REFORMED WITNESS
Volume IX, March 2001, Number 3
Paradise, the Fall, and Salvation through the Promised Savior as Revealed in Genesis 3
We feature in our newsletter today the first two in a series of meditations on the very significant history of God's works as found in chapter three of Genesis. These meditations were first given as radio sermons by Prof. Homer Hoeksema, a preacher, and son of the late Rev. Herman Hoeksema. We hope that you will learn from them something of the riches of the gospel as they are found in the Old Testament even from the opening chapters of the Bible. The enclosed paper in our newsletter tells the reader how he may be able to obtain more of the excellent sermons in this series.
Also in this issue: The Tree of Life
Paradise the First
By Prof. Homer Hoeksema
See more articles by this author
Dear Radio Listeners:
For the next few Sundays, the Lord willing, my radio sermons will be devoted to the subject of the original state of bliss of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. They will be based especially upon the Scriptural record in the second chapter of the book of Genesis.
It may be helpful, therefore, that you have your Bibles opened to this chapter as I speak, since time does not always permit the full quotation of the passage of Scripture under discussion.
It is important first of all that we understand the significance and the idea of what is told us in the second chapter of Genesis concerning Paradise and related matters. To this we must pay attention before we begin our discussion of the subject of Paradise as such. This significance and idea are set forth in the first verse of this section of Genesis, that is, Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." This verse begins a new section. The first three verses of Genesis 2 really belong with chapter 1 and constitute the conclusion of the creation narrative as such; and the opening words of Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth," must be regarded as a superscription or introduction to what follows in this entire section. There are similar expressions occurring several times throughout the book of Genesis. Thus, for example, in Genesis 5:1 we read: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." And again, in Genesis 10:1: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah." Each time this expression introduces a new section. Here in chapter 2 the subject is the generations of the heavens and of the earth. The word "generations" here does not mean origin, or beginning; but it must be understood in the sense of "stages of development" or "history." What follows; therefore, in chapter 2 is not a second creation narrative, as some would have it; but it is an account of the further development of the works of God, especially from the viewpoint of the covenant of God and the history of man. And there is reference in this chapter to the creation of the plants and to their further growth in the earth, as well as to the creation of man as a living soul, and also to the naming of the animals and to the creation of Eve, and to the preparation of Paradise - not indeed to furnish us with a second, additional narrative of creation, but simply in so far as all these items constitute the setting and the background for the history that is about to be unfolded. They belong, as it were, to the essential elements of the stage upon which that history is enacted. Among these elements, details are given us concerning the preparation of Paradise the First with its two special trees, as the habitation for man and as the particular place in the earthly creation where God gave man his home.
This also brings to the fore another important item. In the section of Genesis from chapter 1:1 to chapter 2:3 the name "God" is used throughout. But in chapter 2:4 and thereafter, the name "Lord God," or, more correctly, "Jehovah God" is used repeatedly. Unbelieving, higher criticism of the Old Testament has pointed to this in order to argue that the book of Genesis is not really one book, but is a composition of various documents, and that it was not written by Moses under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Similar criticism, we may say in parentheses, is applied to the entire Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses. However, we must point out that this is not true, and that it does not follow at all from this change in the use of God's names. Rather should we look for the reason for this change, that is, the true, Scriptural reason. That reason is rather obvious, and it is a very significant and also a beautiful one. In the section from 1:1 to 2:3 the power and glory of God as the Creator of the universe appear on the foreground; and therefore, the name Elohim, or God, is used. But now the sacred record is not giving us another creation narrative; rather it begins to speak of the historical development of creation, particularly of the covenant of God with man in time. Therefore, the name Jehovah, the I Am, is used, in order to remind us from the start that our God is above the changing scenes of time and history as the eternal and unchangeable One, and that too, as the covenant God - as the Self-sufficient, faithful, covenant Jehovah, He will surely keep and realize His covenant.
All of the preceding brings to mind a third important matter. This third item also is closely connected to the entire question concerning the idea and significance of this passage. In fact, the whole meaning of the Scriptural record concerning Paradise and the Fall is bound up in it. The question is: are we confronted here in Genesis 2 and 3 by historical reality and by literal history, a literal account of real entities and real events, or are we not?
