The Lost World of Genesis One (14 page)

Scholars have also recognized that the temple and tabernacle
contain a lot of imagery from the Garden of Eden. They note
that gardens commonly adjoined sacred space in the ancient
world. Furthermore the imagery of fertile waters flowing from
the presence of the deity to bring abundance to the earth is a
well-known image.

The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis
simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an
archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and
where man should worship him. Many of the features of the
garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly
the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest
that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary.13

So the waters flowing through the garden in Genesis 2 are paralleled by the waters flowing from the temple in Ezekiel 47:1-
12 (cf. Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). This is one of the most
common images in the iconography of the ancient world.14 Consequently we may conclude that the Garden of Eden was sacred
space and the temple/tabernacle contained imagery of the garden
and the cosmos. All the ideas are interlinked. The temple is a
microcosm, and Eden is represented in the antechamber that
serves as sacred space adjoining the Presence of God as an archetypal sanctuary.

From the idea that the temple was considered a mini cosmos, it
is easy to move to the idea that the cosmos could be viewed as a
temple. This is more difficult to document in the ancient world
because of the polytheistic nature of their religion. If the whole
cosmos were viewed as a single temple, which god would it belong
to? Where would temples of the other gods be? Nevertheless it
can still be affirmed that creation texts can and do follow the
model of temple-building texts, in this way at least likening the
cosmos to a temple.ls

In the Old Testament, polytheism would not interfere with the
association of cosmos and temple, and indeed the connection is
made. Isaiah 66:1-2 is the clearest text.

Here we can see the elements of a cosmos-sized temple, a connection between temple and rest, and a connection between cre ation and temple. This in itself is sufficient to see that the cosmos
can be viewed as a temple. That is precisely what we are proposing
as the premise of Genesis 1: that it should be understood as an
account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. Other
passages in the Old Testament that suggest the cosmos be viewed
as a temple include 1 Kings 8:27, where in his prayer dedicating
the temple, Solomon says, "But will God really dwell on earth?
The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How
much less this temple that I have built?" In another, Isaiah 6:3,
the seraphim chant, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty, the
whole earth is full of his glory." The "glory" that the earth is full
of is the same as that which comes and takes up residence in the
holy of holies in Exodus 40:34.16

This chapter has given evidence for the following:

1. In the Bible and in the ancient Near East the temple is viewed
as a microcosm.

2. The temple is designed with the imagery of the cosmos.

3. The temple is related to the functions of the cosmos.

4. The creation of the temple is parallel to the creation of the
cosmos.

5. In the Bible the cosmos can be viewed as a temple.

When this information is combined with the discoveries of the
last chapter-that deity rests in a temple, and that therefore Genesis 1 would be viewed as a temple text-we gain a different perspective on the nature of the Genesis creation account. Genesis 1
can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a
temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all
of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what
makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up
his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a
place for God's presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is
theocentric, with God's presence serving as the defining element
of existence. This represents a change that has taken place over
the seven days. Prior to day one, God's spirit was active over the
nonfunctional cosmos; God was involved but had not yet taken up
his residence. The establishment of the functional cosmic temple
is effectuated by God taking up his residence on day seven. This
gives us a before/after view of God's role.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Hurowitz, Victor. l Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light ofMesopotamian and Northwest Semitic
Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1992.

. "YHWH's Exalted House-Aspects of the Design and
Symbolism of Solomon's Temple," in Temple and Worship in
Biblical Israel, pp. 63-110. Edited by J. Day. New York: T &T
Clark, 2005.

Levenson, Jon. "The Temple and the World," Journal of Religion
64 (1984): 275-98.

. Creation and the Persistence ofEvil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Lundquist, J. "What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology." In
The Quest for the Kingdom of God, pp. 205-19. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Weinfeld, Moshe. "Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of
the Lord-The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1.1- 2.3." In Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri
Gazelles, edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor, pp. 501-12. Alter
Orient and Altes Testament 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981.

Wenham, Gordon J. "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of
Eden Story." In I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, edited by R. S. Hess and D. Toshio Tsumura, pp. 399-404. Sources
for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1994. Reprinted from Proceedings of the Ninth
World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the
Bible, pp. 19-25. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,
1986.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN cosmos and temple in the Bible
and in the ancient world, and particularly the common connection between the two in creation texts suggests that we should
think of Genesis 1 in relation to a cosmic temple. This is further
confirmed by the divine rest on the seventh day, since divine rest
takes place in temples. These ideas should lead us to investigate
what other elements of Genesis 1 might be affected by thinking in
temple terms.

First in line is the curious fact that the number seven appears
so pervasively in temple accounts in the ancient world and in the
Bible.' Thus the seven days of the Genesis account of origins has
a familiarity that can hardly be coincidental and tells us something about the seven-day structure in Genesis 1 that we did not
know before and that is not transparent to modern readers. That
is, if Genesis 1 is a temple text, the seven days maybe understood
in relation to some aspect of temple inauguration. What would
days of inauguration have to do with creation? What is the connection? If Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, there would be no connection at all. But as an account of functional origins, creation and temple inauguration fit hand in glove. Given
the relationship of the temple and the cosmos, the creation of one
is also the creation of the other. The temple is made functional in
the inauguration ceremonies, and therefore the temple is created
in the inauguration ceremony. So also the cosmic temple would be
made functional (created) in an inauguration ceremony.

We must draw an important distinction between the building
of a temple and the creation of a temple. When we look again at
the account of Solomon's temple we see that he took seven years
to build it (1 Kings 6:37-38). Most of this time was spent on what
may be called the "material phase." The stone was quarried and
shaped, the precious metals were mined, the furniture built, the
cedar acquired and shipped and shaped, the veils sewn, the doors
carved, the priestly vestments made and so on. When all of this
was done, did the temple exist? Certainly not. Because a temple is
not simply an aggregate of fine materials subjected to expert
craftsmanship. The temple uses that which is material, but the
temple is not material. If God is not in it, it is not a temple. If rituals are not being performed by a serving priesthood, it is not a
temple. If those elements are not in place, the temple does not exist in any meaningful way. A person does not exist if only represented by their corpse. It is the inauguration ceremony that transforms a pile of lumber, stone, gold and cloth into a temple.

What happens in a temple inauguration to cause this transformation? We have many inauguration texts from the ancient world,
the most detailed being the dedication of the temple of Ningirsu
by Gudea about 2100 B.C. One of the first things to note is that at
the inauguration the "destiny" and the powers of the temple are
assigned (Gudea B.i.3; xiii.6). This is the ultimate function-giving
act in the ancient world. Likewise the roles of the functionaries are
proclaimed and they are installed.2