and its consequences. The tabernacle

provided the solution by means of the sacrificial system—a significant point of

discontinuity between Eden and the tabernacle. 19

Similar to the sacrificial rites performed at the tabernacle before the Lord’s

presence, after the fall Adam and his descendants likewise realized that they needed to

offer sacrifices to the Lord (Gen 4:3-5).20 In the later tent sanctuary, the priests brought

sacrifices and offerings to the Lord and offered them at the gate of the tabernacle (Ex

40:29; Lev 1:3; 4:7, 18). Within the wilderness context ordinary people experienced the

Lord’s immediate presence when they presented a burnt offering at the doorway of the

tent of the meeting (Ex 29:42-46). Many early Jewish interpreters viewed Adam as the

first high-priest and made reference to him making offerings in the Garden or outside it:

“Then Noah built an altar before the Lord - It is the altar which Adam built at the time he

was banished from the Garden of Eden and on which he offered an offering, and upon

which Cain and Abel offered their offerings” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 8:20).21 It is

unknown where Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, perhaps close to the cherubim who

guarded the way to the Garden as they attempted to get near the inner sanctuary of the

19 Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath,145.

20Richard Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 11.2 (2000): 112.
21 Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 1B, ed. Martin
McNamara (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 43-44. Other references to Adam as a high priest are seen
in his offering of incense after he sins before he is expelled from the Garden (Jub 3:27; Apocalypse of
Moses 29:3). Many early Jews understood Adam to be the first high priest within the sanctuary of Eden; see
James VanderKam, “Adam’s Incense Offerings,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 5-6 (2008):
141-156; Rivka Ulmer, “The Jerusalem Temple in Pesiqta Rabbati: From Creation to Apocalypse,” Hebrew
Studies 51 (2010): 233-234; Rachel Elior, “The Garden of Eden Is the Holy of Holies and the Dwelling of
the Lord,” Studies in Spirituality 24 (2014): 63-118.
 !49

Lord’s presence.22 It is also possible that they sacrificed at a symbolic location (cf. Gen

8:20; 22:2), but given the background of a sanctuary being identified with a geographical

location, it is reasonable for them to want to sacrifice as close as possible to the physical

boundary of the Garden. Like the later common people who presented their sacrifices

outside the tent of meeting where the Lord manifested himself (Ex 29:42-46), Cain and

Abel presented offerings with the expectation of encountering the Lord (Gen 4:3-5).

A significant discontinuity exists between primeval Eden and the later

sanctuaries. Before humanity’s disobedience the first man and woman dwelt in the Lord’s

presence without the need of a sacrifice; however, with the introduction of corruption,

offerings were needed for both Cain and Abel as well as the later Hebrews to properly

worship the Lord and come close to him. As a result of the corruption of sin, the

sanctuaries of the Garden and the tabernacle required offerings to be presented before the

