Understanding the Garden of Eden
The garden of Eden has drawn many references from recent scholarship as a parallel to the tabernacle and ultimately to the temple.[1] Sailhamer agrees with this parallel and sees within the context of the Pentateuch the garden of Eden as a foreshadowing of the tabernacle; however, he takes it one step further than other interpreters.[2]
As the Promised Land?
The parallel of the garden of Eden and the tabernacle makes sense when one looks at the parallels that exist between them.[3] The two Sailhamer draws attention to are first, the garden, a place where Adam and Eve would meet with God just as the tabernacle was a place where Israel would meet with God, and second, that obedience to the will of God would allow retention of God’s good provision while disobedience would mean being cast out eastward—for Adam and Eve and for Israel (toward Babel).[4]
Aside from these parallels, other textual evidence can be found in Gen 1:2b-2:4, according to Sailhamer, that identifies the garden of Eden with the promised land. The first of these identifiers is in the phraseology of Gen 2:8a: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east.”[5] The “east” in Genesis is typically associated with separation from God (Gen 3:24; 11:2; 13;11), a separation which was seen when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden to the east where cherubim were placed to guard the entrance (Gen 3:24). This situation gives the striking impression that the garden itself was not in the east itself. The site where the garden was placed was larger than the actual garden itself. The speculation is that the garden in Eden was placed in the same land as the promised land.
One of the primary objections the reader will see is Sailhamer’s lack of evidence to answer the question, “If God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and sealed it, why would he let others back into the garden at a later point?” Sailhamer says that many others have believed this as well but this unfortunately goes undocumented.[6]
Location of the Garden
The location of the garden might not be that important to some people, but it practically holds together Sailhamer’s claims of it being the same land as the promised land. The actual physical location of the garden is not as important as the textual clues that are in Genesis. The garden of Eden, or the garden in Eden, is described as being surrounded by four rivers, or rather, four rivers flowed out of the garden (Gen 2:10-14). The rivers are specifically named, which is important when identifying other rivers in the Text.
The second river named is the Gihon River, which flowed around the land of Cush (Gen 2:13). The land of Cush in Genesis is identified as being linked with Egypt (Gen 10:6), and Sailhamer claims that this link connects the Gihon textually with “the river of Egypt” as they are one and the same river.[7] This connects directly to Gen 15, where the land is promised to Abraham. Here the promised land to Abraham is marked off by two familiar rivers, the Euphrates and the river of Egypt (Gen 15:18). This area is the same region marked off by the garden of Eden in Gen 2. Sailhamer contends that Moses’ intent is to identify these two locations as one and the same.[8]
Understanding the Context
It has often been championed in biblical studies that “context is king.” Understanding the Scriptures in their context is of the utmost importance, which means one must read the first two chapters of Genesis in the context of Genesis as a whole and the Pentateuch as a whole. Sailhamer supposes, “When viewed within the literary context of the whole Pentateuch, the Genesis account of creation not only makes good sense but also fits well with current and long-standing scientific views of the world.”[9] Regarding context, three foundational questions must be answered: (1) What is its central theme? (2) In what way do Gen 1 and 2 help one to understand that theme? (3) How do these early chapters prepare the reader for understanding and appreciating all that follows in the Pentateuch?[10]
What is the Central Theme of the Pentateuch?
It has already been noted in an earlier section that Sailhamer and other scholars believe that the central theme of the Pentateuch is God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. The covenant God entered into with Israel was a relationship in which He promised to be their God and make Israel his people. His promise to Israel was the land he promised to their forefathers.
The Covenant is grounded in the events of creation. The author of Genesis 1 wants to show that the stretch of land which God promised to give Israel in the Sinai Covenant — the land where Abraham and his family sojourned, the land of Canan — was the same land God had prepared for them at the time of creation. It was in that land that God first blessed mankind and called upon men and women to obey him.[11]
Through this covenant, the theme could be stated in many ways. Ultimately, Sailhamer summarizes the theme of the Pentateuch and the entire Bible as “creation and redemption.”[12]
How do Genesis 1 and 2 Connect to the Central Theme of the Pentateuch
Sailhamer believes that Gen 1 and 2 connect to the central theme of land in the Pentateuch which he backs up with this statement: “The primary purpose of Genesis 1 is to show that God made ‘the land’ and prepared it as a place for the man and woman to dwell in peace.”[13] Moses is drawing a line that connects the God of the fathers and of the Sinai Covenant with the same God who created the universe. The other point Moses draws attention to is that the original intent of creation was the Sinai Covenant and God’s call to Abraham. It was God’s intention from the beginning to have a people, bless them in the land, and provide for them in the land.
How do Genesis 1 and 2 Prepare the Reader?
The theme of land not only occupies the reader throughout Genesis, but it also pervades the entire Pentateuch. The land was lost during the fall, and throughout the Pentateuch is the story of God’s people being restored and given back the land. This restoration happens though covenants: Noah (Gen 9), Abraham (Gen 15), and Israel (Ex 19).
Genesis 1:1 is a twofold statement: it explains the origin of the world, and it identifies the Creator. This understanding is important because it prepares the reader for the rest of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the entirety of the Scripture. This statement shows that God is at the center of all things, and only He is the one who could have created ex nihlo.
Understanding the Days of Creation
Having already dealt with Gen 1:1 and all that is encompassed in the word “יתרֵאשִׁ” and the phrase “הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ,” one should next turn to the days of creation and see how Sailhamer uses his arguments exegetically. Since Sailhamer believes all was created in the “beginning,” he must have an answer for what takes place on the six days laid out in Gen 1:2-2:4, which he explains.