We are all aware - or ought to be - that this question has received widely divergent answers with respect to Genesis 1 and the creation account. The same is true, however, of Scripture's account concerning Paradise and concerning the temptation and fall of our first parents. In our day a simple, childlike faith in the Scriptures as the Word of God has fallen upon evil times. Numerous are the clever, intricately devised theories of interpretation which share one feature, namely, that they deny in one fashion or another the historical reality of the things, persons and events that are described in this part of the Bible. The wisdom and learning of man have become too great and too high for the lowly and simple Scriptures; and in the name - of course, always - of "interpretation" various theories have been devised which really aim at negating and denying the Scriptures. There are really only two main views in this respect. There are those who maintain strictly that here in Genesis 2 we are confronted by historical reality, literal sacred history concerning real things and real persons and real events. On the other hand, there is the view that we are not confronted by such historical reality and such literal sacred history, and that we must seek some other way of "interpreting" this passage. In fact, even among the theologians and churches generally thought of as orthodox or conservative, and even of Reformed persuasion, it is not uncommon today that men maintain that the entire first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis must not be literally understood. Many theories have been devised which claim to be legitimate interpretations and which have in common that they deny that we are confronted here by literal history. According to some, we are presented here with a myth, an ancient representation of how in former times people conceived of the state of primitive man. Others speak of a pictorial, spiritual story - something like the parables of the Lord Jesus. Others speak of a symbolic poem or psalm, or a liturgical text of some kind. Others speak of saga. There is a very dangerous theory which seems to be gaining ground among more orthodox theologians and which is the more dangerous because of its deceptiveness and because of the fact that it seems to maintain that Genesis gives us a historical record of some kind. They speak of "prophetic history." They suggest that the Biblical writer received a special divine revelation comparable to that received by prophets, and that this means revelation given in terms of existing thought-patterns and existing world-view. This leaves the entire record of Genesis uncertain. It means that things did not exist and events did not take place as they are described by Genesis at all, but that we only have a description of things and events from the point of view of Israel's language and thought-patterns and culture and world-view. This theory is maintained with an appeal to the notion that Scripture after all is concerned with the kerugma, with the proclamation of the great works of God in Christ, the proclamation of God's redemptive activity in history, and not with an accurate, historical, literal account of certain facts and events as such.
Thus it has come about, for example, that in churches where it was formerly insisted upon that one must teach that the trees of Paradise were perceptible to the senses, today this is no longer maintained. In other words, one can supposedly maintain what is told in Genesis 2 about Paradise and its trees without maintaining that these trees were perceptible to the senses. This is really nonsense! A tree is perceptible. What is not perceptible is no tree. Then all that can be left of the Genesis record - no matter in what form it be dressed up - is that we have here some kind of myth.
All these presentations are an attack on the veracity and the historicity of Scripture, which presents these matters as matters of history and fact. If this is not literal history, the question is: what is in the entire narrative? It should be crystal clear to anyone that if we lose the facts here, we have nothing left, not even the so-called spiritual significance, not even the so-called great redemptive acts of God in history - only a heap of nonsense, but wicked nonsense! We must remember too, that all these attempts at various forms of so-called non-literal interpretations have one thing in common, namely that they find their reason and their occasion outside of Scripture. Their problems of interpretation are not of a Biblical nature and a Biblical origin. On the contrary, apparent reasons are found outside the sphere and the record of Scripture why this Biblical record cannot be literal history. Then, moved by these non-Biblical reasons, men devise principles and alleged interpretations which do away with the literal historical character of the Genesis account.
Over against all such views we wish to sound a very earnest warning!
In the first place we point out that there is a very wrong method of interpretation involved here - a wrong point of departure. It is principally wrong, principally unbelieving, to go outside of the Bible to find reasons why supposedly what the Bible says cannot be literally true in order then to devise some other theory and to impose it upon God's Word. Scripture must always be recognized as its own interpreter! If this is done, I assure you that no reason whatsoever can be found in the Bible not to understand Genesis 2 in the real literal, historical sense of the word. Never does the Word of God give so much as a hint that it is to be understood in any other way. The only difficulty is that men become wiser than God. Men begin to say, "Why, this is foolish! This is impossible! That was the way the rather primitive Israelites of olden times, with their culture and their world-view, were taught to understand things. And that was all right for them. But we learned and enlightened men of the twentieth century, we know better!"