22 Some have offered the attractive argument that Genesis 4:7 includes the cultic imagery of a

“gate” (‫ )פֶּתַ ח‬to the Garden sanctuary and that “sin” (‫ ) ַחטָּאת‬refers to a sin offering that Cain was supposed to
offer to the Lord at the gate of the Garden, similar to the offerings offered by the children of Israel at the
gate of the tent of meeting so that they could experience the presence of God (Ex 29:42-26; 40:29); cf.
Joaquim Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4:7,” in Cult and Cosmos,
ed. L. Michael Morales, Biblical Studies and Tools 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 167-181; L. Michael
Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4:7,” The Bible
Translator 63.4 (2012): 185-191; Richard Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1-3 and Parallel
Creation Accounts,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53.1 (2015): 79; John de Jong, “A Sin Offering
Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons from an Exegetical Fossil in the Judson Bible,” The Bible
Translator 61.2 (2010): 89-92; Richard Davidson, “Shame and Honor in the Beginning: A Study of Genesis
4,” in Shame and Honor, ed. Bruce Bauer (Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2014), 62-68. While
fitting well with the sanctuary parallel already mentioned, this interpretation should be rejected because the
cherubim are said to be guarding the “way” (‫ )דֶּ ֶרְך‬not a “gate” (‫( )פֶּתַ ח‬if the author wanted this to be viewed
as a gate he could perhaps have used ‫ פֶּתַ ח‬or ‫שׁעַר‬ַ to have been more clear). Furthermore, the noun “sin” is
most likely a symbolic reference to the serpent from the previous narrative who is tempting Cain to sin
against his brother. The noun ‫ ַחטָּאת‬always refers to a sin committed against another human being in
Genesis, it does not assume cultic referencing to a sin offering until later in the Pentateuch. The difficulty
of the feminine subject ‫ ַחטָּאת‬governing the masculine participle ‫ רֹבֵץ‬is solved if the prefixed ‫ ת‬of the verb in
‫ חטאת תרבץ‬was dropped by haplography to be ‫חטאת רבץ‬. Also, only priests could offer sacrifices at the gate
of the tabernacle (Lev 1:3), while normal people offered sacrifices at the gate of the tent of meeting (Ex
29:42-26). Most of the early versions (LXX, Theodotion, Peshitta, and Vulgate) understand ‫ חטאת‬to refer to
sin itself and not a sin offering. These reasons indicate that this passage is dealing with Cain’s temptation to
capitulate to the serpent’s power and sin as advocated by Mark Scarlata, Outside of Eden: Cain in the
Ancient Versions of Gen 4:1-16, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 573, ed. Claudia Camp
and Andrew Mein (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 77-80, 92-100.
 !50

people could experience the presence of God; the Lord’s holiness prevented immediate

access to the Lord as was experienced before mankind’s disobedience. This is a thematic

parallel of volume that shows continuity between the sacrifice in the tabernacle and that

of Cain and Abel where both groups similarly experienced God. The discontinuity

between pre-fall Eden and the tabernacle is significant because it demonstrates that after

their disobedience humanity did not normally experience the Lord’s presence in a

sanctuary apart from the presentation of an offering or sacrifice.

Summary

These similarities between the divine presence, priestly duties, priestly

garments, and sacrifice all indicate that the narrative of Eden is reflective of the

experiences of the children of Israel in the tabernacle. As understood in continuity,

likewise the actions of the people of Israel in the wilderness are styled after and are a

continuation of the first humans in the Garden as they likewise experienced the presence

of God. The Lord’s presence was not lost, but could be once again enjoyed as he

bestowed upon them in part the benefits of the Garden paradise.

 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The numerous parallels of volume between the architecture, creation, and

sacerdotal elements of the Garden of Eden and the subsequent tabernacle sanctuary could

not be mere coincidence. The Edenic sanctuary was depicted with various themes of

sacred space that were common to the ancient Near East. These characteristics, such as a

cosmic mountain and a tripartite structure, were employed in the creation story so that the

children of Israel in the wilderness could recognize the cosmos itself as a temple and their

part in it.1 The contents of the Garden of Eden account functioned together to form a

literary allusion to the wilderness tabernacle event, highlighting Eden as a sanctuary.

The creation account was more than just an ancient story about Israel’s

ancestors. The creation of Eden was the Lord’s building the cosmos as his unique temple

and sanctuary. Depicting it as the building of a sanctuary signified that God made the

cosmos to be set apart as a place of his ruling. Mankind was created to serve as priests in

the Lord’s temple, extending and maintaining his dominion throughout the world. Human

disobedience prevented this culmination, yet knowledge of it helped the Hebrews

understand the gravity of what was happening in the tabernacle. They were establishing

sacred space with the indwelling presence of God for the first time since Eden.2

1 John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015), 124.
2 Ibid., 49, 51.

51
 !52

The tabernacle stood as a promise that the Lord did not desert humanity as a

result of their disobedience; he provided a way for them to once again experience his

abiding shekinah (i.e. presence). “In the context of the Pentateuchal narrative, the

enthronement of the covenant Lord of Israel in the tent of meeting provide[d] a

community of God and humankind that the world had not seen since the first man and

woman were driven from Eden.” 3 By faithfully obeying the Lord’s instructions, the

children of Israel were able to foster an environment in the tabernacle that provided the

necessary structure for the Lord to dwell with them despite their disobedient and

corrupted condition. As the Pentateuch was read as a unified story, the tabernacle was

understood as a restoration of the original harmony in Eden through careful procedures

and practices.4 The pattern of the wilderness tent given to Moses acted as a beacon of

hope (Ex 25:9), demonstrating that the circumstances of the Garden paradise where man

enjoyed God’s presence had been restored in part in the tabernacle.

