Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: Genesis 2 | Date: September 19, 2021 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

All right, thank you. By way of review, just quickly, remember now verse 4 starts the new section of Genesis. Chapter 1, verse 1 through chapter 2, verse 3 was the creation account—the seven days culminating in God’s rest. And then we have the statement in verse 4: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” We saw that that’s not a postscript to what went before, but a superscript—a superscription to what comes after. So this is what was produced by the heavens and the earth. Now we’ve had the creation; now let’s see what came of it. That’s the idea with verse four.

Verses 5 and 6 then, we have the setting with these difficult verses that we worked through last time: when no bush of the field was yet in the land, no small plant of the field had yet sprung up, and all of that. We saw that the difficulty in that is that this is day six when God created man, and the vegetation was created on day three. So what does he mean then when it says, “no bush of the field was yet in the land”? And we saw that this probably then, the best I can make of it, is that this is a particular region. The rainy season hasn’t come, and so none of the vegetation is growing. And so to remedy that situation, God created both a man and a gardener in one. And that was the resolution in verse 7 to the problem of verses 5 and 6.

Then verses 8 and 9 introduced the trees of the garden. We saw that they are not necessarily magical trees, but symbolic: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life as well. We’ll see more of that as we go on today. Verses 10 and following then, we have the description of Eden. We saw a description of Eden, the location of it, which cannot be determined today, but it does help to fix this in history. Well, now we come then to verses 15 to 17.

Adam’s Responsibilities In The Garden

We have Adam’s responsibilities in the garden. Verse 15 again: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.'”

All right, first of all, verse 15. The Lord God took the man that he had just created (that’s verse 7) and put him in the garden that he just planted in the previous verses that we read about. So God creates a man, creates a garden, and then now puts the man in the garden. And he gives him responsibilities. First of all, to work it—this is verse 15—to work it and to keep it. That’s Adam’s responsibility: newly created, put in the garden that God had just planted. God said now, “Work it and keep it.”

That reflects the creation mandate that we saw briefly that we’ll get back to again. Chapter 1, verse 28, God created man to have dominion over the earth. So he created man, put him in the garden to work it and to keep it. Let’s go back to chapter 1, verse 28: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and every living thing that moves on the earth.'” So now he’s exercising that dominion in the garden. He’s to work it and to keep it.

Now it’s an interesting thing to consider, I think. It’s a curious thing, if nothing else. What did that look like before the fall? To work the garden and to keep it. To work it—that’s the idea of cultivating the garden. Enjoy the produce of it. “You shall surely eat of every tree of the garden.” So to work the garden and to keep it. That word “keep” means to guard, to protect, to preserve the garden then as the paradise that it is. So maintain the integrity of the garden. Maintain its order. You’re vice-regents. You’re serving as kings over this earth in God’s place. Now, cultivate it, work it, and preserve it, guard it. And that, of course, is just what Adam failed to do in chapter 3: to guard it, protect it. We’ll get to that in weeks to come.

So you have “work it and keep it.” Work the garden, keep the garden, then add that to the creation mandate of chapter one, verse 28: “fill the earth.” And the idea seems to be that of extending the garden throughout the earth. Spread the blessings of Eden around the entire globe and reproduce this kingship over the earth, not just in Eden, but extended outwards. So manage it, oversee it, oversee the creatures, extend its beauty, use its resources wisely, and promote human flourishing from the garden outward through the whole earth.

So we have unfallen man at work, which is an interesting consideration, I think. Life in the garden was not to be that of indolence or laziness, but there was work to do. It was to be busy. Work is presented already here as a gift of God. So this is referred to famously in theologies as one of the creation ordinances. Marriage is another. Work is a creation ordinance. God gave it to man in his unfallen state. It’s part of his original existence. Evidently now before the fall, the work doesn’t have the connotations of toil like it will after the fall, but work was a part of their original existence.

Now that in turn—and maybe we’ll see this again later, but it just hints of it—raises the question: what will life be like in the eternal state? When it’s a return to Eden, will we just be sitting on a cloud playing a harp? Or will we be busy doing what we were commanded to do in Genesis 1:28 with the creation mandate? I suspect it has some implications toward that, but it’s just not filled out in detail. We’ll probably talk about that a little later when we come to the creation mandate in more detail.

Lavish Provision And A Single Prohibition

Chapter 2 now, verses 16 and 17, again highlights both God’s lavish provision for man in the garden, but it adds a single prohibition. Verse 16: “The Lord God commanded the man saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden.'” There’s the lavish provision. You may eat of every tree of the garden, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.”

It’s important first then to balance the positive and the negative here with these verses. God’s provision for Adam—that’s the positive. You can eat of all of the trees of the garden. You get the sense of this lush paradise full of trees that are beautiful and good to eat. That’s what we read back in verse 9, if you’d like to see it there: “Out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.” So you have this lavish garden. Adam is put in it to work it, to keep it. And God tells him you can have all you like. Eat of every tree of the garden but this.