In the second place, and positively, let me point out that both here in Genesis 2 and throughout Scripture, the Bible never pictures Paradise the First in any other way than as a real garden, with a definite location, in a rich, well watered country, with real trees, and with real human inhabitants, Adam and Eve, who had a very real calling "to dress and to keep it," and who were confronted by a real command not to eat of a certain tree, lest they die. You and I may not be able to comprehend how the Almighty Creator planted a garden eastward in Eden, Genesis 2:8; but that He planted a garden, that this garden was real and perceptible, and that it was located in Eden - these are simple facts which are told us by God Himself, facts which we can apprehend and understand. This is the language which the Bible speaks first of all, right here in Genesis 2. Whenever the Bible speaks of this garden elsewhere, it simply assumes its reality. This is the case in Genesis 13:10, where the plain of Jordan is compared to "the garden of the Lord.' It is true in Isaiah 51:3, where the Lord promises to make Zion's wilderness "like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord." It is true in Ezekiel 31:8 and 9, where Assyria is compared to "the garden of God" and to "the trees of Eden." Even in those New Testament passages which speak of Paradise, this is done with reference to the earthly Paradise as the prefiguration of the heavenly; and the assumption throughout is that the first, earthly Paradise was real. If the first were not real, the second, heavenly Paradise would be compared to that which was unreal, and could hardly be real itself.
Again, you and I may have great difficulty in pinpointing the exact geographical location of that first Paradise. There have been several speculative attempts to do so. In this connection, we must not forget that the earth underwent important changes through the Flood, such important changes that the Bible speaks of the world that then was as having perished, so that we can well understand the difficulty of recognizing the original spot of Paradise. All of this does not change the fact, however, that the Bible presents Paradise as being very really located in Eden, speaks of the rivers of that land (Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, Euphrates), describes the riches of that land (gold and precious stones), and describes its trees as pleasant to the sight and good for food.
What was the significance of that first Paradise?
Scripture pictures Paradise as the perfection of beauty and pleasantness. Moreover, its distinction between the general territory in which the garden was located, Eden, the garden proper with everything pleasant and good for food, and what is called the "midst of the garden" where the tree of life stood, reminds one of the temple, with its court, its holy place, and its holy of holies. If in addition, we remember that the book of Revelation speaks anew of the tree of life and of the Paradise of God (Rev. 2:7 and Rev. 22), and remember also that the earthly Paradise was a picture of the heavenly perfection of the new creation and the glorified church, the essence of whose bliss is perfect covenant fellowship with God, then we may conclude that the earthly paradise was a place of special revelation and fellowship with God, special in distinction from the rest of the earth. It was God's earthly tabernacle in which He placed the man created in His image in order that there this covenant creature might enjoy the fellowship of His covenant Creator-God, consecrating himself and all things to His service.
But that Paradise is lost, never to be regained. God had in view some better thing for His people. By faith in our Lord Jesus Christ we look forward to the reality of that which is pictured in the vision of Revelation 22: "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."
The Tree of Life
By Prof. Homer Hoeksema
See more articles by this author
Dear Radio Listeners:
Paradise the First was the earthly tabernacle of God with man. It was a real garden, the particular dwelling-place of man, God's covenant friend, in the state of righteousness. In the midst of the garden God dwelt with man. Moreover, man was at home in the garden. Twice we read that God "put" man in Paradise, Genesis 2:8 and 15. This refers to an act of God whereby He so established Adam in the garden that he understood his position and calling and was able to perform it. He was not a stranger in his environment; but the proper relation was established between him and his surroundings.
In the midst of the garden was also the tree of life. Thus we are informed very briefly in Genesis 2:9: "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Of this tree of life man might freely eat. For the Lord God commanded him, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat." The only exception to this was the other special tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which man was specifically forbidden to eat. (Genesis 2:16 & 17) This is also plain from the fact that after man's fall into sin he was barred from the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24).
The question is: What was the significance of this special tree, the tree of life?
Various interpretations of the tree of life have been given.