Eden was the creation of an ideal ecosystem between mankind, nature, and

God. The numerous creation parallels indicate that the construction of the tabernacle was

likewise the building of an ideal structural web where human, divine, and implicitly

natural orders were harmonized.5 A euphonic order prevailed as the people joyously

participated in this interaction (Ex 29:42-46; 35:21-29). The creation allusion between

3 Thomas Mann, The Book of the Torah (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 112.
4 Angel Rodriguez, “Genesis 1 and the Building of the Israelite Sanctuary,” Biblical Research
Institute General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, last modified February 2002, accessed June 5,
2016, https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-sanctuary/genesis-1-and-building-israelite-
sanctuary.
5 Erik Elnes, “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s Environmentalism,” Horizons in

Biblical Theology 16.1 (1994): 151-153.

 !53

Eden and the tabernacle indicates that social harmony (i.e. between man and God) was

not separable from environmental peace (i.e. all of natural creation). The disharmony and

corruption in the world’s social and natural relationships were caused by the adulteration

of the cosmic temple by disobedience. If Eden was a place where all natural and social

structures existed in harmony, then the tabernacle was a microcosmic restoration of that

paradise. The continuity between the wilderness account and Eden signifies that the

tabernacle was a continuation of mankind’s primordial mandate to expand the sacred

dominion as he forged social and cosmic harmony (Gen 1:28; 2:15; 3:23).6 Man’s

primordial priestly mandate to “serve,” “guard,” and extend the Lord’s sanctuary was

realized in the tabernacle. If mankind’s pre-fall mandate was to expand and fill God’s

cosmic sanctuary by multiplying and subduing the earth (Gen 1:28), the tabernacle was a

continuation of the extension of the Lord’s temple throughout the world. 7

The stories of creation and the tabernacle that are found in the received form

of the Pentateuch have been shaped to emphasize the continuity and similarities between

both events. What happened in Eden was happening in the tabernacle, and what happened

in the tabernacle was foreshadowed by and occurred in creation. Eden revealed the

location and magnitude of the Lord’s temple as well as his priestly purpose for humanity.

As the events are read together as part of a larger narrative they highlight the Lord’s

desire to dwell among humanity and his forgiveness and mercy in his provision for the

primordial sanctuary to be once again enacted despite mankind’s disobedience. 


6 William Dumbrell, “Gen 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation,” in Biblical

Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott Hafemann (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 59-60.
7 Dan Lioy, Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in

Scripture, Studies in Biblical Literature 138, ed. Hemchand Gossai (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 !55

Alexander, T. Desmond. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the

Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Andrae, Walter. “Der kultische Garten.” Die Welt des Orients 1.6 (1952): 485-94.

Averbeck, Richard. “Tabernacle.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited

by T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker, 807-827. Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 2003.

Averbeck, Richard. “Temple Building among the Sumerians and Akkadians.” In From the
Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near
East and Hebrew Bible. Alter Orient und altes Testament 366. Edited by Mark
Boda and Jamie Novotny. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Azevedo, Joaquim. “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4:7.” In
Cult and Cosmos. Edited by L. Michael Morales, 167-181. Biblical Studies and
Tools 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Originally published as Joaquim Azevedo, “At
the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4:7.” Biblische Notizen
100 (1999): 45-59.

Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in
Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991.

Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation. The New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Edited by Ian Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Beale, Gregory K., and Mitchell Kim. God Dwells among Us: Expanding Eden to the
Ends of the Earth. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2014.

Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the
Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology 17. Edited by D. A.
Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Jarle Ebeling, Esther Flückiger-Hawker, Eleanor

Robson, Jon Taylor, and Gabor Zólyomi. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian
Literature. Last modified October 2006. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk.