The First Day – Genesis 1:2-5
Traditional biblical creationists look at Gen 1:2-5 as God creating light and ordering day and night. Sailhamer objects to this view because he believes light was created in the “beginning.” God is not reinventing light, but is actually ordering the day. In fact, Sailhamer believes Gen 1:2 is a central verse in Gen 1 because it sets the stage for God’s actions and turns the reader’s attention from the creation of the universe to the promised land.[14]
According to Sailhamer, this first day of the week, God is preparing the promised land as a suitable place for man to dwell.[15] Moses’ intention in Gen 1:3, Sailhamer asserts, was to proclaim a sunrise, not a creation of light. There was darkness over the “the face of the deep” because it was nighttime when God first began to speak.[16]
The Second Day – Genesis 1:6-8
The key to understanding the days is largely trying to see them from the author’s perspective. To understand the second day, one must understand what Moses meant by the Hebrew word translated “expanse” (רָקִיעַ). Sailhamer agrees with Calvin that this expanse should be understood in a limited context, as the sky overhead: “the clouds suspended overhead.”[17]
Another clue Sailhamer turns to is the expanse named “the sky.” This term as it is used throughout the chapter is the place where God placed the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:14). It is the same place where birds fly (Gen 1:20). Therefore, “as a general term, the Hebrew word “expanse” thus denotes the place where birds fly and where God has placed the lights of heaven. It is most similar in meaning to the English word ‘sky’.”[18]
Another clue in the text to support Sailhamer’s view is that the second day was declared as “so,” not “good.” After each of the other days, the reader is told explicitly that God saw what he had done and declared it “good.” According to Sailhamer, the change directly relates to the primary meaning of the word “good” in Gen 1. “Throughout Genesis 1, the phrase ‘and God saw that it was good’ is the author’s way of saying that what God made was beneficial for mankind. The whole creation account is oriented toward God’s creation of the man and the woman on the sixth day. That which is ‘good’ in Genesis 1 is that which will benefit the man and woman.”[19] On the second day, nothing was directly made or ordered that beneficially impacted mankind; therefore, the absence of “good” and the presence of “so” makes perfect sense to Sailhamer.
The Third Day – Genesis 1:9-13
Traditional biblical creationists interpret the third day to mean God created the land that would separate the seas. Sailhamer sees God carrying out two specific acts on this day: preparing “the land and the seas” for mankind and placing fruit trees in that land.[20] Again, the acts of this day point back only to God preparing the land for man to dwell.
The Forth Day – Genesis 1:14-19
The forth day is typically one of the harder days for biblical creationists to explain since it appears God is creating light as He did in day one. According to Sailhamer, a simple reading of the Text in English would lead almost anyone to conclude that this is the day in which God created the sun, moon, and starts.[21] This would be problematic if true because it shows God creating all there is in the universe in Gen 1:1 and creating some of these same things again in Gen 1:14-19.
Sailhamer explains the forth day in a couple of different ways. First, one must make sure his/her starting point is in Gen 1:1 with an understanding that God created the sun, moon, and stars in the “beginning.” Therefore, these celestial items could not be created again on the forth day. Secondly, when one looks at the actual Hebrew grammar and syntax, the reader should get the distinct impression that the narrator of the Text was stating the purpose of the lights, rather than a creation of them. The lights were to order the days and the seasons and to bring something beneficial to the land; therefore, the day was pronounced “good.”[22]
The Fifth Day – Genesis 1:20-23
Sailhamer believes God created everything, including animals, in the “beginning.” So he believes that in Gen 1:20-23, God is filling the promised land, the garden, with various sorts of animals that have been around since the beginning. The entire focus of the fifth day is to populate the promised land and to continue to prepare it for the benefit of mankind.
The Sixth Day – Genesis 1:24-31
Two distinctions are made in regard to what is created or ordered on the sixth day: “living creatures,” such as beasts of the field and creeping things, and mankind. One of the major distinctions between these two is clarified when one understands Gen 1:12. Genesis 1:12 shows that the land is that which brings forth vegetation; however, it is God is the one who brings forth the animals and mankind. The marked difference is that God is the one who brings forth life. Though the distinction seems subtle, it is important.[23]
The Seventh Day – Genesis 2:1-4a
The seventh day was set apart as a sanctified day of rest. The seventh day was “blessed” and “sanctified”—God neither worked nor spoke this day.
[1] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 66-80 and T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 20-31.
[2] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 69.
[3] Gordon J. Wenham gives five good parallels that exist between Eden and the tabernacle in “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden” in I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399-404. One could also see James Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 101.
[4] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 69.
[5] Emphasis mine.
[6] Ibid., 220.
[7] Sailhamer maintains that the answer to why the author does not call the Gihon River “the river of Egypt” is based upon the author’s use of historical records. “The writer of Genesis shows little desire to edit or modify his historical records. It is likely that these written accounts of the location of the garden of Eden used ancient names which he left intact in his narrative.” (Ibid., 72).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 82.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 83.
[12] Ibid., 95. In his biblical theology of the Bible, James Hamilton disagrees with Sailhamer’s conclusions. Hamilton has written at length to contend that the central theme of all the Scriptures is “God’s glory through salvation judgment” (God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment).
[13] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 82.
[14] Ibid., 109.
[15] One should recall that Sailhamer believes the land as it was created was created as “ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος” (unseen and unformed).
[16] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 110-12.
[17] John Calvin, Commentary on the First book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. by John King, 2 vols. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2010), 1:79.
[18] Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound, 116-17.
[19] Ibid., 118.
[20] Ibid., 125.
[21] Ibid., 129.
[22] Ibid., 131-32.
[23] This distinction is going to be even more important when explaining death before the fall. According to some, plants do not die but simply wither. For more on this see Michael Todhunter, “Do Leaves Die?” (6 September 2006), par. 3 [on-line], accessed 14 March 2011, available from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die, Internet.
