Genesis 2-3 has functioned as a veritable treasure-trove throughout the Christian tradition. Here is where we get indications of male-female relations, here is where we indications of rules set forth by God. Here is where things fall apart when people break the rules so that God has to figure out a new set of rules by which to bless people.
For a universe whose basic ontology is law, what is said about this passage? (1) God gives the moral law, summed up in the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2) This was, of course, the covenant of works by which, had people kept it, we would have had fruition of God as our benefit and reward. (3) The failure of humanity to keep this covenant leads to the institution of the covenant of grace whereby God promises a new way for his of-late-incapable of earning salvation people to enjoy God forever. (4) The covenant of grace is, of course, a place holder until someone can come along and make good on the law that has not gone away–both bearing the penalty for its transgression and earning the reward of its fulfillment.
A law-based understanding of the cosmos, covenant theology, the idea of double-imputation and the active righteousness of Christ, and penal substitutionary atonement are all mutually reinforcing and interdependent. I’ve been chided for taking on too many red-flag issues, and for brushing with too broad strokes in my recent set of series. But the driving questions of how do we articulate the gospel and why are pushing to the surface how our understandings of law, God’s relationships with people, the work of Christ, our participation in that work, ethics, etc. are all mutually interdependent.
To put a finer point on it: even if a strong promoter of, say, penal substitutionary atonement does not believe in the covenant of works, that atonement theory is the bequest of a system of theology within which both were developed and given prominence due to the architectonic principle of law.
So what happens to Genesis 2-3 if we leave the law east of Eden?
We encounter God the gardener. Like Gen 1, there is no sense of an infinite chasm to be bridged in order for God’s presence and blessing to be known–though the story is vastly different. Here, we have God literally planting a garden, working the dirt, creating a specially cultivated place for humanity to tend not a wild place to tame (contrast Gen 1).
Humans are created with special attention and intimacy: God literally getting God’s hands dirty to form a man; God placing his mouth on the man to breath in the breath of life. Like Gen 1, God then calls on the Man to partner in the sovereignty over creation as ‘Adam names the animals. Later, we hear of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day–God come looking for Adam and Eve.
What’s the point of this picture (from which, I know, I have so far eliminated the trees)? Just that there is a relationship here in which people are enjoying a fullness in their relationship with God and are participating with God in God’s work of cultivation and lordship–and that this is a function of a created relationship, not the function of a legal system. The relationship and the shared work and sharing of space is a picture of shalom that does not come from a from the result of a fulfilled law. If I may risk invoking 1 Timothy here: “We know that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient.”
So what of the trees? There are three kinds of trees: (1) pleasing to eye and good for food; (2) tree of life; (3) tree of knowledge of good and evil.
This has been the source of the idea that here, in fact, is the nascent law in the garden, and also a reward for obedience: don’t eat like God says, and you’ll get to eat from the tree of life.
A couple of thoughts here about why this situation isn’t intended as “probationary.” First, this becomes the vision for eschatological restoration in both Christianity and Judaism. The idea of a garden with a tree of life, etc., is the expectation for the restoration of the cosmos (even if that garden becomes a city in Revelation, the garden imagery is ubiquitous–see also the tabernacle and temple). The point is, this passage is read not only as a starting point, but an ending point. After all is said and done the “benefit and reward” of being in God’s presence is to be restored to this relationship, where God walks among God’s people and God’s people live in God’s presence. This is not the prelude, this is paradise.
Second, notice that God gives blanket permission to eat from every tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God does not forbid them to eat from the tree of life or ask them to wait a few weeks.
Finally, I do think it’s important to take the story of undoing seriously. In the course of the story we find: (1) God’s relationship with humanity is ruptured; (2) people’s relationships with each other are ruptured; (3) people’s relationships with the animals are marred; (4) people’s relationship with the dirt is cursed; and (5) life comes through suffering, toil, travail.
What we need in the light of this disintegration of the created order is restoration, redemption, renewal of our relation to the cosmos from dirt to God. Although subsequent narratives will make it clear that we need right standing before God the judge, the story as it is propelled into a world of sin and falleness is primarily a world in need of restoration: a rightful realigning of everything under the reign of God.
And this is why we ultimately need Christ rather than ultimately needing Law. We need someone who will faithfully restore the rule of God–as we see Jesus doing in the Gospels; we need someone who will reconcile rebellious humanity to God–as we see Jesus doing on the cross; we need someone who will subject the opposing powers–as we see them subjected in the death and resurrection; we need someone who will make us one with each other–as we are made one in the new humanity which is in Christ; we need someone who will make all things new–as Jesus brings about new creation through his and our resurrections.