Blenkinsopp, Jospeh. The Pentateuch. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 !56

Blenkinsopp, Jospeh. “The Structure of P.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38.1 (1976):
275-292.

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Who Is the King of Glory? Solomon’s Temple and Its
Symbolism.” In Scripture and Other Artifacts. Edited by Michael Coogan, Cheryl
Exum, and Lawrence Stager, 18-30. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1994.

Bradshaw, Jeffery, and Ronan Head. “The Investiture Panel at Mari and Rituals of Divine
Kingship in the Ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012):
1-42.

Brown, William. The Ethos of the Cosmos. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Callender, Dexter. Adam in Myth and History. Harvard Semitic Studies 48. Edited by
Lawrence Stager. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams.

Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I. Translated by Israel

Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.

Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume 2: Expansions of the

“Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers,
Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1985.

Chilton, David. Paradise Restored. Tyler: Reconstructionist Press, 1985.

Clements, Ronald. God and Temple. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Clifford, Richard. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard
Semitic Monographs 4. Edited by Frank Cross, William Moran, Isadore Twersky,
and G. Wright. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Clowney, Edmund. “Final Temple.” Westminster Theological Journal 35.2 (1973):

156-189.

Coote, Robert, and David Ord. In the Beginning: Creation and Priestly History.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
 !57

Cornelius, Izak. “The Garden in the Iconography of the Ancient Near East.” Journal for
Semitics 1 (1989): 206-212.

Crouch, Carly L. “‫ חטאת‬as Interpolative Gloss: A Solution to Gen 4:7.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123.2 (2011): 250-258.

Dalley, Stephanie. “Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens and the Identification of the Hanging
Gardens of Babylon Resolved.” Garden History 21.1 (1993): 1-13.

Dalley, Stephanie. “Gardens.” In Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Piotr
Bienkowski and Alan Millard, 124. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2000.

Dalley, Stephanie. “Temple Building in the Ancient Near East: A Synthesis and
Reflection.” In From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple
Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Alter Orient und altes
Testament 366. Edited by Mark Boda and Jamie Novotny, 239-351. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Davidson, Richard. “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium.” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 11.2 (2000): 102-119.

Davidson, Richard. “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1-3 and Parallel Creation
Accounts.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53.1 (2015): 65-90.

Davidson, Richard. “Shame and Honor in the Beginning: A Study of Genesis 4.” In
Shame and Honor. Edited by Bruce Bauer, 43-76. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University, 2014.

Doukhan, Jacques. “Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence.” In Women in
History. Edited by Nancy Vyhmeister, 29-43. Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Press, 1998.

Dozeman, Thomas. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Edited by

David Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Dumbrell, William. “Gen 2:1-17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation.” In Biblical

Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott Hafemann, 53-65. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Edelman, Diana. “City Gardens and Parks in Biblical Social Memory.” In Memory and
the City in Ancient Israel. Edited by Diana Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi, 115-155.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014.
 !58

Elior, Rachel. “The Garden of Eden Is the Holy of Holies and the Dwelling of the Lord.”
Studies in Spirituality 24 (2014): 63-118.

Elnes, Erik. “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism.’”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 16.1 (1994): 144-155.

Enns, Peter. Exodus. The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Fishbane, Michael. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken Books, 1979.

Ginzberg, Louis. Legends of the Jews, vol. 3. Translated by Paul Radin. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1911.

Gordon, Cyrus. Ugaritic Manual. Analecta Orientalia 35. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1955.

Gorman, Frank. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status.” In History and
Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 173.
Edited by M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan, 47-64.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Grisanti, Michael. “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual
Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 44.4 (2001): 577-598.

Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1978.

Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989.

Herdner, Andrée. Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques. Paris: Imprimerie

Nationale, 1963.

Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the
Watchers, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In Between Temple and Torah. Texts and
Studies in Ancient Judaism 151. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Annette Y. Reed, Seth
Schwartz, and Azzan Yadin-Israel, 11-26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
 !59

Hinckley, Robert. “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary.” Logia 22.4 (2013): 5-12.