Verse 17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” Again, I don’t think the tree is intrinsically evil. God created everything good. But it has a symbolic sense. And we saw that other references to knowing good and evil in the Bible have to do with the idea of discerning between good and evil. And I think the idea here then is that in taking of that tree, which was forbidden, Adam and Eve have struck out on their own in a kind of moral autonomy. They can make their own decisions, and now they know good and evil in a different kind of way. And that’s why God can say at the end of chapter three, “they’ve become like one of us, to know good and evil.” Morally autonomous.

That, by the way—and we’ll see this when we get to chapter three—is the essence of really every temptation and every sin. Who’s God? Who has the right to tell me what to do? Who has the right to decide how I behave, what is right and what is wrong? And that’s what Adam was faced with when we get to chapter three. Well, that’s the knowledge, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And to that, the prohibition then has added the threat: “in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.” You will surely die. So he’s given lavish provision, one prohibition—just one. So that prohibition has added a threat very clearly. Eat all you like, just not from that one tree. And if you do, you will die. That will play out in chapter three when we get there.

By way of an aside here, it probably is good to point out that man was created in his original condition, created good, not evil. The Bible affirms that. Ecclesiastes chapter 7 has a remark to that: man was created upright, but he’s sought out many inventions. So he’s created good, not only morally good, but he’s fit for his environment. He’s able to function in the way that he was designed to function. He is in God’s image. He has fellowship with God. He’s morally upright.

But it’s not a confirmed righteousness. This gets back to what theologians have talked about all the way back to Augustine in the 5th century. Man as he was created was able not to sin, but he was also able to sin. He’s able not to sin; he’s able to sin. After Genesis 3 and the fall, a different thing happens to mankind. Now we’re not able not to sin in our fallen condition. And then, of course, it moves on in the story with the redemptive work of Christ. We become, again, able not to sin. And then finally, in the eternal state, not able to sin. So anyway, the idea here is that he’s created good, but it’s a defectable goodness, a defectable righteousness. It still has to be tested. And so we have the command: “don’t eat lest you die.”

The Covenant Of Works

Now the question that comes up here—and I’ll just spend just a minute here—is this then the statement of what we find in Reformed theology so commonly: the statement of the covenant of works? It’s essential to the Reformed tradition that we have here a covenant. Remember now the elements of a covenant. A covenant involves partners, there are stated responsibilities, and there are promises that are made for the two sides. Usually there’s a covenant ceremony involved, not every time, but you have the covenant partners, you have the responsibilities stated, and you have the promises made—the responsibilities of the two covenant parties.

In Reformed theology, this is called then a “covenant of works” situation that is established here. There are various kinds of covenants or treaties in the old ancient world. This seems then to reflect this “suzerainty-vassal treaty,” they’re called. The overlord makes a treaty with the underling and says, “I’ll do this for you, but you’ve got to do this.” No question then about the one who is in charge, and the one who is under him has the responsibilities, but they are the covenant partners.

Now, in covenant theology, Reformed theology, this becomes very important. Here, man is given the responsibility to work and to obey God’s command, and he will, by his obedience, earn righteousness—an indefectible righteousness. He will earn eternal life. That, in turn, in Reformed theology, becomes the significance of the Adam Christology that comes later, where Christ is like Adam. Those in Adam—Adam acted for all those who are under him; Christ acted for all those who are under him—and we have these corresponding heads and those corresponding covenants. Christ then, according to all of this, established a righteousness for us by his obedience under this covenant of works. And that then becomes important with what you’ve heard of the active and the passive obedience of Christ: His active obedience being establishing righteousness in his life, and then the passive obedience, so-called, his sufferings and death. All of that is set up for us in the covenant of works in the garden.

That may well be right. I’m not opposed to that really at all. I do have some questions, and I’ll just mention them quickly. We have in Romans chapter five Adam Christology. Christ as the covenant head is then—if Christ is a covenant head in Romans 5, does that mean that Adam is a covenant head in Genesis? I’m not sure. Jesus acts under the law in the New Testament. He acts under the law to establish righteousness for us. But every place that I, as far as I can tell in the New Testament, when Jesus acts under the law, it’s the Mosaic law, not this covenant of works. And yet, I don’t want to discount it because this might be in Genesis a precursor of, or something that we need the rest of our Bible to tell us is in fact a covenant. I think I’m in agreement with virtually everything that Reformed theology teaches at this point; I’m just not sure if it’s rightly called a covenant.

It may well be. But the threat is clear. But is there a promise? According to Reformed theology, Adam will earn eternal life if he obeys. I don’t see that stated in Genesis anywhere. Is it implied in the rest of the scriptures? It may well be. He’s entered into God’s rest in the garden in a sense that he will earn permanency in that by his obedience, or will the situation just continue as is? I’m not convinced, but Reformed theology may well be right on that.

There is one verse that they have that is very important to consider, and that’s Hosea chapter six and verse seven, where God says of Israel, “they like Adam have transgressed the covenant.” Is that “Adam,” or is it just “they like man have transgressed the covenant”? How should it be translated? There’s good reason to think that it’s referring to Adam, and there we have later biblical warrant to go back to Genesis and call this actually a covenant situation, a covenant of works. Whether it’s called a covenant properly or not, the situation is clear that Adam is responsible to obey, he’s responsible to work the garden, to keep it, to be faithful to God as the king over him, and to rule over the earth accordingly.

So we have the creature’s responsibility to the Creator; we have the creature created good, but in unconfirmed goodness; and he’s actually given lavish provision and only one prohibition. In that sense, the cards are stacked in his favor. We’ll see more of that in chapter 3. Now I think this situation—and this might reflect again the idea that it is a covenant—this whole situation in Genesis 2 of man’s responsibility to obey God is important in the historical context of writing this. So when Moses writes this, this is just after the Exodus now. Israel has been made a nation. They’ve been given a covenant from God. And Moses writes this to Israel as a new nation entering into covenant relationship with God and under the law. And they are then reminded of their responsibility to obey. And they are warned of the consequences if they don’t obey.

So this from Deuteronomy chapter 30, verses 15 and following. This is Moses writing to Israel: “See I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. And you shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, and obeying his voice, and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to give them.”

So now, this is the significance, I think, to Israel, as Moses is recording this event from Genesis. In a way, it parallels their situation: they’re responsible to God, and the not-so-subtle message of this creation account to them is to say, “Obey. Obey God’s voice, obey this covenant. It doesn’t turn out well if you don’t.”

The Significance Of The Garden Of Eden

All right, now, let’s leave all of that behind. Let’s consider the significance now of the Garden of Eden. What makes this garden significant? What is its significance? The first thing to say is that the garden is the place of the presence of God. The garden was the place of the presence of God. In Ezekiel chapter 28, Eden is referred to as “the garden of God.” God’s garden, the place where God dwells. That’s echoed in Isaiah chapter 51 in verse 3 where it’s called “the garden of the Lord.”

I think that’s the idea in chapter 3 and verse 8: “They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden of the cool of the day.” The idea is that God is there. The garden is the place of the presence of God. It may be that this is the place then—we’re to understand this as the place of God’s rest. It’s paradise. God enters into his rest, day seven, verses one to three here. And now we have in the garden that he’s placed a man to work it and to keep it and to share with him in that paradise and in that rest. So it represents—the garden represents a space where God dwells with man in harmony. Verse eight again: “there he put the man whom he had formed.” Humanity was meant for fellowship with God. This takes on significance that’ll run through the whole story of the Bible. Man was created and meant to have fellowship with God. His presence there in the garden was God’s gift to humanity, created for fellowship with God. Again, a famous line from Augustine, from his Confessions: “Thou hast created us for thyself, and we cannot rest, save as we have rest in thee.” That’s what we’re created for. And that is the significance, first of all, of the Garden of Eden.

So Eden then is a place where God dwells, a place of his unique presence, a place where God and man dwell together. Or if I say it this way, it is a place where man meets with God. And at that point, it starts to sound like temple language, tabernacle language. This is the place where God and man meet. And in fact, I think—and there’s been a lot of research done on this in the last generation or so—to show that the Garden of Eden is intended to be (looking at it from the rest of scripture and later revelation) a garden temple, representing what was taken up later in the tabernacle, and then later in the temple.

And there are some reasons for that, and I’ll just mention them here quickly. There are a lot of parallels between Eden and the later sanctuaries, the tabernacle and then the temple. For example, the Tree of Life, chapter 2, verse 9—the Tree of Life was probably represented in the tabernacle by the lampstand, the menorah. Exodus chapter 25, verse 10, we have a river flowing from Eden. Ezekiel picks that up in his vision of the eschatological temple, associated again with the idea of divine presence. The river flowing from Jerusalem, from the Jerusalem temple and bringing life to the Dead Sea—that’s Ezekiel chapter 47. So again, temple idea.

Verses 11 and 12, we have the mention of gold and onyx. Those were used extensively to decorate the later sanctuaries, the priestly garments, and so on. Gold in particular was symbolic of God’s presence. Verse 15, we have this combination of verbs, “work” and “keep,” to work the garden and to keep it. The only other time we find those two verbs brought together in the Pentateuch is in reference to the priestly activity in the tabernacle. So it sounds like this is supposed to be understood as a garden temple. God walks in the garden like he does later in the tabernacle. Both are entered from the east. Both have cherubim guarding them. You have these patterns that come back from the garden to the tabernacle and the temple that show us then that this is the place of the presence of God. It is in fact a garden temple.