According to some, the tree of life would actually have the power to give man eternal and glorious life. That is, it would not merely have the power to perpetuate Adam's earthly existence in Paradise the First; but it would be able to give Adam eternal life in the qualitative sense of the word, heavenly life, eternal life as the Christian obtains it through our Lord Jesus Christ. However, there are some grave objections to this explanation. For one thing, this theory overlooks the fact that Adam was of the earth, earthy, that as such he was perfectly content and happy as God's covenant friend in the state of rectitude in the midst of the earthly creation, and that he would have had absolutely no desire for anything other than that only and perfect happiness which he knew. For another, this theory presupposes that there could have been another way to the glory of eternal life than through our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, in the divine economy of things the sending and death and exaltation of God's Son in the flesh were actually unnecessary, except as a secondary way to eternal life. Eternal life could have been attained by Adam. If this were true, it was really a shame that Adam ever fell: the deep way of the suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ could have been avoided - I mean, not by man, but by the Lord our God! But let us look at this explanation of the tree of life from the point of view of that tree itself. This theory attributes spiritual power, the power to accomplish a spiritual change to what was evidently a physical tree with physical fruit and physical energy of some kind. Besides, it is evident from Scripture that even after Adam and Eve had sinned, the tree, if they had eaten of it, would have produced its effect. This is plain from Genesis 3:22-24: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
Others have explained the tree of life as a mere sacrament. This, according to them, is the whole significance of the tree of life. With respect to this view, we must remember that while there was a certain sacramental character to this special tree, it can hardly be maintained flatly that the tree of life was a sacrament. For in the first place a sacrament in order to be a sacrament must always be instituted as such. Sacraments are directly appointed by our Lord as holy, visible signs and seals. Thus it is with the sacraments of baptism and of the Lord's supper: they have been directly ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ to be observed by His church. But thus it was not with the tree of life. The tree of life was merely a gift. In the second place, it is important to remember that sacraments do not have power in themselves apart from the grace of God. The water of baptism is not itself grace, but a means of grace. The bread and wine of the Lord's supper do not in themselves impart grace to those who eat and drink them. But it is evident that this was true of the tree of life, and that too even after Adam and Eve had sinned. There was a certain power and efficacy in that tree itself.
Still others explain that the tree of life was such that it would give perpetual strength to the physical nature of man. This is certainly correct in the light of Scripture; and yet this does not explain the tree of life fully.
Undoubtedly, in the first place, that tree and its fruit had the power of giving perpetual, earthly life to man in as far as he had been taken from the ground. This is very plain from Genesis 3:22-24, the passage which I already quoted. That tree had this power to supply man with perpetual, earthly life even after he had sinned so that it was necessary to bar the way to the tree of life. In this connection, it seems evident also that this eating of the tree of life was not simply a once-for-all matter, but that it would be necessary to eat of this tree continually and repeatedly. We must remember that man had not been created so that he could not die and return to the dust. To be sure, there was no death in the state of rectitude. Death is not a natural process, but it is the visitation of the wrath and curse of God. But this does not mean that the first man, Adam, was immortal. Man was created fallible and mortal. He was taken from the dust of the ground, and as such he was mortal. It was possible for him to die. He was, indeed, not subject to death; but he was, so to speak, die-able. For that mortal man it was his connection with the tree which, in the positive sense of the word, invigorated his earthly life with that strength which made him victorious over all possibility of decay and death. Such was the significance first of all of the tree of life.
As such in the second place, the tree of life was a symbol to Adam of the gift of life, perpetual earthly life. We must remember the nature of the tree in general. The tree transforms the earth into living and life-yielding fruit for the living soul. Man is of the earth, earthy. And as such, he is dependent upon the ground from whence he was taken for his life. But he cannot live directly from that ground. The tree forms the connection between man and the ground, transforming as it does, the substance of the ground into food for man. In the fruit trees; therefore, God opened his hand to give life to man and beast. Among all those trees there was one tree that was set aside: it was the tree of life which was distinct in this, that he who ate of it would never lose his earthly life. That tree of life; therefore, was the symbolic representation of God opening His hand to give life unending, that is perpetual earthly life, to Adam.
It is in this connection in the third place that I would discern something of a sacramental character in the tree of life, even though it cannot be called a sacrament in the full sense. It was an emblem, a sign, of God's covenant. It was a kind of visible and tangible sign of God's favor and of that higher aspect of Adam's life which consisted in the knowledge of and fellowship with God. This is suggested by several Scriptural facts. In the first place, it is suggested by the very name "tree of life." In the second place, it is suggested by the antithesis of the tree of life to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which also had special significance, as we hope to see next Sunday. In the third place, it is suggested by the fact that Adam might eat of this tree only in the way of obedience, so that when he sinned, the way to the tree of life was closed. And finally, it is suggested by the fact that Scripture speaks in connection with the heavenly tree of life of "the right to eat of the tree of life." For thus we read in Revelation 22:14: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." We must remember that the tree of life was more than a mere physical means for the extension of Adam's physical existence. It was the tree of life. Even though Adam's life was earthy, nevertheless life also for Adam implied the favor and fellowship of God, his Creator-Lord. Now, if in this connection we remember that the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, in the very heart of Paradise, we might say that according to the analogy of the temple, the tree of life was in the holy of holies. There in the midst of the garden where the tree of life was dwelt God. There He met man in the wind of the day. To approach the tree of life; therefore, before the fall was to approach God. As long as Adam could draw near to God in order to enjoy His fellowship and communion he could have life. That tree preached this to Adam: "To live apart from God is death; 'tis good His face to seek."