Hundley, Michael. God in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near
East. SBL Writings from the Ancient World Supplement 3. Edited by Amelie
Kuhrt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the
Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Edited by David Clines and Philip
Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Hurowitz, Victor. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 105.1 (1985): 21-30.

Hurowitz, Victor. “Tenth Century BCE to 586 BCE: The House of the Lord.” In Where
Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by Oleg Grabar
and B. Kedar, 15-35. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009.

Jong, John de. “A Sin Offering Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons from an
Exegetical Fossil in the Judson Bible.” The Bible Translator 61.2 (2010): 89-92.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by

William Whiston. Reprint; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Kapelrud, Arvid. “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” Journal of
the American Oriental Society 70 (1950): 151-156.

Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89.3 (1977): 375-387.

Kline, Meredith. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview.

Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006.

Klingler, David. “Validity in the Identification and Interpretation of a Literary Allusion in

the Hebrew Bible.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. Richardson. 4
vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999.

Koester, Craig. The Dwelling of God. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22.
Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989.
 !60

Leeuwen, Raymond Van. “Cosmos, Temple, House.” In From the Foundations to the
Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew
Bible. Alter Orient und altes Testament 366. Edited by Mark Boda and Jamie
Novotny, 399-421. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Levenson, Jon. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1988.

Levenson, Jon. “The Temple and the World.” The Journal of Religion 64.3 (1984):
275-298.

The Lexham Hebrew Bible. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012.

Lioy, Dan. Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in
Scripture. Studies in Biblical Literature 138. Edited by Hemchand Gossai. New
York: Peter Lang, 2010.

Lioy, Dan. “The Garden of Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for
Humankind.” Conspectus 10 (2010): 25-57.

Longman, Tremper. Immanuel in Our Place. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001.

Lundquist, John. “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East.” In Cult and
Cosmos. Biblical Studies and Tools 18. Edited by L. Michael Morales, 49-67.
Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Originally published as John Lundquist, “Common
Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East.” In The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient
Records and Modern Perspectives. Edited by Truman G. Madsen, 53-76. Provo:
Religious Studies Center, 1984.

Lundquist, John. “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology.” In Temples of the Ancient

World. Edited by Donald Parry, 83-118. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004.

Maher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 1B. Edited by
Martin McNamara. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Mann, Thomas. The Book of the Torah. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.

Mathews, Kenneth. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary 1A. Edited by E. Ray
Clendenen. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mettinger, Tryggve. “Cherubim.” In Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible. 2nd
ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst,
189-192. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
 !61

Mettinger, Tryggve. In Search of God. Translated by Frederick Cryer. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1988.

Meyers, Carol. “Lampstand.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Freedman,

vol. 4, 141-143. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Meyers, Carol. The Tabernacle Menorah. American Schools of Oriental Research

Dissertation Series 2. Edited by David Freedman. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23-27. Anchor Bible 3B. Edited by David Freedman. New
York: Doubleday, 2001.

Morales, L. Michael. “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical

Fossil in Genesis 4:7.” The Bible Translator 63.4 (2012): 185-191.

Morales, L. Michael. The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis

and Exodus. Biblical Tools and Studies 15. Edited by Brian Doyle. Leuven:
Peeters, 2012.

Morrow, Jeff. “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3.”

Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 2.1 (2009), 1-13.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Noort, Ed. “Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew Bible.” In
Paradise Interpreted. Edited by Gerard Luttikhuizen, 21-36. Themes in Biblical
Narrative 2. Edited by Philip Alexander and Gerard Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill,
1999.

Novák, Mirko. “The Artificial Paradise: Programme and Ideology of Royal Gardens.” Sex
and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale 47.2 (2002): 443–60; http://archiv.ub.uni-
heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/1397/1Novak_The_Artificial_Paradise_2002.pdf.

Oppenheim, Leo. “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies
24.4 (1965): 328-33.

Oxford Dictionaries. “Parallel.” Oxford Dictionaries. Accessed May 24, 2016, http://
www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/parallel.
 !62

Palmer, James. “Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle.” In Heaven on
Earth. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole, 11-22.
Waynesboro: Paternoster, 2004.