So Eden then is a model of what creation was intended to be for man. A place of God’s presence, yes, but a place of fellowship with God in his presence. So God created the world in order to share his presence with his creatures. The creation mandate, chapter one, verse 28, commissions Adam and Eve to populate the earth and to extend God’s presence and his rest worldwide. That then becomes the significance of the expulsion from Eden in chapter three after Adam sins. They’re cast out of the presence of God and not allowed back in.

Well, you can see then that in chapter two of Genesis, we’re set up with a theme that carries the whole Bible storyline. We’ve seen a number of those already: creation, new creation, for example. We’ll see more to come. This is another theme that carries the entire Bible storyline. How can we regain access to God’s presence? How can we get back to Eden? The temple and the tabernacle come along later, and this is symbolic of that. This is God moving in again to make his presence with his people. And that works through the Bible in several different, actually some fascinating kinds of ways.

John chapter one: “The word became flesh and tabernacled among us.” That’s the word. “And we beheld his glory. The glory is of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” So we have in the incarnation God moving in again, tabernacling again among his people. Maybe my favorite pickup of this theme is in John chapter two. “Destroy this tabernacle. Destroy this temple. Destroy this temple,” pointing to his body. “In three days I’ll raise it up.” He doesn’t say, “destroy my body.” “Destroy this temple.” Obviously it’s intended to draw an analogy between himself and the temple. The long and short of John chapter 2 in that section then is that through Jesus’ destroyed and risen body, he becomes what the temple symbolized. He is the means by which we have fellowship with God.

Hebrews picks up on that in Hebrews chapter 10, that we now have a way into the Holy of Holies behind the curtain. “That is his flesh.” Through his flesh, through his destroyed and risen body, we have access into God’s presence, back to the temple, back to the presence of God, back to Eden, as it were. That’s the significance, Matthew chapter 27, when the curtain is torn from top to bottom at Jesus’ death. The way in is open, going back to Eden.

We get further into the New Testament, and we have, of course, the great day of Pentecost, the coming of the Spirit, and then we have the apostles writing, describing the church as the temple of God. We are the temple of God because we are the place where God dwells. The church is the temple. And then we get to Revelation chapter 21, 22. We have the Eden and the temple themes multiplied over and again. We have that interesting statement that there is no temple there because God and the Lamb are its temple. And we’re back to the presence of God and it’s described in Edenic terms. So we have here in chapter two a presentation of what creation is intended to be. Here we have man working faithfully under God, enjoying God’s presence with some responsibilities as well.

Observations From Genesis 2

All right, just some observations then from Genesis 2, looking back on it:

One, God prepared a special place for man. Man himself is the crown of creation. We’ve seen that; we’ll see it again. And God doesn’t just, when he makes him, just put him anywhere. But he puts him in the best place, and that place is in fellowship with him.

Number two—and this is important for later that we’ll see when we get to a question of evolution—all of this that we see in Genesis 2 is contrary, exactly contrary to any evolutionary theory. It’s completely incompatible with it. We have man created by God, upright, in fellowship with God, morally upright, fully functioning. He is not an accident. He’s not in a primitive condition. He’s not in a cave. He’s not originally a hunter. He’s originally a gardener. And there’s not the raging survival of the fittest, but he’s enjoying paradise in his original condition. He’s fit for his environment. He’s able to function, and just as he’s designed, he has fellowship with God. Even if it’s not confirmed righteousness, he is righteous. This is absolutely incompatible with any theory of evolution. More of that another time.

And then third—and this is most important in the immediate context—all of this, the details that we have in Genesis chapter two, is given us to set us up, provide the setting and the backdrop for the important events of chapter three: the temptation and the fall. We saw that Genesis chapter one gives us the creation account, and although chapter two is often referred to as the second creation account, I think that just creates misunderstanding of chapter two. It sets you up for contradictions between chapter one and two that just aren’t there. What we have in chapter two is not a second creation account, but is zooming in on specifics of what we’re led to see in chapter one. And those specifics are the details necessary to give us the backdrop for chapter three. And then, of course, not only the backdrop for chapter three, but the backdrop for the rest of the scriptures and the whole Bible story. Adam and Eve are well cared for. “You may eat of every tree of the garden,” just not that one, and they’re functioning as they are created to function under God.

So we have in Genesis 2 then a glimpse or a sense of how things ought to be, how things are intended to be. This was God’s intention for creation. Humanity living under God with specific assigned responsibilities. We have male and female, we have marriage, children, we have work, dominion, extending the garden, fellowship with God, obedience—all of this of the way things ought to be is set up for us in chapter two. It’s a standard established right up front and the test of it will come in the next chapter, chapter three, and then the rest of the Bible will be how can we get back there.

All right, any questions on this?