Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Of Gardens, Trees, and Serpents (RJS)

Of Gardens, Trees, and Serpents (RJS)

Last updated on: May 19, 2015 at 6:32 am by RJS

Of Gardens, Trees, and Serpents (RJS) 2015-05-19T06:32:10-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The next three propositions in John Walton’s new book The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate deal with the imagery of Genesis 2-3 in its ancient Near Eastern context. The garden, the trees, and the serpent all conveyed a meaning in the ancient Near East that is lost on the modern reader. In fact scholars are only now uncovering some of the depth of this meaning.

First, The Garden. “[T]he image of fertile waters flowing from the sacred space of God’s presence is one of the most common in the iconography or the ancient Near East.” (p. 104) Both temples and palaces in the ancient Near East were accompanied by landscaped gardens with pools, fish, birds, animals, and exotic trees. Adam was not placed in the garden as a farmer to till the ground. He was placed in sacred space to serve a priestly function. He needs an ally to help him in this sacred space and Eve is that ally, Adam’s ontological equal in the image of God. This story has many resonances with ancient Near Eastern texts including the Gilgamesh epic. It isn’t that the text is derivative of, or copied from these texts, but that “Genesis is using common literary motifs to convey truths about humanity that are familiar topics of conversation in the ancient world.” (p. 110) Although we can understand the basic meaning without an appreciation for these literary and cultural motifs, we will miss the depth of meaning and significance the text conveyed to the original audience. Genesis turns many of the cultural ideas on their heads in its focus on the God of Israel. Divine objects become created objects, and the role and place of humanity is quite different. These distinctions drive home the message. “The role of Adam and Eve as priests in sacred space is what sets them apart, not their sacred role.” (p. 115)

Walton holds that Adam and Eve were unique historical individuals, as discussed in the last post (Consider Melchizedek … and Adam). The imagery of the text, does not, however, require that they were the only humans alive at the time.

In light of their specific role concerning access to God in sacred space and relationship with him, we might alternatively consider the possibility that the are the first significant humans. As with Abram, who was given a significant role as the ancestor of Israel (though not the first ancestor of Israel), Adam and Eve would be viewed as established as significant by their election. This would be true whether or not other people were around. Their election is to a priestly role,the first to be placed in sacred space. (pp. 114-115)

Second, The Trees. Trees played an important role in the ancient Near Eastern imagery. The images at the top of this post and to the right are stone panels, now in the British Museum, from the Neo-Assyrian palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nimrud ca. 870 BCE with a sacred tree. (I took the pictures when visiting the British Museum last summer – along with the others in the post.) According to the British Museum website referring to the tree in the image at the top of the post:

The stylized tree between the spirits is usually called a Sacred Tree or even, misleadingly, a Tree of Life. It bears some distant relationship to the palm-tree, having a palmette on top of the trunk and a trellis of smaller palmettes around it. The palmette is a distinctly Assyrian version of a symbol which had long been known in Mesopotamia and the Levant. Its exact meaning is not clear, but the flowing streams and vegetation could be taken as representing the fertility of the earth, or more specifically, Assyria itself. Though no two Sacred Trees were exactly alike, the arrangement of the branches on the two sides of each tree was always identical.

Walton looks at a text from Ashurbanipal’s library that sheds some light on the tree motif. The tree is not a tree whose fruit has special powers, but is a cosmic tree. This imagery is found in Genesis, and in Ezekiel and Daniel as well. The imagery of the tree found in the stone panels is not explained in the ancient texts, but it appears that it “represents order more than life … and would therefore be more comparable in its properties to the tree of wisdom in the garden. … The properties of this sacred tree make it the source of wisdom and order rather than the source of life.” (p. 123)

[T]he motifs and themes used in Genesis 2-3 are hardly arbitrary. Instead the story includes concepts familiar to people in the ancient world. … The inspired storyteller is speaking to Israel and is prompted by the Spirit to use imagery that would communicate clearly in that world dealing with issues that were current in that society. We do not have an account that is portrayed as being conveyed to Adam and Eve. It is an account about Adam and Eve being conveyed to Israelites. (p. 123-124)

Walton notes that it is possible that the trees were literal rather than figurative, in keeping with his reading of Adam and Eve as historical individuals, but this isn’t really important.

In Genesis, the trees are best understood in the context of sacred space rather than as isolated trees that happen to be in a garden. … Whether they confer or represent, they provide what is only God’s to give. He is the source of life, which is given by him and found in his presence. … He is the center of order, and wisdom is the ability to discern that order. … Consequently, we make a mistake to think that this is simply about magical trees in a garden paradise. It is about the presence of God on earth and what relationship with him makes available.

At one level, we can simply say that they are whatever the Bible considers them to be (even if we cannot decide for certain), because whether they are literal or not we not, we know their significance. In this way, we commit to taking the Bible seriously and fulfilling the demands of our commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture. If the text chooses to use metaphorical symbols, it is free to do so, and we would be remiss to read them any other way. (p. 124)

Walton doesn’t commit himself to a literal or figurative reading. He simply notes that either is consistent with the authority and intent of scripture.

Finally, The Snake. The serpent or snake is another common symbol in the ancient Near East. Among other things it is a chaos creature bring disorder. All chaos creatures in the Bible are portrayed as being created by God. Leviathan in Genesis, Job, and the Psalms, provides one such example. Ancient Israelites would not have associated the serpent with Satan. “An Israelite would not give any unique status to this serpent – he is just one of any number of chaos creatures rather than a spiritual, cosmic power of some sort.” And later: “Deception, misdirection and troublemaking are all withing the purview of chaos creatures.” (p. 134) The result of the serpent’s action in the story is that evil took root in humanity. God’s priests, in the sacred space of the garden, failed to follow God’s ways.

Myth and/or Imagery. Walton concludes his look at the garden, trees, and serpent with a discussion of the role of myth and imagery in the biblical narratives. The term “myth” carries too many negative connotations and he is uncomfortable using this term in the context of the bible.

But the issue goes beyond the labeling of a genre of literature; it concerns the process by which literature of any genre is conceived and composed. The ancients thing differently; they perceive the world in different ways, with different categories and priorities than we do.

In our culture, we think “scientifically.” We are primarily concerned with causation, composition and systematization. In the ancient world they are more likely to think in terms of symbols and to express their understanding in terms of imagery. We are primarily interested in events and material realia whereas they are more interested in ideas and their representation. (p. 136)

The use of imagery is a powerful way of conveying truth. This imagery can be literary or visual.

Visual artists depict the world imagistically, and we recognize that this depiction is independent of science, but not independent of truth. The ancients apply this same imagistic conception to all genres of literature, including those that we cannot conceive of as anything other than scientific. Imagistic history, like that preserved in Genesis, is to history as The Starry Night is to a Hubble photograph. (p. 137)

Walton provides other examples of imagistic thinking in our world – and the way that imagery conveys truth. When scholars or skeptics suggest that Israel was in the habit of borrowing and transforming mythology they convey a negative image of the practice. This, however, misses the point. This isn’t an error or fiction that we should dismiss or discount, but a powerful way of conveying truth.

Some might consider the trees, the garden, and the snake to be examples of imagistic thinking without thereby denying the reality and truth to the account. The author understands trees in a way that does not simply indicate a botanical species of flora with remarkable chemical properties. When we put these elements in their ancient Near Eastern context and recognize the Israelite capacity, even propensity, to think in imagistic terms, we may find that we gain a deeper understanding of important theological realities. (p. 138)

We need to learn to read scripture on its own terms, not in terms of categories that we impose upon it from our 21st century perspective. Genesis is not a scientific history of origins. To read it as such flattens and distorts the message.

In what ways do the garden, trees and snake need to be “real” to convey truth?

Is imagistic thinking a powerful way to convey truth?

If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 19, 2015

To Youth Ministers

Next Post

May 19, 2015 Christian Seders: To do or not to do?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Romans say about the mind governed by the flesh versus the mind governed by the Spirit?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace The flesh is weak, but the Spirit is strong The flesh leads to sin, but the Spirit leads to righteousness The flesh seeks itself, but the Spirit seeks God