Tag: Garden of Eden

Solomon’s Garden of Eden

What were the pleasures of Solomon’s garden? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A large portion of my research was on Ecclesiastes 2. Thus, you will see I have a lot pre-written on that already. Here then, is some of what I wrote on the topic:

Looking at these verses from Ecclesiastes, the pointing to Eden might not come across immediately, but Meek contends that the author fully intended it. He notes repeated phrases showing up like “to plant”, “to make”, “gardens”, “trees of every kind”, “to water”, “to sprout”, and the overall theme of a ruler creating a garden.[1] The Teacher chose of all places to go to for pleasure to use language picturing a garden and not just any garden, but the original one that was meant to be a paradise. Kim and Hoang present a contrast of God saying everything is good in the creation account and the Teacher saying everything is vanity.[2]

A difference between the two accounts is that in the Genesis account, it is God who is the creator. In the Ecclesiastes account, the Teacher focuses on himself as the one who did this. This could indicate that the Teacher had a desire to go back to Eden. After all, if any place in Israel’s history represents joy, surely Eden deserves that honor. So what all went into creating this new paradise of joy?

Also, nothing in this passage serves a necessary function to a working city. At most, one could speak of providing food with trees. Instead, this could be akin to a man today saying “I built theaters, arcades, skating rinks, parks, and museums.” All of these can benefit a city, but a city can function just fine without them also.

What of the women in the passage? Goldingay sees the passage as describing “girls and girls” and sees a parallel in Judges 5:30. There, the text can also mean “A womb, two wombs.” Goldingay then says that that could mean that the Ecclesiastical verse could mean, “A breast, two breasts.”[3] If Goldingay has the correct interpretation, this could refer more then to the delights of sexual pleasure that are physical rather than such important aspects as childrearing. Perhaps a parallel lies in Proverbs 5:18-19 where the young man warned against adultery gets told to cling to the wife of his youth and “May her breasts satisfy you always.”

Such a reading of seeing sexual pleasure as meaningless regardless seems odd if the same person wrote the Song of Songs, a book devoted to the joy of sexual pleasure. Hence, some writers think that women are not even in view here. Miller says that the language used of delights refers to fine things and never refers to people. He sees the terms of women more likely referring not to women but “every human luxury, chest upon chest of it.”[4] If Miller has the idea correct, then a life of luxury is what the Teacher has in mind.

I will not attempt to say which side has the right interpretation of this debate, seeing as brilliant scholars who know Hebrew take different positions. If Solomon wrote the book, this could indicate a looking back on life after the errors of his ways in 1 Kings 11. That could mean that Solomon reflects on his life after his heart strayed and decides in the end that what happened was pointless. On the other hand, many kings often had plural wives and remained faithful to YHWH (David comes to mind), so if the authorship remains the same, then Solomon might mean that in his own lifetime, his pleasure, including sexual pleasure, did not satisfy him even before he fell away from YHWH.

For the sake of argument, let us include sexual pleasure in the list of what the Teacher engaged in since usually this gets esteemed as one of the greatest goods in our society today. The Teacher nowhere denies that he enjoyed what all he partook of. He just looks back at the end of that enjoyment and asks “What was the point?” “Why bother?” In the end, did he really get anything truly good out of it?

Ryken describes the Teacher as someone who would be on Fortune magazine as the wealthiest man in the world. He would have supermodels as his constant companions. He asks his readers if they find what the Teacher has tempting. Ryken then sees a parallel with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.[5] (1 John 2:16) Despite all that the Teacher has, he never says, “This I found worthwhile.”

Something to consider lies in that while the Teacher does declare his efforts as meaningless, he does not say that the goal was wrong in itself. No indication comes up considering pleasure an evil. The Teacher does not say “Therefore, one should not build gardens.” He instead says that this was a meaningless endeavor. Why?

Earlier in this paper, Maier was cited about suicidal millionaires. If he showed them the passage from Ecclesiastes under discussion, would they look and say “Yes. That’s me.”? The meaningless the Teacher speaks of comes from having it all and seeing that you have reached the end. People behave like children on Christmas morning and after opening the last gift ask “Is that it?”

The section ends with another “under the sun.” The Teacher concludes that in this mortal realm, you can live for all intents and purposes in Eden, and still not find satisfaction since death will still come to you. Eden without the tree of life in it just becomes at best a temporary respite on the pathway to death.

And by the way, have a nice day. This is also just the first part of Ecclesiastes 2. We’ll see what else lays in store in this fascinating chapter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[1] Meek, Ecclesiastes and the Search for Meaning in an Upside-Down World, (Peabody: Massachusettes, Hendrickson Publishers, 2022), 6.