Parry, Donald. “Garden of Eden Prototype Sanctuary.” In Temples of the Ancient World.
Edited by Donald Parry, 126-151. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004.

Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by

Charles Duke Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Richter, Sandra. The Epic of Eden. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Rodriguez, Angel. “Eden and the Israelite Sanctuary.” Ministry. Last modified April
2002. Accessed June 10, 2016. http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2002/
April/eden-and-the-israelite-sanctuary.

Rodriguez, Angel. “Genesis 1 and the Building of the Israelite Sanctuary.” Biblical
Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Last modified
February 2002. Accessed June 5, 2016. https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/
materials/theology-sanctuary/genesis-1-and-building-israelite-sanctuary.

Rodriguez, Angel. “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus.” Andrews University

Seminary Studies 24.2 (1986): 127-145.

Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Sarna, Nahum. Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Edited by Nahum Sarna.
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

Scarlata, Mark. Outside of Eden: Cain in the Ancient Versions of Gen 4:1-16. Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 573. Edited by Claudia Camp and Andrew
Mein. New York: T&T Clark, 2012.

Schachter, Lifsa. “The Garden of Eden as God’s First Sanctuary.” Jewish Bible Quarterly
41.2 (2013): 73-77.

Shafer, Bryon. “Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview.” In Temples of Ancient

Egypt. Edited by Bryon Shafer, 1-30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.
 !63

Silva, Sergio. “Creation and Sanctuary.” In The Book and Student: Theological Education
as Mission. Edited by Wagner Kuhn, 147-166. Berrien Springs: Seventh-Day
Adventist Theological Seminary, 2012.

Smoak, Jeremy. “Building Houses and Planting Vineyards: The Inner-Biblical Discourse
of an Ancient Israelite Wartime Curse.” PhD diss., University of California Los
Angeles, 2007.

Souza, Elias Brasil de. “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, and Creation.” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 24.1 (2013): 25-41.

Stager, Lawrence. “Jerusalem as Eden.” Biblical Archaeology Review 26.3 (2000): 36-47.

Starodoub-Scharr, Ksenia. “The Royal Garden in the Great Royal Palace of Ugarit.” In
Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Ron
Margolin, 253-268. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999.

Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in
Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25.
Edited by Tj. Baarda, A. Van der Kooij, A. van der Woude, and K. De Troyer.
Leuven: Peeters, 2000.

Stordalen, Terje. “Heaven on Earth - Or Not?” In Beyond Eden. Forschungen zum alten
Testament 2. Edited by Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg, 28-57. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Thomason, Allison. “Representations of the North Syrian Landscape in Neo-Assyrian

Art.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323 (2001): 63-96.

Timmer, David. Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath. Forschung zur Religion und
Literatur des altes und neuen Testamentes 227. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009.

Ulmer, Rivka. “The Jerusalem Temple in Pesiqta Rabbati: From Creation to Apocalypse.”
Hebrew Studies 51 (2010): 223-259.

VanderKam, James. “Adam’s Incense Offerings.” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea
Scrolls 5-6 (2008): 141-156.

Waltke, Bruce. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2006.
 !64

Walton, John. Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Walton, John, and Brent Sandy. The Lost World of Scripture. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Weimar, Peter. “Sinai und Schöpfung: Komposition und Theologie der

priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte.” Revue Biblique 95.3 (1988): 337-385.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord.” In Mélanges
bibliques et orientaux en l’Honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by Andre
Caquot, 501-512. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.

Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Edited by David

Hubbard. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Wenham, Gordon. Rethinking Genesis 1-11. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015.

Wenham, Gordon. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” In I Studied

Inscriptions from before the Flood. Edited by Richard Hess, 399-405. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: A-B
Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1951.

Wiseman, Donald. “Mesopotamian Gardens.” Anatolian Studies 33 (1983): 137-44.

Wiseman, Donald. “Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East.” In
Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East. Edited by
H. Mikasa, 37-43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984.

Wyatt, Nicolas. “A Royal Garden: The Ideology of Eden.” Scandinavian Journal of the
Old Testament 28.1 (2014): 1-35.

Yarden, Leon. The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1971.