The Lost World of Adam and Eve (14 page)

When we understand the garden as sacred space and see that the presence of God (and all that he has to offer) is the main point, we can begin to comprehend that the account in Genesis 2 is not essentially about material human origins. God reveals to Adam that he (Adam) is mortal, but then sets up sacred space (the garden) where relationship to God can bring the remedy, life. God puts Adam into this sacred space, commissioned to serve there.

I have proposed that the terms “serve” and “keep” convey priestly tasks rather than landscaping and agrarian responsibilities.
2
In Genesis 2:15, God places Adam in the garden and commissions him “to work it and take care of it.”

Important information can be derived from semantic study of these words. The verbs
ʿ
bd
and
šmr
(
NIV
: “work” and “take care of”) are terms most frequently encountered in discussions of human service to God rather than descriptions of agricultural tasks. The verb
ʿ
bd
certainly can refer to farming activity (e.g., Gen 2:5; 3:23), but in those contexts the nuance of the verb is conditioned by its direct object (the ground). When the verb does not take a direct object, it often refers to the work connected with one’s vocation (e.g., Ex 20:9). The broader sense of the word is often connected to religious service deemed worship (e.g., Ex 3:12) or to priestly functionaries serving in the sanctuary precinct (e.g., Num 3:7-10). In these cases, the object of the verb usually makes reference to what or who is being worshiped (e.g., Ex 4:23; 23:33).

Here, then, is a succinct statement of the problem in deciding whether
ʿ
bd
is referring to agricultural tasks or sacred service.
If
the object of the verb is the garden (and we cannot be certain that it is), we have a bit of an anomaly. The verb will usually take dirt/soil/ground objects when it refers to agricultural work, and it will usually take personal objects (God, Baal, Egypt) when sacred service or servitude is the point.
Garden
could be in either category, depending on whether it is understood as a place where things grow or a place where God dwells. We will then have to look to its contextual partner,
šmr,
to take us one direction or another.

The verb
šmr
is used in the contexts of the Levitical responsibility of guarding sacred space, as well as in the sense of observing religious commands and responsibilities. This verb is only used in agricultural contexts when crops are being guarded from those people or animals who would destroy or steal. When the verb applies to Levitical activity, it could involve control of access to the sacred precinct, although it is often applied more generally to performing duties on the grounds.

To conclude, then, I would propose the following line of logic:
Since

1. there are a couple of contexts in which
   šmr
   is used for Levitical service along with
   ʿ
   bd
   (e.g., Num 3:8-9), and
   
2. the contextual use of
   šmr
   here favors sacred service, and
   
3. ʿ
   bd
   is as likely to refer to sacred service as to agricultural tasks, and
   
4. there are other indications that the garden is being portrayed as sacred space,
   

then
it is likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature: caring for sacred space.
3
In ancient thinking, caring for sacred space was a way of upholding creation. By preserving order, non-order was held at bay.
4
As J. Martin Plumley describes it in Egyptian thinking, so it was throughout the ancient world, including Israel at many points:

If the priestly vocabulary in Genesis 2:15 indicates the same kind of thinking, the point of caring for sacred space should be seen as much more than landscaping or even priestly duties. Maintaining order made one a participant with God in the ongoing task of sustaining the equilibrium God had established in the cosmos.
6
Egyptian thinking attached this not only to the role of priests as they maintained the sacred space in the temples but also to the king, whose task was “to complete what was unfinished, and to preserve the existent, not as a status quo but in a continuing, dynamic, even revolutionary process of remodeling and improvement.”
7
This combines the subduing and ruling of Genesis 1 with the
ʿ
bd
and
šmr
of this chapter.

Having said all of that, once we have identified the primary role as a priestly one in sacred space, we may find that we can fold other caretaking tasks back into the priestly profile. When garden-parks are associated with sacred space in the ancient world, caring for the trees in the park is a sacred task performed by priests. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, there would likewise be herds and flocks of animals that were the property of the temple and would be cared for by priests. When priests take care of garden-parks and animals associated with the parks, they are engaged in ordering sacred space and in subduing and ruling.

On the basis of this priestly understanding of the verbs that describe Adam’s commissioning, I would conclude that the specific point that Genesis 2 contributes to the book is not in relation to Adam’s unique material origins or to human origins in general, but rather to Adam’s elect role in sacred space. This is not a new idea. In early interpretation, the book of
Jubilees
presents Adam as offering incense when he leaves Eden, thereby supporting both the priestly role of Adam and the identification of Eden as sacred space.
8
In early Christian interpretation, Origen portrays Adam as high priest.
9

In the account of his origins Adam served as an archetype with all humanity represented
in
him. In his priestly role he serves as a representational agent serving on behalf of humanity; all humans are represented
by
him.

Adam’s role must then be understood in light of the role of the priests in the ancient world. When we read the Bible, we often think of priests as ritual experts and as those instructing the people in the ways of the Lord and the law. That is true, but those tasks fit into a larger picture. The main task of the priest was the preservation of sacred space.
10
They preserved sacred space by

• instructing people regarding what sacred space requires of them (purity standards for each zone of sacred space, behavior appropriate to sacred space) so that its sanctity can be maintained
  
• offering sacrifices in the appropriate ways at the appropriate times and with appropriate gifts so that sanctity will be preserved
  
• guarding sacred space and the sacred objects found therein so that their sanctity is preserved
  
• keeping out anything that would compromise or corrupt the sanctity of sacred space
  
• serving as mediators who make the benefits of sacred space available to the people (thereby extending sacred space) and who assure that the gifts of the people get to God
  

Sacred space existed because of the manifest presence of God. Adam was given access to this sacred space as a priest in order to be involved in preserving its sanctity and mediating its benefits. Sacred space was also the center of order, because order emanates from God. The idea that people would “subdue” and “rule” is based on the idea that they would have a continuing role as God’s vice-regents (in his image) to preserve order and to extend it under God. He is given access to (the tree of) life but (the tree of) wisdom is withheld, presumably pending a process of mentoring by God. We may discuss which of the roles in the list above would be necessary for Adam to do in Eden, but regardless of the conclusions we might draw, we can understand that the listening or reading Israelite audience would have thought of these sorts of activities when the text speaks of Adam’s priestly roles.

This was a huge task, and God therefore observes that it is not good for man to be alone. This does not suggest that no other people exist, only that Adam alone had been given the task of carrying out this commission in sacred space—formed for the role as discussed in connection to that verb above.
11
Neither should we assume that the comment has to do with loneliness versus companionship and the psychological need for a “soul partner.” Likewise, we cannot import the idea resident in the statement of the blessing of the last chapter and conclude that Adam is in need of a reproduction partner. That is not under discussion in Genesis 2, and he would not be looking among the animals to resolve this. Rather, God is stating that the task is too large for him to do on his own—he needs an ally to help him in sacred space.
12

Because of the nature of the task of serving in sacred space, the only appropriate ally would be one that is Adam’s ontological equal. One of the potentially confusing elements in the text is how the animals fit into what the text is conveying. They would have little connection to the concept of sacred space or priestly roles. In light of the position I am proposing, God brings the animals to Adam, and as he reflects on their roles and functions and names them, he finds that none of them is his ontological equal. God then shows Adam in a vision that woman
is
his ontological equal, and when he awakes she is brought to him and he recognizes that fact: bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh—she is comparable to man. The text then explains that, because of this ontological pairing, man will routinely leave the close biological relationship with parents to reforge what is an ontologically rooted relationship (Gen 2:24).

We might note in passing that in the
Gilgamesh Epic
, Enkidu also discovers that woman, not animals, is his ontological equal. Enkidu, a primitive man, was created individually by the gods from clay and full-grown, inhabiting the wild, unclothed, and keeping company with animals (1:99-112). He eventually finds a woman as his companion (she seduces him) and learns that he cannot continue to enjoy companionship among the animals. He is not a beast of the wild.

In this sense, the scene in Genesis 2 indicates that Adam is not Enkidu—he finds no companion among the animals, but, like Enkidu, he learns that he is not a beast. Many of the elements in Genesis 2–3 find points of contact in the descriptions of Enkidu in the
Gilgamesh
Epic
, but none of them works the same. In this way, we could say that Genesis 2–3 is engaged in discussing some of the same topics as the
Gilgamesh
Epic
but stands in juxtaposition to it at nearly every point. At one level, then, it is no surprise that Genesis 2 brings up man’s relationships with the animals for discussion.

In the
Gilgamesh Epic
, the woman (Sham
ḫ
at) seduces Enkidu, with the result that he becomes civilized. Though the mechanism was sexual experience, the focus was the civilizing of a wild man. He gains reason and understanding (1:202), and Sham
ḫ
at then leads him to sacred space (1:209-10). In Genesis, the awareness of woman as a companion and ally comes first, and the sexual experience is constant reestablishment of an ontological whole. Again, Genesis turns the discussion upside down. Genesis is thus using common literary motifs to convey the truths about humanity that are the familiar topics of the conversation in the ancient world. They are operating in the same room of discourse, but Genesis has rearranged all the furniture. Adam shows some similarity to Enkidu, and, in other parts of the epic, even to Gilgamesh himself, but he is very different from both of them and is usually portrayed in sharp contradistinction. In this way Genesis 2–3 may be seen as making cultural allusions. See figure 3.