Such, briefly, was the significance of the tree of life in Paradise the First.
But that tree of life is no more.
First Adam and we all in him became separated from that tree of life. He was sent forth from the garden; and cherubims were stationed at the east (the entrance) of the garden, and a flaming sword turning every way, so that the way to the tree of life was closed, barred absolutely.
The question is: why? And the answer is that if Adam had remained in connection with the tree of life he would have perpetuated his earthy existence, but his earthy existence in sin, without God! Then there would be no redemption possible for him. Adam must lose that life. He must lose that earthy life; and he must lose that earthy life especially as it became subject to sin and as it was without God. And as it was with Adam, so it is with us. We too, must lose our life, this present earthy existence, this life without God in the world. We must not cling to this life, an existence apart from the favor and fellowship of God. Indeed, to live apart from God is death; 'tis good His face to seek.
But, you say, in that case would it not be exactly the good thing for Adam to approach the tree of life? If he again approached the tree of life after he sinned, would he not be approaching into God's communion? Was not that what he needed? The answer is, in the first place, that Adam through his sin, and we in him, had lost the right to eat of the tree of life as the symbol of God's communion. And in the second place, God was gone! After the fall, the tabernacle of God was no longer with men in Paradise. That Paradise would never again be God's tabernacle. Nor was it God's purpose to return to that earthy tabernacle and to restore it. He purposed to build His tabernacle, His covenant dwelling with man, in Christ Jesus. In Christ Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, He would establish His tabernacle in the fulness of time, in order to realize it fully in the new heavens and the new earth in the day to which we now look forward, when finally His Word shall be fulfilled: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev. 21:3).
For a time that first Paradise and its tree of life remained. But it remained only as a silent yet highly vocal testimony. It remained as gospel-preaching. God did not remove it immediately. We must remember that at that early stage in history God's people were without the full and clear light of the gospel. God spoke to His people in sundry ways. One of those ways was through Paradise and its tree of life, the way to which was closed. That tree of life preached: "You must die - and yet there is hope. For in connection with the promise, I, the earthly tree of life to which you can never return and to which you must not desire to return, point forward to a better tree of life which is to come."
For we must not forget: God had better things in store for us. It was His purpose to unite all things in heaven and on earth in Christ, in the glorious and heavenly new creation. With a view to that purpose all things were adapted from the beginning with a view to the end. Thus the earthly creation is an image of the heavenly. In the things earthly are so many parables, so to speak, of heavenly things.
Thus Paradise the First was an earthly picture of the heavenly Paradise, the new and eternal kingdom of God in Christ. Adam was a picture of the second Adam, Christ, the Head of the new united creation. The midst of the garden is an image of God's communion with man. The river is an image of the flow of life from God in Christ eternally to His people. And the tree of life is a picture of the heavenly tree of life.
The vision of that heavenly tree of life is recorded for us in Revelation 22. There you find the picture of the river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. The tree of life is pictured as bordering that river on either side, bearing twelve manner of fruits and yielding her fruit every month. The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
What the reality of this vision shall be concretely, we cannot say. We must wait until that time arrives. But certainly it is evident that the heavenly tree of life represents the means of eternal life from God and the Lamb. It is the means of the new heavenly life, the means of that life which is only to be had in God's communion. That is the life everlasting! There shall be no night there! And no curse!
In Christ God's Word is: "Behold, I make all things new!"
Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him!
| Back to top | Back to main Reformed Witness page |
The Reformed Witness newsletter is published monthly under the auspices of the Evangelism Committee of the Hope Protestant Reformed Church of Redlands. This newsletter is available to anyone who is interested in the Reformed Faith. If you would like your name added to our mailing list, please write to:The Reformed Witness
Hope Protestant Reformed Church
1307 E. Brockton Ave.
Redlands, CA 92374-3802
or email us: