First Human or First King? The Introduction of Adam in the Eden Narrative

We often think of the story of Adam as the start of the human race, but the story might actually better serve to highlight Adam’s kingship as a precursor to Jesus.

What do you think about this interpretation?

Contrived and grammatico-historic I’m afraid ‘aitch. And well within the unexamined territory of Jesus’ epistemology.

Thought provoking. I think that he did well to bring out the headship and first founder aspect–which is an ANE concept, as Lamoureux says. One wandering thought came to my mind–did the Hebrews also think of Adam and Eve as the first of multiple independently, specially created people (thus, the cities)? The Genesis story would still not be concordant, but perhaps they thought of God planting Adam and Eve in the garden as representative king and queen, and the others simultaneously specially created, just like the animals.

It would still fit in the original sin archetype, as the ANE would punish all of a given house whose leader sinned. (such as Achan and Korah, as I recall). It’s a retributive motif that doesn’t jive with me. However, this paper has made me think (I need to finish reading it thoroughly; these are impressions).

Thanks.

[I am a stage nasty Brit. Hollywood used to abound with the type.]

This all seems contrived for what agenda I’m not sure, but I like Randy’s point about ANE G-god/s righteous violence.

What’s it made you think Randy?

I think it’s plain wrong. Start with this:

“There are several features of the Adam narrative that readers tend to overlook or to dismiss too quickly when reading it through the “original couple” paradigm. For example, one important clue that this is not an “original couple” story is the fact that it makes several references to other human populations already sharing the world with Adam!”

The text of Genesis makes no reference to “other human populations.” Asking “Who did Cain marry?” or “Who was Cain afraid of?” is not exegesis. As Hans Maudeme correctly noted in his review of GAE, “The idea of people outside the garden is only plausible if one interprets Scripture atomistically, focusing on ambiguities in the text… (The) thesis about others outside the garden rests on a thin exegetical reed and presupposes that not all humans descend from Adam.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is also problematic:

“Even if Augustine’s hunch is correct and those other people groups were Cain’s siblings, it remains profoundly telling that the author of Genesis never bothered to draw out that connection. Telling us where all humans came from is not the burden of the text. Unless we presuppose that Adam was the father of all humans …”

The author of Genesis doesn’t draw out a lot of connections. Hebrew narrative is incredibly spare, and this story is no exception. And unless my reading skills have entirely failed me in my dotage, the creation and fall of the first humans is exactly the burden of the text. We don’t have to “presuppose” that Adam was the father of all humans. The Scripture explicitly says, “Ha’adam (the man) named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20). If ha’adam’s wife is the mother of all living, what does that make her husband? The text makes that obvious; it’s not a presupposition imported into the text. The “burden of the text” in Genesis 1 is creation, culminating with the creation of adam/humanity. The “burden of the text” in Genesis 2 also is clearly the creation of the man and the woman.

On Adam as king, LeFebvre says, “The focus of the text is on Adam as humanity’s first (and until Jesus, only) universal king.” If this is the focus of the text, the author of Genesis missed the boat. (Or should I say “ark”?) The focus of the text is clearly on the man and the woman’s creation (Gen. 2) and fall (Gen. 3). The focus of Gen. 4 also is clearly not “Who did Cain marry?” or “Who was Cain afraid of?” The focus of the text is the consequences of the fall – Cain murdered Abel. The cycle of bloodshed and violence has begun. Any references to ha’adam as king or priest are implicit, not explicit. By that, I mean the garden’s “architecture” and ha’adam’s role as “farmer” may imply that he is a king, but those metaphors form the subtext of the story; they provide thickness and depth to the narrative, but they certainly don’t dominate it and shouldn’t be called the “focus” of the tale.

To me, the main points of Genesis 1, 2-3, and 4 are obvious. Whether the man was a king or a priest is a secondary consideration. But, if you want my opinion, Genesis 1:26-28 establish all of humanity – both male and female – as the image of God, the “Great King.” Genesis 2-3, on the other hand, establish the first humans as priests in God’s temple. Thus, taken together, humanity was created to serve as kings and priests, just as Christ was both king and high priest. (Heb. 2:17 – For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.)

I’ve carried on too long, but for anyone interested in ha’adam as priest in Gen. 2-3, G.K. Beale has an excellent essay making that case available here.

Okay. Just for the sake of completeness, since following a link and reading an entire article are a lot to ask, here’s my summary of Beale’s case:

(Edit: I was a little “overcomplete” with my summary last night, so here’s a shorter version.)

The same Hebrew verbal form (hithpael) used for God’s “walking back and forth” in the Garden (Gen 3:8), also describes God’s presence in the tabernacle (Lev 26:12; Deut 23:14; 2 Sam 7:6-7; Ezek 28:14).

Genesis 2:15 says God placed Adam in the Garden “to cultivate it and to keep it.” The two Hebrew words for “cultivate and keep” (respectively, ʿāḇaḏ and šāmar) are usually translated “serve and guard.” This most often refers to priests who “serve” God in the temple and “guard” the temple from unclean things entering it (Num 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chron 23:32; Ezek 44:14).

When Adam fails to guard the temple by sinning and letting in an unclean serpent, Adam loses his priestly role, and the two cherubim take over the responsibility of “guarding” the Garden temple. Their role became memorialized in Israel’s later temple in the angelic figures on either side of the “ark of the covenant” in the “Holy of Holies.”

Third, the “tree of life” itself was probably the model for the lampstand placed directly outside the “Holy of Holies” in Israel’s temple.

Fourth, Israel’s later temple had wood carvings which gave it a garden-like atmosphere and likely were intentional reflections of Eden.

Fifth, just as the entrance to Israel’s later temple was to face east and be on a mountain (Zion, Exod 15:17), and just as the end-time temple of Ezekiel was to face east (Ezek 40:6) and be on a mountain (Ezek 40:2; 43:12), so the entrance to Eden faced east (Gen 3:24) and was situated on a mountain (Ezek 28:14, 16).

Sixth, the ark in the Holy of Holies, which contained the Law (that led to wisdom), echoes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (that also led to wisdom). The touching of both the ark and this tree resulted in death.

Seventh, just as a river flowed out from Eden (Gen 2:10), the eschatological temple in both Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Revelation 21:1-2 have rivers flowing out from their center.

Eighth, like Israel’s later temple, the Garden of Eden may be discerned to be part of a tripartite sacred structure. … Therefore, in the same manner that ancient palaces were adjoined by gardens, “Eden is the source of the waters and [is the palatial] residence of God, and the garden adjoins God’s residence.” Similarly, in the end-time temple of Revelation 22:1-2 there is portrayed “a river of the water of life … coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb” and flowing into a garden-like grove, which has been modeled on the first paradise in Genesis 2, as has been much of Ezekiel’s portrayal.

Eden, the area where the source of water is located, may be comparable to the inner sanctuary of Israel’s later temple and the adjoining Garden to the Holy Place. … I would add to this that the land and seas outside the Garden were roughly equivalent to the outer court of Israel’s subsequent temple, which is, indeed, symbolic of the land and seas throughout the entire earth.

Therefore, the outermost region surrounding the garden is God’s creation (= the outer court); the garden itself is a sacred space separate from the outer world (= the Holy Place), where God’s priestly servant worships; Eden is where God dwells (= the Holy of Holies) as the source of both physical and spiritual life (symbolized by the waters). (My emphasis.)

Well, I’ve noticed that some others in this thread didn’t care for it, lol. But I liked it.

My friend, is there not a similar motif with Christ our Lord? We didn’t perform the saving work on the cross–He did.

Hello, friend!

This is a very good point!

I think you’re right that the subtext of the story cannot be considered the “focus” of the tale. This is a fair point. Still, it’s very important for having a fuller understanding of what the Scriptures are saying.

Agreed. This reminds me of the parallel between the temptation of Adam and Eve and the temptation of Christ by Satan. In both, God’s words are twisted in a manner to trick, and both involve an attempt to create disobedience in the tempted. This parallel is a strong illustration of how Jesus, the Last Adam, succeeded for humanity where the First Adam failed.

2 Likes

concerning other people being created and not of Adams family, how then would Adams sin be imputed to them.

Hi @tlynn_railroad! Welcome to our forum! Your question is an interesting one that has been discussed by many people, including scholars and theologians.

It’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t give us a clear answer on the mechanics of how sin is passed down through generations. Augustine believed that sinful nature was passed on spiritually through procreation, but there isn’t much biblical evidence to support this view.

Personally, I believe that Adam and Eve represented humanity and that their disobedience to God resulted in a shift in humanity’s spiritual state from peace to enmity, and from righteousness to sinfulness. As a result, humanity became collectively sinful and received a nature predisposed to sin.

Of course, this is just my opinion and others may disagree. What are your thoughts on the matter? I’d love to hear your perspective!

One way to look at it also is how did sin first develop? Adam and Eve sinned in the same way we all do. They were tempted to disobey God because they believed their way was better and they desired to do it even though it was forbidden. Sin is a choice. It’s a personal decision that we alone have to make. After all, most of us don’t believe that babies are guilty of committing a sin and will be sent to hell just for being born. Though some believe that. Many don’t. But as those kids grow older and older, they become adults who make decisions that they bear the consequences of.

2 Likes

Given that the Adam and Eve stories are very different in order of events from the Creation account that opens Genesis, and that the opening Creation account is not meant as history as we understand the term, then the Adam and Eve stories are not about the sixth day of chapter one, they are about something later. So from the first chapter there is already a population of humans so Adam and Eve are a special pair.

So the question is why this special pair – what was different about them from the “generic” humans of the previous chapter? The twofold structure of Eden does suggest a temple arrangement, and back in the ancient near east priest-kings were common, so this interpretation does fit.

Yes it does, in both Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6. In the first, Cain makes it clear that the world is not empty of people but filled with people who will find if he wanders the earth and kill him. In the second, it answers the question of who did Cain and Seth (the sons of God) marry – the daughters of all those other people out there. Of course I have no interest in magical interpretations of the Bible to avoid this… golems of dust and bone made by necromancy, magical fruit, talking animals, angels breeding with women to giver birth to fairy tale giants… not when there is a more reasonable non-magical understanding of the text.

A thin exegetical reed is better than forcing an interpretation on the text requiring ignoring parts of the text and inventing things with no basis in reality.

Indeed! But it is not a license for an excessively literal treatment. We have no more reason to take this to mean all mankind are biologically descended from Adam, than to take this to mean that all living organisms are biologically descended from Adam. Biological parents are not the only kind of parents nor even the most important.

You should be careful about confusing your own internal state with external reality. Clearly what is obvious to you is not obvious to the majority of other people in the world.

Don’t get me wrong… I don’t like casting Adam into the role of either king or priest. It gives too much credit to kings and priests and makes far too much of them. I think such specialized roles came much later. I think we should stick to the title given by the text… “father of all.” It just doesn’t necessarily mean all living things (or even all human beings) are biologically descended from Him.

That is assuming we believe such a thing. I don’t think the Bible and Christianity is about imputing guilt of one criminal to other people – that is wrong and insane. I think it is about self-destructive habits which spread culturally by imitation.

Already answered in the next sentence of the post you quoted.

This is a false dichotomy. There are other, better options besides a “plain English” literal reading or “people outside the Garden.”

Of course we (meaning 21st century readers) don’t have a reason to take Gen 2-3 to refer to all humanity as biologically descended from “the man,” ha’adam, but Israelite scribes and priests who were trained in scribal schools to read and write cuneiform using Enūma Eliš as a textbook would have every reason to compose Genesis 1-11 as a polemical response to ANE mythology. If you don’t remember, Enūma Eliš is the Babylonian (Akkadian) myth that begins with the creation of the world, the battle for supremacy among the gods (won by Marduk), the creation of humanity as slave labor for the gods, etc. Genesis 1-2 follows the same pattern. It absolutely was intended to tell of the creation of the world (but by a non-violent God) and the creation of the first humans (but not earth mixed into clay with the blood of the slain god).

Genesis 1-11 is etiological myth from start to finish. It tells the story of “how we got to now” circa 7th century BCE Israelite perspective. There are no literal “people” or populations outside the Garden because the Garden was never a literal place.

Sure, as the New Testament metaphor of “adoption” into the family of God shows. (Abraham was a crappy parent, by the way.) Nevertheless, at least one of the paradigms at play in Genesis is the image of God as parent, and the biological aspect of Seth being born in the image of God. (I say “at least one” because I’m not one of those interpreters who think there’s only one “right” interpretation.) Here’s an interesting essay on the subject. I posted it previously, but just in case you missed it:

I’m not confusing anything. I stated my subjective interpretation of a text, not an objective fact about reality. Maybe check the attitude at the door next time.

Cooties, obviously.

I personally also believe that within the fictional genesis account of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel the story alludes to people outside the garden not descendants of Adam and Eve.

For one I considered the document hypothesis that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both completely separate creation origin stories by two different sects of Jewish people.

So in genesis 1 the garden is not even mentioned. In this tradition there was no Adam and Eve, no garden or mythological fall. God made them ( not just one ) male and female. Could have been a few. Could have been hundreds or thousands.

Then we get to the other creation origins. This one is in genesis 2 and seems to be the main tradition clung to throughout the rest of genesis 2-11 anyways .

In this one creation does not span a week. It never says how long. The world is not formless and void, but instead it’s dry land with a mist that wets it along with springs of the ground. In this story God forms man from the earth and places him in this garden in Eden. He makes Adam first. He then has Adam cultivating the land in the garden but noticed it’s bad for him to be alone. So he then makes wildlife after the man. But it seems Adam thankfully did not want a romantic relationship with animals lol. So God put him to sleep, cut him in half and turned one side into Eve. This was pleasing to Adam and God. They are deceived by a flying talking serpent and eat from a tree and get kicked out of the garden, but stuck to Eden.

Then the story continues over into genesis 4. Adam and Eve had two sons. No other kids are mentioned. I think the story implies at this moment, Adam and Eve only had two kids. These two sons have some sort of contention , at least Cain did, and so he murders him. It’s then found out and he is afraid to be kicked out again further away because of the others. I don’t think it’s Adam and Eve he fears since they are still in Eden and no other kids have been mentioned. But yet, before Cain is kicked out, there seems to be others who exists already outside of Eden.

So I don’t think it’s his siblings because of the way Eve reacts. She seems to be down and but is made happy when she says with the help of God I’ve had another child, to replace Abel. I think if she already had tons of kids, they would have remained around Eden and Eve would not have viewed Seth as replacing Abel but instead just had another kid. So I think at this point Adam and Eve has had only three kids. It’s only after the introduction of Seth that it mentions they then had many other kids.

So if there was just three kids at that time, and everyone seems to be sticking to Eden, what people was he afraid of meeting and where did he find this other woman. To me it’s not merely the ambiguity of the story, but seems the clues all strongly points towards there being other people in the world. Other animals in the world too. Not just life in Eden.

2 Likes

That’s the genealogical theory of the spread of sinfulness…

Regarding sinfulness, your idea about habit has no scriptural support. It’s not about imputing one man’s guilt to others. Many argue that, but it’s not my view. I identified the cultural transmission of sin by mimesis/enculturation/social learning long ago. Being “born in sin” means nothing more than being born into a morally ambivalent situation surrounded by both good and evil examples, and where, sooner or later, a person has to make a morally mature choice.

Perhaps one bad decision leads to another and a person is captured by evil choices that become habit, but that’s not the question.

Clearly I disagree, because I am Christian. This is the one meaningful way I see of understanding the text. Thus for me your claim is equivalent to claiming the the Bible is nothing but meaningless garbage. To be sure many would agree with such a conclusion.

I make no bones about the fact that I read the Bible through all kinds of perceptual filters. Everybody does so whether or not they pretend and delude themselves otherwise. For me science (including psychology) is a fundamental part of the way I understand everything. Trying to understand any text apart from this (by which reality is understood) is to read it as nothing but fantasy. I have always been ready to do that since I read lots of fantasy before I ever read the Bible.

I know that human beings are creatures of habit and many of their habits are self-destructive. These self-destructive habits are right at the core of everything which is wrong with the world. Thus if the Bible addresses the question of what is wrong with the world then it is about these self-destructive habits. Otherwise it goes on the shelf next to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

The one religio-log con I am never going to buy into is a demand that I make some other perceptual framework, such as one people have invented as a supposed “way the Bible was originally understood by the ancients,” a basis for understanding reality itself. That is not going to happen. I am definitely not interested.

So we see that part similarly. But in this you are making sense of the text the same as I have done with the other matter, because that is not in the text any more than self-destructive habits.

I guess from your objection above you still see it as being all about punishment and guilt for mistakes (even though mistakes are a part of how we learn). Thinking we thus require the purchase of forgiveness which is ultimately comes down to a purchase of indulgences and paints a strange picture of God as someone who cannot forgive without powerful magic.

Sure, two different traditions. But someone eventually put them together.

See the outline of Enuma Elish above. In Genesis 1 the Hebrew is simply adam, which means humanity. A population, in other words.

No. That’s taking a literal Adam & Eve as a given in Gen 2-3. Two sons = two paths. Good or evil.

For one who agrees with the documentary hypothesis, you veer off into literalism pretty quickly. What clues exist, from adam in Gen. 1 to ha’adam and ha’issah (rather than the proper names Adam & Eve) in Gen. 2-3, to the first mention of “sin” and murder (violence) in Gen 4, all the clues point to a mythological story in the ANE style with no relation to actual history.

If I see any parallels between natural history and Genesis 1-3, those are only because I have a faith commitment to God as Creator and the inspiration of scripture. On the latter, I don’t believe YHWH God gave Moses (or anyone else) a vision of early creation (a la John of Patmos) or “dictated” (verbal plenary inspiration) exactly what to write down.