[2] Nga Thi Hong Hoang and Sung Jin Kim, “An Analysis of the -iterary Allusion in Ecclesiastes 2 to the Creation/arrative in Genesis 1-2 3hetorical 3ole of the Creation Motif in Ecclesiastes 2***, ACTS Theological Journal, (2019), 20. https://research.ebsco.com/c/trvdli/viewer/pdf/n7hbgqgy2f

[3] Goldingay, 147.

[4] Miller, 55.

[5] Philip Graham Ryken, Ecclesiastes (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), 50.

 

Longing for Eden

Is Genesis 2 pointing back to Eden? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In our modern age, we often think the only way you can refer to something is to explicitly say it. For the ancients, this was not so. The book of Ecclesiastes never once refers to Eden, so the casual reader going through can understandably wonder why I think the book speaks about that subject. So, here is what I do have from my research on this topic.

So in my paper, what I say about this is:

Looking at these verses from Ecclesiastes, the pointing to Eden might not come across immediately, but Meek contends that the author fully intended it. He notes repeated phrases showing up like “to plant”, “to make”, “gardens”, “trees of every kind”, “to water”, “to sprout”, and the overall theme of a ruler creating a garden.[1] The Teacher chose of all places to go to for pleasure to use language picturing a garden and not just any garden, but the original one that was meant to be a paradise. Kim and Hoang present a contrast of God saying everything is good in the creation account and the Teacher saying everything is vanity.[2]

A difference between the two accounts is that in the Genesis account, it is God who is the creator. In the Ecclesiastes account, the Teacher focuses on himself as the one who did this. This could indicate that the Teacher had a desire to go back to Eden. After all, if any place in Israel’s history represents joy, surely Eden deserves that honor. So what all went into creating this new paradise of joy?

Also, nothing in this passage serves a necessary function to a working city. At most, one could speak of providing food with trees. Instead, this could be akin to a man today saying “I built theaters, arcades, skating rinks, parks, and museums.” All of these can benefit a city, but a city can function just fine without them also.

The imagery here is indeed pointing to Eden. This time, the author realizes that Eden has been lost and decides he is going to work to bring it back. I contend that this means he wants to create the best living scenario for human beings that he can. What if in our search for meaning, we brought back all the joys of Eden?

We could compare this to what is called the Experience Machine, an idea dreamt up by Robert Nozick. Imagine you could be hooked up to a machine and you could experience anything that you wanted in the world of the machine. Sex, power, money, fame, talent, whatever you desire. Whatever brings you the most pleasure, you can have. Should you choose the Experience Machine?

Some people say yes, but a lot say no. Even if you have what can bring you the most happiness supposedly, it still is not the real thing itself. You can have it all and still in the end, be miserable due to the Law of Diminishing Returns.

But we should let the text speak more about the pleasures of this garden. We will do that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[1] Meek, Ecclesiastes and the Search for Meaning in an Upside-Down World, (Peabody: Massachusettes, Hendrickson Publishers, 2022), 6.

[2] Nga Thi Hong Hoang and Sung Jin Kim, “An Analysis of the -iterary Allusion in Ecclesiastes 2 to the Creation/arrative in Genesis 1-2 3hetorical 3ole of the Creation Motif in Ecclesiastes 2***, ACTS Theological Journal, (2019), 20. https://research.ebsco.com/c/trvdli/viewer/pdf/n7hbgqgy2f

Book Plunge: Christian Body Genesis 2-3

What does the Bible say about nudity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So some chaos broke out on Facebook Friday when an apologist friend of mine came out in favor of Christian Naturism. Some of you might be thinking “Love of nature. What could be wrong about that?” Nope. This is a Christian embrace of nudity. One book he mentioned as having an impact was this one. Being concerned about this decision, I decided to look into it.

So the book starts with a look at the account of what happened in the Fall of Man. The author, Aaron Frost starts off saying we all have social conditioning we are unaware of. Of this, who would disagree? He also says we must consult Bible historians and scholars to see what is going on in the text. Again, agreement.

He talks about how he served in different cultures as a missionary and they had different standards about clothing. Yes, but we care about what was ancient Israel’s standard about clothing? How did they see it?

Frost looking at it says that modesty is not in consideration in the account and shame is never mentioned. The problem is this is a Western way of reading the text. It is the idea of “The text doesn’t mention shame, therefore there is nothing shameful.”

On this, we have the firm data. For the ancient Israelites, nudity was shameful. As Pilch and Malina state about Israelite women:

Public nudity inevitably meant “shame” for them, for their chastity was compromised: their physical body was no longer exclusively the property of their husbands.

Pilch, John J.. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 10) (p. 119). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

In Israel, clothing was a signifier of social status. Consider how Tamar tears her robe after her half-brother Amnon rapes her. Why? Because that was a robe for virgins to wear. How did the Israelites know which women in the battle against the Midianites hadn’t slept with a man? Their clothing.

This didn’t just apply to women. As Pilch and Malina again say:

The Hebrew Scriptures relentlessly censure nudity, which was hardly the case in Greece (Thucydides I.vi.4–6). Although God presumably made Adam and Eve naked, they became aware of it with the shame of being discovered as sinners (Gen 2:25). God’s first act of mercy to them was to cover them with garments of skin (Gen 3:21). Thus nudity became inextricably linked with sin and “shame”.

Pilch, John J.. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 10) (p. 118). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Nudity was unacceptable in the presence of God. Priests had to have special clothing to make sure no hint of nudity was there. This is not because the human body is ugly or horrible. It’s because of how one is positioned in the society. You approached a king wearing your best. You did the same with God.

Getting back to Frost, he asks if it was improper for Adam and Eve to see each other naked in the garden? Absolutely not. In the privacy of their own homes, it’s also not improper for husbands and wives to see each other naked. Part of the Edenic state is that there was no shame.

Frost does say that there are no thorns or predators or harsh temperatures in the Garden. Maybe not in the Garden, but what about the rest of the world? Am I to think if man had never fell that when they got to the Sahara it would be a pleasant experience, or if they went to the North Pole they could go sunbathing and skinny dipping? The text only deals with one area and if we want to talk about not taking assumptions with us, we should not assume the whole world was like the garden.

After this, Frost writes about how Eve took of the fruit and gave it to her husband to eat. He says for the first time they felt bold defiance against their creator. After that, they experience a horror they never had before. They experience feelings of guilt, shame, and fear.

Excuse me? Where is that in the text?

On p. 24 of Pilch and Malina’s book cited above, they say that our idea of feelings and emotional states of biblical characters is anachronistic. Conscience was not an inner voice saying “You’ve been a bad boy.” It was instead the voice of others condemning them. Consider David for an example. When did he know he had sinned with Bathsheba? When Nathan said those words to him of “You the man!”

Thus, all that Frost says here is anachronistic. It is being read into the text.

He then says they stitched fig leaves together to cover their reproductive organs. Well, the text doesn’t say that they covered those, but that is a fair assumption to grant and it is one that intertestamental writers shared. Consider Jubilees 3.

  1. And when she had first covered her shame with figleaves, she gave thereof to Adam and he eat, and his eyes were opened, and he saw that he was naked.
  2. And he took figleaves and sewed (them) together, and made an apron for himself, and ,covered his shame.

Now some of my fellow Protestants could say “But that’s not Scripture!” to which I say, “Irrelevant.” The point of the writing is to show how Jews saw it. The reproductive organs were to be reserved for husband and wife and not for the public. It would be treating what is sacred as it was common.

Frost tells us that modern readers think they know very well why they hid. It is an assumption that is brought, but it is not stated in the text. Unfortunately, Frost doesn’t tell us forthrightly what this assumption is. It’s like he assumes the assumption. Weird, isn’t it?

At the start, I don’t think it was from one another. For one thing, hiding doesn’t make sense. What would happen? “Eve! You turn around and count to ten and I’ll hide and then I’ll count to ten while you hide.”

That being said, something married men and men who even cohabitate with a woman know well often is many women even in marriage cover their bodies. Many men don’t understand why their wife can come out of the shower and have a towel wrapped tight around them. Many of those men have no such insecurities around their wives.

So who were they hiding from?

Ask any parent who has small children. If the parent comes into the house and the vase is broken and a baseball is next to it, the children are hiding. God comes walking through. The children hide. Foolish to think you can hide from God? Yes, but all of us are foolish before God many times thinking we can’t trust Him, worrying about matters, etc.

Frost’s contention for why they did this? Satan told them to! Satan told them their nakedness was shameful! Where is that in the text? NOWHERE! Satan tempts Eve to eat the fruit and after that he is completely silent. The idea that Satan did this helps Frost with his interpretation, but it’s not rooted in the text.

Besides, if Satan did this, then one would think one of the first things God would do is correct their misconception. He never does. If anything, He enables their decision by putting together clothing for them.

Something we have to consider is the text only has two human beings in the garden. We don’t know what would have happened had children been born in the garden. Would Adam and Eve wear clothing then so that their children wouldn’t see what was meant for husband and wife alone? The text doesn’t say. Do we think Adam and Eve would be having sex together while a young Cain and Abel watched on? Hard to picture even in an Edenic society.

Frost says God gives them garments but says nothing about modesty to them. As if that needs to be explicitly stated in the text! He also never states how they are to grow food and tend gardens in a world of thorns and thistles. He never tells Eve how to raise children when she will give birth with increased pain. (I am leaving aside questions of the age of the Earth and other such matters like pain before the Fall.) A Western society thinks this needs to be spelled out. An Eastern one understands it’s a waste of time and writing to point out what everyone already knew.

Frost says the couple would need more protection than they did in the garden because the sun was hot, the nights were cold, and thorns were there and animals could have venom.

So was the sun not hot before?

Were nights not cold before?

Were there zero thorns in the world before?

Were there zero poisonous animals before?

These are all assumptions Frost brings to the text.

Frost goes on to say in approaching our issues today that:

The plain, unaltered body has been reduced to smut and outlawed from ever being honored appropriately. The human body, as it stands naturally, is now strictly reserved only for pornography and kept that way by Christian influence in government as if that must be how God wanted things to be.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 38). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Well, no.

For one thing, no one is saying nudity in itself is sinful. The Lord even in ancient Israel knew in some cases, it was a necessity, such as, oh, I don’t know, having children? People would also still have to bathe and wash their clothes. Both could involve nudity. Nudity itself isn’t the problem.

The problem is the context nudity is in.

If you go to the doctor and he says take off your clothes and you’re nude, we understand that is fine. If you go down to main street and take off your clothes and sit on a park bench, that isn’t fine. The context is what matters. If you are in the privacy of your own home and want to go nude, go ahead. In public, no.

And what is pornography? It is pictures of evil sexual sin which is made just to arouse people. Pornography demeans the human body by treating what is sacred and making it common. It also blurs the line between the public and the private spheres. That which is meant for privacy becomes public. (Never mind also that many caught in the industry are victims of sex trafficking.)

He then asks shouldn’t we speak against this perversion that the body is something shameful? Shouldn’t we speak out that the body shouldn’t be covered up? Shouldn’t we speak out against the natural body being inappropriate.

Again, all of this confuses the public and the private sphere. For an Israelite, to be naked in public was shameful. This is the case going on when God regularly says that He will expose the nakedness of His enemies or when David’s men go to speak to a foreign king and get their pants split and their beards shaved and are told to stay where they are until their beards grow back.

None of this says the body in itself is shameful, but it does say the nudity of the body is meant for the private sphere of life and not the public sphere, much like sexuality is. Sex in the Bible is a good and beautiful thing. A man having sex with his wife in the privacy of their home is good. A man having sex with his wife in the middle of a shopping mall is not.

Frost tells us that the Bible tells us temptation is caused by lust and that is the choice of the living dissatisfied with God’s way.

Again, no. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:

This group denotes desire, especially for food or sex. This desire is morally neutral at first, but philosophy, holding aloof from the sensory world, regards it as reprehensible, and in Stoicism epithymía is one of the four chief passions. Epicurus distinguishes between natural and illicit desires, subdividing the former into the purely natural and those that are necessary to happiness.

Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 339–340.

The word means desire. It can be right or wrong. 1 Tim. 3:1 speaks positively of it saying if a man desires to be an overseer, he desires a good thing. James is talking about sinful desires we do have inside of us. It is not just lust in the sense of looking at a member of the opposite sex.

Frost says the Scriptures never say clothing prevents lust or that nakedness offends God. For one thing, I don’t know anyone making this claim. If clothing prevented lust in every way, then teenage boys would not be struggling with lust when they see a cute girl at school. She’s wearing clothes after all.

Second, once again, it is a Western mindset to think this has to be spelled out.

Third, to some degree, they do. The less a woman wears, the more a guy is prone to go crazy over her.

Frost is taking a Western mindset to the text and demanding it spell out everything. We might as well say “The text never tells us to diet and exercise regularly, so we shouldn’t do that.” “The text never tells us to wash our hands before meals, so we shouldn’t do that.” Picture how that last one would go.

“God created dirt and dirt is good and God said a man working hard and laboring is good. Man is meant to work. Why should a man remove that good dirt that God created on this Earth before he eats a meal?”

Frost tells us the solution to porn is not to cover the body but to show an example of good and godly people who are not overpowered by the sight of God’s creation and appreciate one another with dignity, honor, and respect.

First off, good luck with that.

Second, if you become so desensitized to God’s creation that you are no longer aroused by the nakedness of a member of the opposite sex, then I think you have a bigger problem. We were designed to want the bodies of the opposite sex and when we do, our bodies are also functioning properly.

Third, the real solution is to change the way we view sex and sexuality and realize that what is meant for privacy should not be public. We need to have a higher view of sex.

He finally ends saying that the fig leaves were the first decision Adam made with a corrupted mind. Unfortunately for Frost, God nowhere condemns this description and even furthers it by making clothes Himself for the couple. Also, it is worth pointing out that Frost said we should consult scholars and historians of the Bible, but I count nowhere in this section where he has done so. He has argued entirely from his perspective alone.

Next time we look at this book, we will discuss Genesis 9.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)